tonight, it's decision time in iowa. after the most incredible week yet, in a roller coaster campaign, a new front-runner emerges. >> i'm the guy who's been around forever. i'm going to be the nominee. >> as one candidate drops out. >> i am suspending my presidential campaign. >> and these are the contenders who want to take back the presidency for the republicans. >> i understand the economy. it's in my wheelhouse. >> tonight, most americans believe our nation is heading in the wrong direction. >> there's a plan out there and there's a person that can get it done and that's rick perry. >> i'm not going to rest until we repeal obama care. >> now, with the vote only 24 days away in iowa, they gather

in the heartland to make their case. >> the radicals have been in charge way too long. >> to face the tough questions. and to challenge each other. the stakes couldn't be any higher. >> iowa gets to decide who's going to be the next president of the united states. >> and finally, the moment to choose is at hand. live from drake university in des moines, iowa, in partnership with yahoo! news, abc 5 woi tv, the des moines register and the republican party of iowa, this is the abc news republican presidential debate, your voice, your vote. now reporting from des moines, diane sawyer and george stephanopoulos. >> and good evening to all of you. welcome to iowa. welcome to drake university, as the presidential voting draws near. the time is coming. and the political team of abc news has been out in force throughout this state. we want to say to the people of

iowa we are endlessly struck by how seriously you take your role as first in line for the voting. >> every four years, first. >> that is true. it's 24 days now and counting. until the voting begins in the caucuses. and in a sense it's time for closing arguments. so let us introduce the presidential candidates from the republican party for the united states of america. here to debate tonight. former senator rick santorum of pennsylvania. governor rick perry of texas. former governor mitt romney of massachusetts. former speaker of the house newt gingrich of georgia. texas congressman ron paul. and congresswoman from minnesota michele bachmann. thank you, all. [ applause ] but before we begin, just one

note, because george and i have been talking, and all of us have been talking to many of you, about what it takes to run for the presidency in this country right now, and we are talking about the determination, the physical stamina, the road you travel. the miles you travel. and the sacrifices your families make, as you do it. so we thought maybe at the end of this year, the end of this road does approach, we could all just salute your commitment to the presidential race and to democracy in this country. we salute you. [ applause ] >> pretty straight forward. the candidates have agreed to them. they're going to forgo opening statements and then they will give one minute responses to the

questions from diane and me. 30 seconds for rebuttal to those. we want to show everybody at home what the candidates can see as well. this clock right here will shift from green to yellow to red over the course of the allotted time. the audience here at drake was chosen by the iowa republican party and all of you at home can follow on abcnews.com and yahoo.com. you can even join the discussion by downloading yahoo!'s into now app on your iphone. you can pitch in this debate. >> so now is the time to begin and people are telling us they do feel it's time to choose and the number one issue on which they're going to choose jobs in america. we would like to hear from all of you in this opening round. and the question is this, what is your distinguishing idea, distinguishing from all of the others on this stage, about how to create jobs in this country, how to bring jobs back from overseas, and if you will, how many jobs do you think you can

create and how long will that take? speaker gingrich, will you lead us off? >> well, i think there's a clear record. i worked with reagan in the '80s. his recovery program translated into today's population of 25 million new jobs in a seven-year period. as speak of the house, i worked with president clinton and following a very similar plan and we ended up with about 11 million new jobs in a four-year period. went down to 4% unemployment. starts very simply. tax, lower taxes, less regulation, lower energy plan. actually be positive about people who create jobs it the opposite of the obama plan which is higher taxes, and attack people who create jobs with class warfare. i think there are a number of steps. i would start with zero capital gains. hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the country. i would go to 12.5% corporate tax rate. that would bring at least $700 billion in repatriated money back from overseas. i would go to 100% expensing for

all new equipment. which means you write it off in one year. and i'd abolish the death tax immediately. >> turn to governor romney, because you've given a number and you've given time frame, 1.5 million jobs in four years. aiming for 6% unemployment rate at the end of the first time. what is the distinguishing idea to do that? >> well, having spent my life in the private sector, i understand where jobs are created. they're not created in government. they're not created in washington. they're created on main streets and streets all over america. and to help make america the most attractive place in the world, for investment, for new enterprise, for entrepreneurs and for job growth, there's seven things. one, make sure our employee tax rates are competitive with other nations. we're the highest in the world. number two, get regulators and regulations to recognize their job is not to burden the private

