no mom in the history of moms

has ever turned down a hand made ornament. that's why we've set up santa's wonderland at bass pro shops. where kids can get their pictures with santa and this week make an ornament all for free. ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] >> bret: welcome back to sue city, iowa and the republican presidential debate. a fired-up crowd. ready for hour number 2. we begin hour number 2 with an important topic, foreign policy. congressman paul, many middle-east experts now say iran may be less than 1 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 would 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. but 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 t. there is no u.n. evidence of that happening, clepper at the in our national security department, he says there is no evidence. it is no different than it was in '03. what i fear is it's another iraq coming. it is war propaganda going on -- [applause] >> we are arguing, to me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact and we will soon bomb iran. and the sentiment is very mixed. it is very mixed, even in

israel. you know, there, the head the security for israel, who just recently retired said that it wouldn't make any sense to do this, to take them out because they might be having a weapon. so i would say that the greatest danger is overreacting, there is no evidence that they have it. it would make more sense fwe lived through the cold war, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us, we ought to sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. that's how we got into that useless war in iraq and lost so much. >> bret: congressman paul, the question was based on the premise that you had solid intelligence. you 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 are doing is promoting their desire to have ahud

barack, 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 geopolitical reasons. so that's an understanding. so the fact that they are surrounded, they have a desire -- how do we treat people with a nuclear weapon, with a lot more respect? what did we do with libya? we talked them out of their nuclear weapon and then we killed them. it makes more sense to work with people and the whole thing is that nuclear weapons are loaded over there -- pakistan and india, israel has 300. we have our ships there. we have to have a proper context, we don't need another war! >> bret: understood. you make that point quite a lot. i will try one more time. iran is reportedly running exercises on closing the straits of 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 information and say, if you come and bomb us, we might close the strait. so already, the president, i think is wisely bake backing off on the sanks because it's going to be an economic clammity if you take all the oil out of europe. so i think that makes 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 our services. we ought to use a little bit of diplomacy, once in a while. >> bret: okay. just a reminder that, 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 u.s. military leaders, iran has 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 just tried to plan an attack here, killing the saudi ambassador. they have been at war with us since 1979. the ieds that have killed so many soldiers are manufactured in iran. iran is ruled by the equivalent of al qaeda on top of this country. they are a radical theocracy. the principle virtue of the islamic republic of iran is martyr dom. 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 martyr dom -- mutual destruction with respect to iran would not be a -- any kind of, you know,

idea of preventing a war, it would be an inducement to war. this is their objective. their objective is to in fact, create a calamity. 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 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 planning a strike against their facilities and say, dpow not open you up those facilities and not close them down, we will close them down for you. [cheers and applause] >> bret: governor romney? governor romney, this week, president obama said the u.s. asked iran to give our do you understand high-tech drone back. as you know, the iranians have it on display. they claim they are extracting

data from it and they have no intention of giving it back. yesterday you called the president's response, quote, extraordinarily weak and timid. in your book, you write, quote, weakness invites challenges, acts of intimidation, acts of fwreagz and sometimes war. so in this case, are president obama's actions inviting war? >> absolutely. does timidity and weakness invite aggression on the part of other people? absolutely. a strong america, a strong america's the best ally peace has ever known. this is a president that the -- the spy drone brought down -- he says pretty please? a foreign policy based based ony please? you gotta be kidding me. this is a president who fundamentally believes that the next century is the post american century, perhaps it will be the chinese century. he's wrong. it has to be the american century. america has to lead the free world. and 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 will be safer. he's wrong. the right course is to strengthen our economy, our values, our families and our military. rebuild our navy from nine ships a year to 15. we need to modernize our air force and 100,000 additional troops to the military. we need to take care of our veterans. it is time to recognize a strong military does not create war, a strong america prevents people from trying to test us around the world. [cheers and applause] >> bret: congresswoman bachmann, today is the official end of the united states military operations in iraq. and there is real concern, as you know, about growing iranian influence inside iraq. and the deputy prime minister has expressed concern about the country falling into civil war. are there any circumstances as president, where you would send

u.s. troops back into 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 he made regarding iraq. he was given on a selfer platter, victory in iraq. he is choosing intentionally to lose the peace. we know what is going to happen. we know that iran will be the hodge mon and try to come in and have the dominant influence and that iraq will have dominance from the persian gulf to the mediterranean through sirria. with all due respect to ron paul, i think i have never heard a more dangerous answer for american security than the one we heard from ron paul -- [applause] -- >> i'll tell you the reason why -- and 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. they have 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 a worldwide cal fate. we would be fools to ignore their purpose and their plan. >> 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 are free and prosperous. do they go to switzerland and sweden?