enterprise system but to encourage it. number three, to have trade policies that make sense for america, judge just for the people with whom we trade. this president has not done that. and china, who has been cheating, has to be cracked down on. number four, have energy policies that take advantage our extraordinary energy resources. number five, the rule of law and the effort on the part of the nlrb violated that. number six, great institutions to create human capital. number seven, finally, a government that doesn't spend more money that it takes in. >> congressman paul, a number and a time frame and an idea. >> my approach is slightly different. i think we're all for less taxes and less regulations. we recognize this. i emphasize the fact you have to know why we have a recession and why we have unemployment before you can solve the problem. the financial bubbles are created by excessive credit and stimulation by the federal reserve. and then you have bubbles and you have to have a correction. this stimulus creates excessive

debt and malinvestment. as long as you don't correct that and you maintain the debt and the malinvestment, you can't get back to economic growth again. unfortunately, so far, what we have done is we have not liquidated the debt. we have dumped the debt on the american people through t.a.r.p. funding and as well as the federal reserve. so the debt is dumped on the people. we bailed out the people that were benefiting during the formation the bubble. as long as we do that, we're not going to have economic growth. the same thing in the depression. the japanese are doing it right now. so it's time we liquidate the debt and look at monetary policy and then of course lower taxes and i would like to do in the first year cut $1 trillion, 'cause that is the culprit, big spending and big government. >> i want to come back to those of you who have not addressed the question of whether there is a number of jobs that can be created and the time frame you can tell the american people you can do it in, but i want to turn

to governor perry for your distinguishing idea. >> the distinguishing mark is a tax policy that puts a flat tax in place of 20%. and you -- as they've said, you get rid of the regulatory burden that's killing people. i have a record of doing that as the governor of the state of texas over the last 11 years. we created over 1 million jobs in that state while america lost over 2 million jobs. so there's a very clear blueprint of how to make this work. but i want to talk about one other issue. andtouched on it. it's this idea i can on a map diagram the problem we've got in america today. it's a direct line between washington, d.c. and wall street. it's the corruption that's gone on. it's the idea of t.a.r.p. it's the idea of $7.7 trillion that didn't even know was being put into these people's and these banks. that's what americans are really upset with. it's going to take an outsider who can come in to put in the model of taxes and regulation

and be able to balance that budget by the year 2020 with 18% of gdp. that's what the american people want. an outsider like rick perry is going to do that. >> congresswoman bachmann. >> one of our former competitors was herman cain and he always reminded us of the 9/9/9 plan and what i would like to do is have the win win win plan and the way we do that is first addressing the tax code. literally, we will crew quite millions of dollars if we abolish the tax code and embrace a pro-growth policy. by individuals as well. and making it a tax code that applies fairly and the same to all heramericans. that's very important. something else i want to do is make sure everyone pays something. because today 47% of the american people pay nothing in federal income tax. everyone benefits by the country.

they need to pay. also, one of my win points is with american energy production. if we legalize american energy, we'll create 1.4 million jobs in just a few years time. here's something else that we could do under the win plan, we can cut government bureaucracy which is obama care. nisb tells us, that's the small business agency that we will lose 1.6 million jobs over five years if we keep obama care. i am committed to repealing obama care. dodd/frank, cutting out the epa, and we'll save millions of jobs if we do that. >> senator santorum. >> i was just down in freemont county. they just lost about a couple hundred jobs at a con-agra plant down there. that's why they asked us to have a forum here in pella a few weeks ago on manufacturing. they understand that the heartland of america is suffering because the manufacturing economy of this country continues to go down.

we used to have 21% of the people employed in this country manufacturing. it's now 9%. it hurts small town and rural america. what i learned from traveling around iowa is we had to get a plan to revitalize manufacturing. i took the corporate tax, not the 12%, i zeroed it out for all manufacturers. we want made in the usa to be the moniker under my administration. we want an administration -- we want to put a platform together that's going to repeal regulations that are crushing our manufacturers and businesses. one thing a president can do, he can't pass a law but he can repeal regulations. barack obama has given us a bevy of regulations that need to be repealed. starting with a lot of our energy regulations driving up our energy costs. that's another part of the plan. make sure we have lower electricity rates. we have oil and gas drilling so manufacturing can afford to be here. you put together that plan, we will not only revitalize the economy, we'll take care of an area of the country that has suffered in recent times. and that's rural and small town

america. >> i just want to put out, i think the governor romney is the only one who actually gave a four-year first-term number, which was, again, 11.5 million jobs. wondered if anyone else wanted to come in with a four-year, first-term promise to the american people. >> i'm not going to make a promise because i don't believe the government can sit there and from the top down dictate how many jobs are -- what we can do is we can create an atmosphere for businesses to thrive. we know what that means. less regulation. regulation that works for businesses. taxation that makes us competitive. a legislation environment that makes us competitive. you create the platform. you'll get lots of things growing there. i don't need some government bean counter to tell us we've got the right program to be able to create jobs in this country. >> i want to move on if i can to another question which represents some of the urgent and tough choices presidents have to make because this one is

coming up soon. december 31st. it is the payroll tax cut. as we know, the payroll tax cut, which funds the social security fund in this country, is part of the argument, part of the debate, part of the consideration, about the economy in this country right now. by some estimates if this tax cut expires it could add as much as $1,000 to the tax burden of american working families. i know you are divided down the middle. if i can turn to you, congresswoman bachmann, and we know you are a tax attorney, that you're familiar with these issues. should this tax cut go? >> well, this tax cut shouldn't have been put in the first place, the payroll tax extension. because last december, i fought against it. i encouraged my colleagues not to go down this road. this is president obama's plan

of temporary gimmicks, not permanent solutions. that's what the business community is looking for. that's where real jobs will be created. the reason why this is so detrimental to the economy as well is this blew a hole, in otherwards it took away $100 billion away from the social security trust fund. this is a very real issue for senior citizens. because we have to pay the social security checks that are going out. i'm completely different from barack obama on this issue. i don't agree with barack obama. we have candidates on this stage that are standing with barack obama on this issue. but this year alone, this will also cost the social security trust fund another $112 billion. and we don't have enough money this year in the social security trust fund to put out those checks. which means we have to go to the general treasury to get the money and, trust me, when you open the door to the general treasury, the only thing that comes out are moths and

feathers. there's nothing in there. we have to recognize, we can't spend money that we don't have. and that's what barack obama's trying to do, temporary gimmicks, not permanent solutions. >> again this is a decision that does have to be made in three weeks. governor romney, you have said it's a temporary band aid but you've indicated you are in favor of keeping it. so how do you differ from congresswoman bachmann? is it worth it? >> well, don't want to raise taxes on people, particularly people in the middle class that are suffering right now under the obama economy. it's a temporary tax cut. and it will help people in a very difficult time. let's recognize, this is just a band aid. the extraordinary thing is we have a president who's been in office three years. with a fiscal crisis and a jobs crisis. these unemployment numbers we're seeing, they're not just statistics, they're real people. they're young people that can't start their lives, can't go to college. there are people in their 50s expected to be in their big earning years and they're not going to be able to have the

kind of future they hope for. this is a president who has not at this stage put forward a plan to get this economy going again. all he does is talk about little band aids here and there, throwing gasoline on the fire, on a few embers. the right thing to do is how he's going to make america competitive againpy spoke with businesspeople all over the country. have been one myself for 25 years. people aren't investing in america because this president has made america a less attractive place for investing and hiring than other places in the world. that's got to change. and it's a shame that we've got a president who thinks that being hands on in the economy means reasoning on his golf grip. look, the right course for america is to have a president who understands the economy and will make that his focus and put in place a plan to get this economy going. >> i want to broaden out the conversation a little bit. very quickly, i believe speaker gingrich is also for extending the payroll taxes. so is paul. perry, i believe you're against it. >> very much so. >> what is your position on this. >> is there social security

trust fund or not? is the social security system going to be funded by payroll taxes or not? the president of the united states talks about how republicans don't care about social security and how they're going to rip apart the social security system, and he's the one defunding the social security system. we either going to have a serious debate how to fix social security and we're not going to do it by taking resources away. i'm all for tax cuts. i welcome the president to sit down with republicans and congress to work on a tax cut that's going to create growth in the economy. but to take the social security trust fund that is so sank row sankt when it comes election time and then to use that as a tax and beat up republicans for not supporting the tax cut is absurd. you either care about social security and you want to fund it or you don't. >> so it's very divided. three and three. paul, 30 seconds for rebuttal. >> i want to extend the tax cut. but i want to pay for it. it's not that difficult proposal, i want to cut hundreds

of billions of dollars from overseas. how are we going to restore it? we have to quit the spending. we have to quit this being the policeman of the world. we don't need another war in syria, another war in iran. just get rid of the embassy in baghdad. we're pretending we're coming home from baghdad. we built an embassy there that cost $1 billion and we're putting 17,000 contractors in there and pretending our troops are coming home. i could save the money and we don't have to raise taxes on social security, on the tax roll. >> as i said, i want to broaden this out. all of you have been debating two big questions through this nomination fight. who is the most consistent conservative candidate? and which of you is bet able to defeat president obama? governor romney, speaker gingrich crystallized his argument. he said, quote, i'm a lot more conservative than mitt romney and more electable than anyone else. i know you don't agree with that.