that's absurd! if you think that's the reason, we have no chance of winning this. they explained it to us, 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? and we are begging and pleading and how it 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? we have 900 bases in 130 countries and we are bankrupt! how are you going to rebuild the military when we have no money? how are we going to take care of people?! i think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing, the danger is really us over reacting and we need a strong national defense. we need to go to war with a declaration of war and flouting it and starting these wars so

often. >> bret: speaker gingrich -- >> can i respond to that? the problem would be the greatest underreaction in world history if we have an avowed mad man who used that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off the face of the earth and we have an iaea report that just recently came out that said literally iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon. nothing could be more dangerous than the comments that we just heard. >> bret: all right, 30 seconds. >> the report that said that is totally wrong. >> iaad report. >> that is not true. they produced the information that led you to believe that. but they have no evidence. there is no -- been no enrichment. >> if we agree with that -- the united states' people could be at risk of our national security. >> i would like to finish. if she thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back when i was drafted in 1962, with nuclear missiles in

cuba and kennedy called kruse chef and talks him out of this. you are trying to dramatize this and treat iran like we have treated iraq and kill a million iraqis and 8,000-some americans have died since we have gone to war. you cannot solve problems with war. you can solve the problem fist we follow the constitution and go to war, only when we declare war and win them and get them overwith, instead of this endless fighting -- congressman -- >> around the world. >> i-- we have been pretty liberal with our friendly dings. mr. speaker, you have been openly critical of the united nations on the topic of palestinian efforts for statehood at the u.n., you said, quote, we don't need to fund a corrupt institution to beat up on our allies. in a gingrich administration, would the united states lead the

u.n.? >> no, but we would dramatically reduce our reliance on it and we would confront certain realities. people talk about a peace process. 11 missiles were fired into israel last month, last month. over 200 missiles have been fired into israel this year. you think if we had 11 missiles fired into the united states -- this president might say, gee, maybe we could communicate and you would like us more. but i don't think -- you know, i think most americans would say, you know, if you are firing missiles at me, that may not be a very good gesture. okay? the united nations' camps that we have helped funds have been training grounds for terrorism. as congresswoman bachmann pointed out, she was over there with textbooks that are clearly teaching terrorism, indirectly funded by the united states through the u.n. we have no obligation to lie and every obligation too 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 are paying [applause] >> bret: governor huntsman, do you agree? >> i think the united nations services a useful purpose in the area of peacekeeping and some humanitarian work. beyond that, i hate the anti-americannism and the anti-israel centiment. but let me tell what you this country needs, it needs a new foreign policy. we are trapped a little bit in the cold war mind-set. i want to make sure that first and foremost, we have a foreign policy, a national security scrat gee that recognizes that we need to fix our corps here at home. we are weak. the economy is broken. when we are strong, we project values of goodness that transform and change people like no military can, liberty,s in, human rights and free markets.

we have to fix this core, first and foremost if we are going to be effective overseas. that's what i want to focus on. second of all-- that is the time. >> let me get this second point in. second of all, i want a foreign policy -- i want a foreign policy that is driven by economics first. let me tell you, it used to break my heart in the embass nebeijing, the second largest embassy in the world, looking at afghanistan with 100,000 troops and the chinese go in and win the mining concession. there is something wrong with that picture. we need to change business. >> bret: two dings in that one. governor peri, given the grim details of the recent united nations report on the syrian regime, killing and torturing its own people, thousands of people said to be killed at the happeneds of the assad regime. at what point should the u.s. consider military intervention there? >> i have called for an overhad-fly -- no-fly zone over

syria, already. they are iran's partner. they are attached at the hip. 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. it is the most muddled foreign policy i can ever remember in my lifetime, whether it was in '09, when we had the opportunity to covertly, overtly or ways of helping the irabbian citizens as they were trying to overthrow that repressive regime, or working with mubarak to have a moderate to replace him, whether it was leading from behind, as we have seen in libya. now we have seen this president, as newt and mitt have talked basking the iranians to give us back that drone. what we should have done is destroy it or we retrieve t. he took a third route, which was the worst and the weakest and that is to do nothing.

[applause] >> bret: now to neil? >> i want to move on to energy. and speaker gingrich, as you know, the president, sir, has rejek good efforts to tie a payroll tax cut extension with the keystone and to reopen it. and to explore reopening it, as well. he says any other way to connect the two would be akin to adding an rain extraneous issue. given that the keystone issue could be up in the air for a 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's too strong. so i have been standing here, editing... [chuckles] >> i am 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 straits. the canadian prime minister has said to the american president, if you don't want to build this pipeline to create 20,000 american jobs and bring oil through the united states to the largest refinery complex in the world, houston, i want to put a straight in canada to van couver and ship it to shina, you -- china, you will lose the jobs and 30 or 40 years of work in houston. the president of the united states cannot figure out -- i am using mild words here, utterly irrational to say, i am now going to veto a middle-class tax cut to protect left-wing environmental extremists in san francisco and kill american jobs, weaken american energy, make us more vulnerable to the iranians and in a way that makes no sense to any normal, rational

american. [cheers and applause] >> no offense, sir, but you didn't answer my question. what two do -- to try to move on this within a year? >> what should the congressional republicans do? send it to the president, force him to veto it. we had to send welfare reform to bill clinton three times. he vetoed it twice. by the third time, 92% of the country wanted welfare reform, he decided to sign it. it happened to be an election year. i would say to the president, you want to look like you are totally out of touch with the american people, be my guest, but we are not backing down when we are right and you are totally wrong. [cheers and applause] >> governor huntsman, on the same issue, the delay, as you pointed out, stands to threaten thousands of jobs in a recent speech you said, up to 100,000

jobs. but the president supporters say a rush decision could cost the environment a great deal more. what i would 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's always going to be a balancing act. we have land that everyone respects and appreciates. but the job we have to undertake as american people is to fuel our future. we have no choice. our economy has hit the wall. i want to get rid of that heroin-like addiction we have on imported oil, $300 billion transfers every year from this country to a lot of unpredictable and relationships that are no more transactional. in order to get to where the country needs to be, we need a relationship with canada to withdraw raw materials. but i want to make sure that i am able to disrupt the oil monopoly. there is a one-product monopoly nterms of product distribution. if we are going to achieve real

energy independence, we have to draw from a multiplicity of products like natural gas. we have more natural gas than saudi arabia has oil? i say, how stupid are we? when are we going to convert to transportation and converting to manufacturing and electricity and power generation? it is completely within our grasp. it is going to require a president who understands that delicate balance and who will be able to go out with an aggressive plan toward energy and independence that get its done for this country [applause] >> congresswoman bachmann, you were very critical of the extended shutdown after the b.p. oil spill that lasted upwards of 5, 6 months, in terms of a moratorium. i was wondering, if you were president and there were such a disaster again, what would be an

acceptable period for oil drilling to cease? for to you 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 want 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 of economic activity. if i was president of the united states, i wouldn't have taken the decision the president obama did. his entire calculus was based upon his re-election effort because quite frankly, the radical environmentalists said to president obam ayou pass keystone, we are not going to do your volunteer door-to-door

work. that's 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. >> governor rick perry. have you railed against the special treatment of solippedra, as have the other candidates here, and particularly the tax cut for green technologies and allowances that have been made. as texas governor, you have afforded the same attention to the oil industry. back in 2003, you signed a bill that reduced the taxes paid by some natural gas companies that had helped them reap better than $7 billion in tax savings. so i guess what i am saying, are you guilty of the same behavior as governor, favoring an industry that you claim this

president has, favoring the green industry? >> today the 220th anniversary of the signing of the bill of rights. and one of those, the 10th amendment, i like a lot. and the reason is because that is how our founding fathers saw this country set up, whether we had the laboratories of innovation. it should be in the purview and the decision-making process of a 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 & gas industry, but for the alternative industry, alternative energy industry and the wind industry. they came in drove, made texas the number-1 wind energy producing state in the nation. but government shouldn't pick winners and losers from washington, d.c. that's the difference. if in the states, i will promise you terry bransted, he knows how