>> beiof course i don't agree w that. i don't think most people agree with that. speaker gingrich has been in government for a long time. we can look at his record. really this is more about us talking about what we believe. and whether we can lead the country at a time when we need to restore the kind of values that make america the greatest nation on earth. we have in washington a president who believes in a fundamental transformation of america into an entitlement society where the government takes from some and gives to everybody else. the only people who do well in that setting are the people in the government. this is a merit society where education, hard work, has lifted certain individuals. the reason i ought to be the nominee, i believe i can take that message to our president and to the american people and they'll say, mitt romney understands the economy, because he's lived in it. i understand a merit-based society. i believe in the principles that made america the greatest nation on earth. and speaker gingrich and i have a lot of places where we

disagree. >> why don't you name them? >> places where we disagree? let's see. we can start with his idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon. i'm not in favor of spending that kind of money to do that. he said he would like to eliminate in some cases the child labor laws so kids could clean schools. i don't agree with that idea. his plan on capital gains, to remove capital gains for people at the very highest level of income is different from mine. i'd eliminate capital gains for people in middle income. we have differences on some issues. the real difference i believe is our backgrounds. i spent my life in the private sector. i understand how the economy works. i believe for americans to say good-bye to president obama and elect a republican, they need to have confidence the person they're electing knows how to make this economy work again and create jobs for the american

middle class. >> your response? >> just a second. four allegations, i get four responses? >> take your time. >> okay. let's start with the last one. let's be candid. the only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to teddy kennedy in 1994. >> wait a second, wait a second, that's -- [ audience booing ] >> let him -- you'll get another response. go ahead. >> okay. >> do i get to -- >> please, please. >> no, i'm just saying -- i looked and thought, you know, i served the country in many ways. you serve the country in many ways. it's a bit much. you'd have been a 17-year career politician if you'd won. that's all i'm saying on that one. number two, i'm proud of trying to find things to give young people a reason to study math and science and technology and tell them some time they can dream of going to the moon, going to mars. i grew up in a generation where the space program was real, it

was important. frankly, it's tragic nasa has been so democratized. iowa state's doing brilliant things. attracting brilliant students. i want to give them places to go. i'm happy to defend the idea that americans should be in space and should be there in aggressive entrepreneurial way. third, as to schools, i think virtually every person up here worked at a young age. i suggested kids ought to be allowed to work part time in school. particularly in bopoor neighborhoods because they can use the name. if you take one half of the new york janitors who are unionized and gets paid twice what the teachers are paid. you could give lots of poor kids a work experience in the cafeteria, in the school library, in the front office, in a lot of different things. i'll stand by the idea young people ought to learn how to work. middle class kids do it routinely. we should give poor kids the same chance to pursue happiness.

[ applause ] finally -- capital gains, i asked you about this at dartmou dartmouth. you're a business man. you want to create jobs. you know if you really want to create jobs, you want to encourage the people who make more than $200,000 who actually have capital to invest the capital in the u.s. i'll stick with zero capital gains. we'll create vastly more jobs than your proposal. >> governor, then i want to bring in the other. >> it does so by a higher gdp growth rate than we've seen over these last obama years. in my view, the place we can spend our precious tax dollars for tax cut is on the middle class that's been most hurt by the obama economy. that's where i want to elimination taxes. with regards to the idea if i'd have beaten ted kennedy i could have been a career politician, that's probably true. if i would have been able to get in the nfl like i'd hoped when i was a kid, i'd have been a

football star all my life too but i -- [ applause ] i spent my life in the private sector. losing to ted kennedy was probably the best thing i could have done for preparing me for the job i'm seeking because it put me back in the private sector. i worked in the private sector. i learned lessons there that are desperately needed in washington. we don't need folks who are lifetime washington people to get this country out of the mess it's in. we need people from outside washington. outside k street. by the way, one more thing, to have kids work in the library, and to help out in school and clean the black boards does not require changing our child labor laws in this country. we shock encourage our kids -- >> we'll come back to that. congressman, you've been running ads that are quite tough -- >> quite what? >> quite tough on speaker gingrich here in iowa this week. accusing him of quote, and this is a quote from your ad, serial hypocrisy.