to put tax policy in place to make his state be more competitive. you need 50 states out there competing with each other and washington out of their hair. >> thank you. reminder, go to our web site to see how well the candidates are answering the questions. coming up, we will ask about border issue, imfwraigz and a topic that got a lot of attention on twitter and controversial social issues as well. stay tuned. welcome idaho,

where they grow america's favorite potoes. 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. 'tis the season for great gifts and big savings at bass pro shops. like... a body at rest tends to stay at rest... while a body in motion tends to stay in motion. staying active can actually se arthritis symptoms. but if you have arthritis, staying active can be difficult. prescription celebrex can help relieve arthritis pain so your body can stay in motion. because just one 200mg celebrex a day can provide 24 hour relief for many with arthritis pain and inflammatio plus, in clinical studies, celebrex is proven to improve daily physical function so moving is easier. a celebrex is not a narcotic. when it comes to relieving your arthritis pain, you and your doctor need to balance the benefits with the risks.

all prescription nsaids, like celebrex, ibuprofen, naen, and melocam have the same cardiovascar warning. they all may increase the chance of heart attack or stroke, which can lead to death. this chance increases if you have heart dease or risk factors such as high blo pressure or when nsaids are taken for long periods. nsaids, including celebrex, increase the chance of serious skin or allergic reactions or stomach anintestine problems, such as bleeding and ulcers, which can occur without warning and may cause death. patients also taking aspirin and the elderly are at increased risk for stomach bleeding and ulcers. do not take celebrex if you'v had an asthma attack, hives, oother allergies to aspirin, nsaids or sulfonamides. get help right away if you have swelling of the face or throat, or trouble breathing. tell your doctor your medical history and find an arthritis treatment for you. visit celebrex.com and ask your doctor about celebrex. for a body in motion.

[cheers and applause] >> welcome back to sue city, iowa and our republican presidential debate in north wish iowa. these people tend to like it so far. i think they do. you have the next round on border issues and immigration. caller: the question is for you, governor perry. this topic received a lot of 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 failed gun tracking program, operation fast & furious. so far, there is no clear proof that mr. holder knew about the controversial aspects of this operation. and he points out that he

actually help stop it once it came to his attention. are you and other republicans politicizing this issue, as general holder claims? >> if i'm president of the united states and i find outer that there is an operation like fast & furious and my attorney general didn't know about it, i would have him resign immediately. [cheers and applause] you cannot-- the president of the united states comes to el paso, texas, this last -- earlier this year, and proclaims that the border of texas and mexico, the u.s. border with mexico is safer than it's ever been. let me tell you, i have been dealing with this issue for 11 years. i have sent texas ranger recon team there is. our law enforcement law men and -women face gunfire from drug cartels. our country is in jeopardy.

if we are going to be able to defend america from iran, from hez bowl afrom hamas, that are using mexico as a border -- as a way to penetrate into the southern part of the united states, venezuela has the largest iranian embassy in the world there. we know what's 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 do you think about the attorney general's claim that the republicans are politicizing this issue? >> i would agree with governor perry, that if he were the attorney general under me, i would fire him. this is something he should have been aware of. shouldn't have started in the first place. i think that governor perry is right. this something i have 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 embass nevenezuela, there are flights from terrain, damascus, to caracas and they stop at a military base. there are jihaddist training camps in central and south america, they are are working with the drug cartels and they are planning assaults on the united states. that's what we know is going on right now. we are doing -- this president has -- has ignored that threat, has insulted our allies like honduras and columbia, deliberately, has embrace the the scoundrels of the middle east, chavez and ortega and others in central and south america, not promoting our values and interests. we need a brand-new initiative that says that we will promote our values in this region and stop the spread of terrorism in south and central america. >> megyn: governor romney, last week, you said the 11 million imlil imgrants must return to the countries of origin before

they can apply for legal status and that we are not going to round up the 11 million. why would these illegal immigrants voluntarily leave america to apply for a chance at legal status, when they have your assurance that if they stay put, we are not going to round them up. >> let me tell you. we are going to have an identification card for people who come here legally. rudy giuliani talked about this time and time again. we would have a plastic card. individual who is come here legally have that card and when they apply for a job, they will show that to the employer and the employer must check it. newt gingrich points out, let federal express -- american express or mastercard or visa process that and determine if the card's valid or not. so people come here legally, they have the card f. employers hire people without that card, the employer is sanctioned like they do for not paying tax, very serious sanctions. you say to people who are here illegally, you will not be able to wishing here unless you

register. we will give aua transition and you have to apply for permanent residency, if you want to try, but get in line behind everyone else. people who have come here illegally, we welcome you to apply, but you must get at the back of the line because there are millions of people who are in line right now that want to come here legally. i want those to come here legally and those who are here illegally have to get in line. >> megyn: speaker gingrich? >> let me say that congressman steve king has introduced the idea acted to reinforce this model because it would take away all tax deductibility for anyone employed illegally. once have you an e-verify effectively working, you have a sanction. we disagree on what you do with people who have been here, 25 years with fwamly here and local family supporting them, ought to have some kind of civilian certification. but let me say on the issue of

immigration, on day 1, i would drop all the lawsuits against arizona, south carolina and alabama. it is wrong for the government -- [cheers and applause] -- >> i would propose -- i would propose cutting off all federal tide any sanctuary city that deliberately violated federal law. [cheers and applause] >> i would begin the process of completing control of the border by january 1, 2014. those steps would begin to fundamentally change the way of behavior towards getting control of legality in the united states. caller: governor huntsman, a recent fox news poll shows 66% of voters believe the government should allow a path to citizenship to those who are here illegally. nearly three quarters of latinos agree. given the importance of the latino vote, does the republican candidate need to take a more

moderater rat approach. >> we have to speak on the values of the party. limited government, pro-growth. these are things that the hispannic and latino populations are looking for. we need to be who we are. but in terms of immigration and illegal immigration, this president has so screweded up of this economy, nobody's coming anymore. there is not a problem today. take a look at the numbers, coming across. lowest in four decades. so i say, you know, we have to secure the border, of course. we have to deal with the 11 million people who are 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 company today were founded by immigrants. we have lost probably, our market share of travel and tourism from 7% to 12% because our visa system is so screwed up. so you have to look at the deputy of homeland security.

have you to completely remake the way people are moving back and forth, our visa system, how we are dealing with the movement of people and immigration. this is an economic development opportunity. and we are missing it. >> bret: chris wallace has the next round. >> governor romney, you have changed your position in the last 10 years on abortion, on gay rights, on guns, you say keeping an open mind is a strength. but some of your critics say that every one of these moves has been to your political advantage. when you were running in massachusetts, you took liberal positions. running now as president, you take more conservative positions. is that principled? or is it just politics, sir? >> i begin by taking exception with your list -- >> which one? >> gay rights. >> 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. with regard to abortion, i changed my mind. i said i am going to keep the laws as they exist thisn this state. so i was pro-choice. then i had a bill come to my desk that didn't keep the laws, but would create new empri-- embryos for the purpose of drivewaying them. i vetoed that bill. i went to the boston globe -- i described for them why i am pro life. every decision i took as governor was taken on the side of life. i have firmly pro life. i have learned over time, like ronald reagan and george herbert walker bush and others, my experience in life over nineteen 17, 18, 19 years, has told me sometimes i was wrong. where i was wrong, i tried to correct myself. >> if i may pick off, you say the one issue i was wrong on was gay rights, correct sir? >> i don't recall -- >> abortion, gay rights and

guns. >> i always 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 did things that the gun lobby wanted them. working with them, we decided to sign the bill. you can say i changed my position, but i am pro gun and continue to be pro gun. >> if i may, sir n1994, when you were running for senate, you wrote a letter to the log cabin republicans and said, i am more convinced than ever before that as we seek full equality for america's gay and lesbian citizens, i will provide more effective leadership than my opponent, who was ted kennedy. in 1994, you said you supported an assault weapons ban and a five-day waiting period. in 2002, running as governor, you said that you supported the tough gun control laws in massachusetts and then as you ?ai 2004, you signed an assault weapons ban. so you are still more of a champion of gay rights than ted