why do you think speaker gingrich is a hypocrite? >> he's been on different positions on so many issues. single payer. he's taken some positions that are not conservativconservative. he supported the t.a.r.p. funds. the other thing really which should annoy a lot of people, he received a lot of money from freddie mac. freddie mac is essentially a government organization. while he was earning a lot of money from freddie mac, i was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from. so freddie mac is bailed out by the taxpayer. so in a way, newt, i think you'd probably got some of our taxpayer's money. they got money and they're still getting bailed out. you're a spokesman for them and you receive money from them. i think this is something that the people ought to know about but there's been many it positions, you have admitted many of the positions where you have changed positions. if you were looking for a consistent position, you know, i think there's -- will be a little bit of trouble, anybody

competing with me on consistency -- >> speaker gingrich. >> as you say, in your own -- normally in your own speeches, the housing bubble came from the federal reserve. >> i happen to be with you on auditing the fed and on frankly person bernanke. i never did any lobbying for any agency. i was in the private sector. i was doing things in the private sector. >> okay, okay. >> and when you're in the private sector and you have a company and you offer advice like mckenzie does, like a bunch of other companies do, you're allowed to charge money for it. it's called free enterprise. >> it's the taxpayer's money. we had to bail these people out. >> i'm not for bailing them out. in fact, i'm for breaking them up. >> you've made similar

accusations. you called him the poster boy of crony capitalism. did he answer your concerns? >> well, when you're talking about taking over $100 million and when your office is on the rodeo drive of washington, d.c. which is k street and you're taking money to influence the outcome of legislation in washington, that's the epitome of the establishment. that's the epitome of a consummate insider. your question was who's the proven constitutional conservative in this race, and that would be me. i'm 55 years old. i've spent 50 years in the real world as a private business woman. live ago real life. building a real business. you have to take a look at the candidates that are on the stage. you started out with mitt romney and with newt gingrich, asking them about whether or not they're the conservative in this race. you have to take a look. when you look at newt gingrich, for 20 years he's been advocating for the individual mandate in health care. that's longer than barack obama. if you look at romney as the

governor of massachusetts he's the only gov they're put into place socialized medicine. no other governor did. our nominee has to stand on the stage and debate barack obama and be completely different. i led 40,000 americans to washington, d.c. to the capital to fight obama care. i didn't advocate for it. if you look at newt/romney, they were for obama care, principles. if you look at newt/romney, they were for cap and trade. if you look at newt/romney, they were for the illegal immigration problem. and if you look at newt/romney, they were for the $700 billion bailout you just heard newt/romney is also with obama on the issue of the payroll extension, so if you want a difference, michele bachmann is the proven conservative. it's not newt/romney. >> you threw a lot out there -- [ applause ] so let's get both responses. speaker, you go first because you were twice -- on the

lobbying. and then governor romney. go ahead. >> well, michele, a lot of what you say just isn't true, period. i have never -- i oppose cap and trade. i testified against it. the same day al gore testified for it. it is simply untrue. i fought against obama care at every step of the way. i did the center for -- was actively opposed. we actively campaigned against it. i think it's important for you. this is a fair game and everybody gets to pick fights. it's important that you be accurate when you say these things. those are not true. most of the money i made frankly i made in ways that are totally -- had nothing to do with anything you've described. i did no lobbying. no representation. frankly, my speech money and other things i did had nothing to do with that, was a lot larger source of income. i've had 24 books and 13 new york-types best-sellers. that was not people who wanted influence running around buying my books.

i know that doesn't fit your model. it happens to be true. >> can i respond? >> 30 seconds. >> you'd have to go back to 1993 when newt first advocated for the individual mandate in health care. and as recently as may of this year, he was still advocating for the individual mandate in health care. and governor romney sent his team to the white house to meet with president obama to teach them how to spread the romney care model across the nation. that's why i say newt/romney. you've got to have our nominee as someone who is a stark distinct difference with president obama, who can go toe-to-toe and hold him accountable. president obama knows me in washington, d.c. i've taken him on, on issue after issue. our nominee has to be willing to not agree with barack obama on these issues but stand 180 degrees opposite of all the candidates on this stage. i've been fighting president obama for every year that i've been there. i've taken him on. and i will take him on in the

debate and defeat him. >> governor romney. >> i know newt gingrich. he is a friend of mine. he and i are not clones. i promise. that is not the case. this newt gingrich thing, we've got to get this out of our mind. newt/romney thing, sorry. let me say this about health care. one, i didn't send a team of anybody to meet with barack obama. i wish -- given me a call. he'd of had the courtesy and prams t perhaps the judgment to salem talk to a governor. and get on the phone. i'd have said, mr. president, you're going down a very bad path. you're going to raise taxes on the american people. you're going to cut medicare. let's not forget, only one president has ever cut medicare for seniors in this country and it's president obama. we're going to remind him of that time and time again. it deals with the 8% of our