kennedy was? >> i think you said exactly 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, people who were applicants, what their sexual orientation was. i believe as a republican, i had the potential to fight for anti-discrimination in a way that would be better than senator kennedy as a democrat, who was expected to do so. at the same time, chris n19dismor throughout my career, i have said i oppose same-sex marriage. marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. my view is, protect the sanctity of marriage, protect the sanctity of life. that's my view. i have had it for many years. >> senator santorum, have you

campaigned as much as anyone about social issues. are you persuaded that mitt romney has maintained his issues? >> governor romney was faced with a supreme court decision that same sex marriage was unconstitutional. the court said they did not have the power to change the law in massachusetts and rule same-sex marriage legal. why? because in the massachusetts constitution, it states specifically that only the governor and the legislature can change marriage laws. governor romney-- the court gave the legislature a certain amount of time to change the law. they didn't. so 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 and went beyond that. he personally, as governor issue issued gay marriage licenses. i don't think that's an accurate

representation of his position of saying tolerance versus substantively changing the laws. i have had a strong, consistent track record of standing up for the values of this country, not discriminating, i had a no-discrimination policy in my office. but we are not talking about discrimination, we are talking about changing the values of our country. >> governor romney, 30 seconds to respond, sir? >> that's a very novel understanding of what our supreme court of massachusetts d. i think everyone in massachusetts and the legal profession of 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 somewhat that was up to me to make a choice as to whether we made it or not was unusual. we got together with the legislate and you are i fought, leading an effort to change -- 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 have had after the

decision, i went to washington, testifying in favor of a federal amendment to define marriage as a relationship gone a 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. fisomehow missed, i am happy to get corrected. but that is something i feel very deeply. >> congresswoman bachmann, you say that newt gingrich has inconsistent messages on life and that life begins with the implantation of a fertilized egg, not conception. what's your concern? >> 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 concerns that i had is that when speaker gingrich was speaker of the house, he had an opportunity to defund planned

parenthood and he chose not to take t. that's 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 republican who is near support of the barbaric procedure known as partial-birth aborteddion. i could never do that. as a matter of fact, george will asked the question of speaker gingrich, he said this, he said, is it a virtue to tolerate infanticide? this is a seminal issue. it is something that we can't get wrong. as president of the united states, i will be 100% prolife from conception until natural death. >> speaker gingrich? >> sometimes, congresswoman bachmann doesn't get her facts accurate. had a 98.5% right-to-life voting

record in 20 years. the only -- >> go ahead. >> the only difference was that they didn't like the initial welfare reform bill, which every other conservative said had nothing on abortion period. i believe that life begins at conception. the conversation we were having, an abc interview, i was thinking about proposing a commission to look at fertility clinics because i think there is a challenge with what happens to embryos, which should be regarded as life because they have been conceived. i am against any experimentation on embryos and i think my beliefs on life are very clear and consistent. >> i want to ask you a direct question if i may. that was ye your rebuttal -- >> can i rebuttal? do you have a rebuttal for getting my facts wrong? >> absolutely, congresswoman! >> this isn't just once, i think it's outrageous to continue to

say over and and over, that i dt have my facts right, when as a matter of fact, i do. i am 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 abortion. this is not a small issue. this is a big issue. i think george will was right when he asked that question, what virtue is there in tolerating infanticide? >> we are way over time. so i am going to ask you for 30 seconds, sir, to respond. >> what i said on that particular issue is i wouldn't go out and try to purge republicans. now, i don't how you are going to govern if you run around and decide you who are going to purge. the fact is, twice when i was speaker, we moved the end of partial-birth abortion, clinton veed vetoed it. we worked very hard and rick

santorum's a leader on this issue. i have consistently opposed partial-birth abortion. i would like to see us go further than that and eliminate abortion as a choice. as president, i would shift the mon freplanned parenthood to give young women a choice of life rather than death. >> thanks. >> bret: as ronald reagan famously espoused, his 11th commandment, thou shalt not -- thank you, thank you very much. [heckler from the crowd]. >> let me finish this question. we are running out of time. ronald reagan espoused the 11th commandment, thou shalt not speak ill of another republican. but you have all broken that, one way or another, broken that vow. so 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 road? senator santorum? >> we have a responsibility to vet the candidates. i have been at 350 town hall meetings, i have been kicked pretty hard by iowans and let's find out who can stand up and who has the best record, the person who can have that consistency of going out there and fighting for the principles that we believe in because let me assure you, the other side's going to kick very, very hard. we have to have someone who can stand up, fight and hold the convictions deep to fight the good fight in the pall and win this presidency. >> bret: governor perry? >> yeah. there is a -- as a matter of fact, i think that was the republican chairman, not ronald reagan that said that-- he espoused it. >> indeed, he did. there is an nfl player who said if you don't get your tail kicked every now and then, you are not ply playing at a high