people who didn't have insurance. the 92% of people who did have insurance, nothing changes for them. if i'm president of the united states, we're going to get rid of obama care and return under our constitution the tenth amendment the responsibility and care of health care to the people in the states. >> i want to bring governor perry -- [ applause ] we've heard this argument. i wonder which side you come down on. >> i'm stunned, because the fact of the matter is, you know, michele kind of hit the nail on the head when we talked about the individual mandate. both of these gentlemen have been for the individual mandate. i'm even more stunned, mitt, you said you wish you could have talked to obama and said you're going down the wrong path because that is exactly the path you've taken massachusetts. the beacon hill study itself says there's been 18,000 jobs lost because of that individual mandate. the study continued to say that there have been over $8 billion of additional cost. i wish you could have had the

conversation with the people of massachusetts a long time before that phone call would have been with the president obama. because the fact of the matter is you're for individual mandate. you can get up and talk about, you know, i'm against it now. i'm going to rescind obama care. but the record is very clear. you and newt were for individual mandates. and that is the problem. and the question has been who can stand on the stage, look obama in the eye, and say, obama care is an abomination for this country, and i'm going to do that. and i can take that fight to him and win that fight. >> governor romney -- >> a good deal of what you said was right. some wrong. speaker gingrich said he was for a federal individual mandate. that's something i've always opposed. what we did in our state was designed by the people in our state for the needs of our state. you believe in the tenth amendment. i believe in the tenth amendment. the people of massachusetts favor our plan 3 to 1. they don't like it, they can get

rid of it. that's the great thing about a democracy. where individuals under the tenth amendment have the power to craft their own solutions. the problem with president obama's plan is it does three things we didn't, in my opinion. i understand we disagree. one it raises taxes by 5$500 billion. we didn't raise taxes. two, it cuts medicare by $500 billion. we didn't do that either. three it doesn't just deal with the people that don't have insurance. it's a 2,000 page bill that takes over health care for all the american people. it is wrong for health care. it is wrong for the american people. it's unconstitutional. i'm adamantly opposed. if i'm the president, i will return to the people and the states the power they have under the constitution and they can craft the solutions they think are best for them. you had a mandate in your state. you mandated the girls at 12 years old had to get a vaccination for a sexually transmitted disease. it's not like we have this big difference on mandates.

i wanted to get people health insurance. you wanted to get young girls a vaccine. there are differences. >> governor, if we could, a response. >> i want to make one point. in 1993 in fighting hillary claire, virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what hillary was trying to do. the heritage foundation was a major thing for it. people gradually tried to find other techniques. i was try to find a way to make sure the people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills. and that's what we were wrestling with. it started as a conservative effort to stop hillary care in the 1990s. >> i'm listening. i'm hearing you say all the right things. but i read your first book and it said in there that your

mandate in massachusetts, which should be the model for the country -- i know it came out of the reprint of the book, but, you know, i'm just saying, you were for individual mandates, my friend. >> you know what, you've raised that before, rick. and you're wrong. >> it was true then -- >> no -- >> it's true now -- >> rick, i'll tell you what, 10,000 bucks, $10,000 bet. >> i'm not in the betting business. >> okay. >> i'll show you the book. >> i've got the book. >> and we'll show you -- [ laughter ] i wrote the book. in chapter 7, there's a section called the massachusetts model. i say as close as i can quote, i say in my view, each state should be able to fashion their own program for the specific needs of their citizens. then i talk about the states being the laboratories of democracy. we can learn from one another. i have not said in that book, first edition or the latest edition, anything about our plan being a national model imposed

on the notiation. the right course for america, i've said this, i'll say it now and time again, is to let individual states -- this is a remarkable nation. this idea of federalism is so extraordinarily. let states craft their own solutions. don't have obama care put on us by the federal government. >> george and diane -- >> i have to get -- >> -- can i just say something this is such an important issue. we have one shot to get rid of obama care. that's it. it is 2012. do we honestly believe that two men who have just stood on this stage and defended romney care when it was put in place in massachusetts and the individual mandate when he proposed it 1993, are they honestly going to get rid of it in 2012? this is going to be -- >> yes. >> yes. >> i don't think so. it's going to be a very heavy -- >> i've got to -- >> it's going to be a very heavy lift --

>> senator this is not about what you say in a debate. when you're talk to audiences that you know what they want to hear. back in 1994, i was running for the united states senate and i did not support an individual mandate and i was a conservative. i supported something called me call savings accounts that i drafted with john kasich when i was in the house because i believe in bottom up solving the problems in america not top down government solutions. i actually learned some of it in it's l listening to some of you go pac tapes. the record is important. what the -- the question was about a consistent conservativc. you can't talk about whether someone's consistent in unless you look at their record. i agree with michele. i think michele has been consistent as a consistent conservative. but she's been fighting and losing. i fought and won. i was in the united states senate and i fought and passed welfare reform. i was the principal author when i was in the united states house. and managed the bill on the floor of the united states senate. i was the leader on pro-life

issues and pro-family issues. i fought those issues and endured tough debates and won. i went out and fought on national security issues. and, again, the consistent track record of being there when good types and bad. i think you heard the difference. you're not going to hear them talk about the positions i took and flip-flopped on. i was there. i led. and i won. if you're looking for someone who can be a consistent conservative, there's others on this platform. but who can lead the fight, win the issues. and plus win in states that are important for us like pennsylvania. >> we've tried to -- rick using the word, we've tried to be liberal with the time. tried to be as close as we can. we are running against a commercial break. congresswoman bachmann, 30 seconds to respond. >> the important thing to know is you fight and you lead. i led. when i was in the united states congress, we were in the

minority. nancy pelosi wasn't interested in my pro-growth policy on health care. but i didn't sit on my hands. i saw what was happening to this country. our country was going to lose because of socialized medicine. so i did everything i could including bringing and leading 40,000 people to the capitol to get the attention of the congress to get rid of obama care. as president of the united states, my proven consistent record will be that i will take on every special interest. i will take on k street. i will prelobby and i'll make sure i help elect 13 more republican u.s. senators so we have 60 senators in the senate, a full complement in the house, and i won't rest till we repeal obama care. you can take it to the bank. >> if i can respond to that because she referenced the differences between the two of us. i was in the minority in the house of representatives too. along with jim from here in

iowa. we formed a group called the gang of seven and we won. we exposed the house banking scandal. we overturned a house scandal. we sent the -- eventually sent the chairman, ended up in jail, because we didn't just fight, but we fight and we figure out a way to win even in the minority. >> we want to thank all of you. these are the rules that you set up. we want to be fair and we want to hear everything you have to say. these issues are so important. but it really does help if you stick to the rules that were agreed on. we appreciate that. if we could, when we come back, we're going to tackle some other very big issues, immigration, big question about foreign policy, and also what about faith and family values? and that will be when we come back. >> you're watching live abc news coverage of the iowa republican party debate. what's better than gold ? free gold ! we call that hertz gold plus rewards. you earn free days, free weeks and more fast.

that's a plus. upgrade your ride. that's a plus. rewards with no blackout dates so you can redeem anytime. and it's easy to redeem your points online. already a gold member ? just select gold plus rewards in your profile and start rewarding yourself now. just go to hertzgoldplusrewards.com to join. hertz gold plus rewards. journey on.

if you open up a charge card account with us. [ male announcer ] identity thieves never stop coming up with ways to steal from you. they can open up an account in your name and go on a serious spending spree. do you have cufflinks? mm-hmm. gold ones? [ male announcer ] not on our watch. we're lifelock. go to lifelock.com and learn how our patented billion point database can help protect you. call 1-800-lifelock today. lifelock. relentlessly protecting your identity.

the real difference i believe is our backgrounds. i spent my life in the private sector. i understand how the economy works. i believe for americans to say good-bye to president obama and elect a republican, they need to have confidence that the person they're electing knows how to make this economy work again and create jobs for the american middle class. >> your response? >> just a second. he had four allegations, i get four responses. >> take your time. >> let's start with the last one. let's be candid. the only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to teddy kennedy in '94. >> now wait a second. wait a second. i mean -- >> you'll get another response. go ahead. >> okay, okay. >> do i get to go? >> please, please. >> no, i'm just saying. >> you want a difference, michele bachmann is a proven conservative. >> you threw a lot out there. >> back live from des moines,

iowa, in a moment.

once again, diane sawyer and george stephanopoulos. >> we are back. it's been a rocking debate. we want to get to another issue. values, family and faith. governor romney and governor perry, you both made it a feature of ads you ran in iowa this week. which leads to this question from our partners. i want to show it up on the screen. should voters consider marital fidelity when making their choices for president? governor perry, in south carolina this week you said this is an important issue. why? >> well, i said that not only did i make a vow to my wife but i made a vow to god. and that's pretty heavy lifting in my book. when i make a vow to god, then i would suggest to you that's even

stronger than a handshake in texas. [ light laughter and applause ] >> but the person -- let me just follow up quickly, to you think a candidate who breaks his marital vows is more likely to break faith with voters? >> i think the voters are wise enough to figure that out. i've always been of the opinion if you cheat on your wife, you'll cheat on your business partner. so i think that issue of fidelity is important. i mean, it's a characteristic of which people look at individuals. whether it's in their business lives or whether it's in their personal lives or whether it's picking someone to serve in public office for them. individuals who have been in fidelity with their spouse, i think that sends a very powerful message. if you will cheat on your wife, if you will cheat on your spouse, then why wouldn't you cheat on your business partner? or why wouldn't you cheat on