enough level and i want to give you credit for letting me play at a high enough level. [chuckles] >> bret: governor romney? >> yeah. we can handle it. there is nothing that has been said by these folks on the stage about me that i am not going to hear 100 times from 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 understand who we are. but let's not forget that every day, 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 person who to lead this country. >> bret: speaker disbing rich? >> i think it's clear if you look at my ads and my web site and how vioperated in the debate. i reserve the right to correct attacks against me, overall, vitried very hard to talk about very big solutions to go to the american people with the communication about what do we need to do?

and i have 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 believe in and flip-flops. i think the reason maybe we had to do more this year is because maybe the media's messing up and they haven't asked enough questions and we have to fill in and get the informs outer. no, i think it's the responsibility on us. i think there should be lines drawn. i think some hings are below the belt. i don't like the demagoguing and the distortion and things out of context. but when they disagree on important issue, we should expose it. >> bret: congresswoman bachmann? >> ronald reagan also brought

clarity to his opponents that he had in his primaries as well. he 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 barack obama's leadership. that's what we are exposing now. who will be -- who will continue to legacy of ronald reagan? and who will take barack obama on? toe to toe and hold him accountable? >> i think will be the best one to do that on the stage. >> bret: governor huntsman. >> i worked if -- for ron ronald reagan ron. he would be the first to say, debate is good. it must be respectful and rigorous. and that will lead to more trust. and one thing our nation needs is heightened trust in our institutions, in our tax code, in our wars abroad, in congress, toward wall street. i am here to tell that you this kind of debate will elevate the

trust level in whomever make its out as the nominee to allow us to beat barack obama. thank you. >> bret: well, that is it for our debate tonight. thank you very much. our thanks to the candidates, their staffs and the iowa republican party and the people here in sioux city and in iowa. they could not have been more hospitable. our next debate is in south carolina, january stean 16 and then we will be right here for extensive coverage of the caucuses and in new hampshire for the primary. stay with fox newschannel, america's election headquarters through the election, general election and the inauguration. post debate analysis is on the way. keep it here. thank you.

welcome back, we're going to getm >> we are going to get instant reaction from juan williams. charles, your thoughts on this debate? >> very interesting debate. it had the rhythms of the whole campaign. romney was steady, steady, staid, wasn't high or low. resisted all attacks, giving an opening on the right-wing social engineering and didn't attack gingrich. gingrich, as is his wont, at times very strong, very strong attacking judges and obam on. on keystone, very weak when attacked on the freddie mac 1.6 million. who did the attacking? bachmann, she asserted herself, strong attacks on gingrich.

she went right after him. strong attack on him on late-term abortion. then there was, interesting ron paul who, i thought was impress 95 resisting the mob on judges. but then he did iran and nukes. he was off the rails. so i thought it had all the elements that we have seen in this campaign, romney, neutral, gingrich up and down. bachmann strong, reasserting herself and paul, wacky and yet impressive at times. >> juan, your thoughts? >> i think if have you to make a judgment, you would say what we are down to is a four-man field. the people who are left right now, if you like the analogy of survivor, the people left standing would be paul, would be obviously, gingrich, romney and i think perry. i think perry was his very memorable tim tebow analogy is

around. he was self-deferential about what was going on and his ability to debate. but gingrich came in with the most to lose and he was losing momentum in the polls, bret. i think after tonight, he regained t. he had the crowd on his side isn't decision about the pipeline and about the judges. i didn't see romney go after him and take him out, which is what we anticipated in the argument about the conservative. i think gingrich held his scpoan that counts for a lot, going into the january 3 caucus. >> thank you very much. now to my fantastic colleagues here. neil, your first thoughts? >> you know, i was impressed with michele bachmann. and i was impressed with governor ber -- governor perry. >> i think the two big winners were michele bachmann and rick perry, two people who were out in the wings. i think that ron