anybody for that matter. >> gov santorum, you summed up your position as character counts, said this is relevant as well. >> i think character issues do count. i think all of your record, personal as well as political record, is there for the public to look at. i would not say it's a disqualifier. i wouldn't go that far. i think people make mistakes. you're held accountable to those mistakes. the public will listen to the circumstances and make their decision. certainly it's a factor. it should be a factor. you're electing a leader. you're electing someone that trust is everything. particularly in this election. this election, the people of this -- of iowa, i hear this all the time, who can we trust? and i go out and talk about my record. i talk about the fact that i've been married 21 years and have seven children. i talk about the fact i have a record consistent in conservative politics. i talk about, you know, my past.

i think that's important. for the people to go and determine whether they're trustworthy enough to earn their support. >> what's your view on this? >> you know, i think character is very important. i don't think it should be necessary to have to talk about it. i think it should show through in the way we live. i think it should show through in the marriage. i happen to have been married for 54 years. i don't think we should have to talk about it. but you know what probably is every bit as important, if you're married -- what about your oath of office? that's where i think a lot of people come up real short. because there's many times i've been -- i take my oath very seriously. i sometimes end up voting by myself, thinking, why aren't people -- why don't they read article one, section a? if we took that oath of office seriously in washington, we'd get rid of 80% of the governor. the budget would be balanced.

we'd have found money. and we would have prosperity. we wouldn't be the policemen of the world. we wouldn't be invading the privacy of every single individual in this country with bills like the patriot act. we'd have a free society and a prosperous society. [ applause ] >> governor romney, you've chosen to make your family and faith a feature of your ad. why? >> actually, the president, president obama's pac came out with an ad attacking me. and said i'm not a person of core values. we said, in my prior campaigns we've come out with ads that show who i am. and that relates to my family and my kids. i'm really concerned about america. i think the issue people have to concentrate on is who can lead america to a place where we don't become a greece or italy because frankly that's the path we're on. who can make sure america's values continues to be the

hallmark of what allows our economy to create jobs? who can make sure it's good to be middle class in america again? who can make sure america is the job creating engine it once was? who can make sure that the kids going to school know when they get out of school they're going to have a job waiting for them that meets the kind of skills they've created? i believe i'm that person. and part of my motivation for doing those things is i love this country. i love the values of this country. and i want to make sure that my kids and my grandkids, and i have quite a few of them, 16, that they have an america that's as pros purse as the america i've enjoyed and just as free. >> congresswoman bachmann. >> the founders spoke about this. the question was asked, what is it we need to have in a president? they wrote in the federalist papers. they didn't look at wealth. they didn't look at position. they looked at one issue. it's what's the measure of the man or what's the measure of the woman in our case for being the next president of the united

states. will they keep their word? will they be a man or woman of integrity? that's what they cared about. that was more important than anything else. i think here in iowa, that's what i've seen. that is also what people care about. who are you really? what is your center? what's your core? what's drives you? so people want to know what's your faith. i'm a christian. i'm unashamed about that. i have a strong faith. i made a proclamation of my faith in christ when i was 16. i don't mind if people ask me those question or ask me about my husband or our family. i'm happy to talk about that. because after all people need to take the measure of the man or the measure of the woman when they make that decision. >> speaker gingrich what do voters need to know about this issue? >> first, i think it's a real issue. i think people have to look at a person to whom they're going to loan the presidency and they have the right to ask every single question. they have to have a feeling this is a person that they can trust

with the level of power we give to the presidency. i think people have to render judgment. in my case, i said up front openly, i've made mistakes at times. i've had to seek reconciliation. i'm also a 68-year-old grandfather. i think people have to measure who i am now and whether i'm a person they can trust. all i can tell you is i am delighted at the way people have been willing to look at who i am. to look at what my record has been. and the amount of support we're getting from the american people. and from all across the state of iowa the number of people who are supportive of a candidacy of real change and a record of real change. >> and i'd like to turn now, if we can, to the issue of immigration. so many people talk about it in their living rooms. talk about it around their dinner tables at night, if i can. and could we just do one thing for the interest of time? can we stipulate that every single person on this stage tonight has said the number one thing to do is secure the

borders? secure the borders, secure the borders, secure the borders. you may have strelightly differ ways to do it. i'd like to turn now to the 11 million undocumented people in this country. and speaker gingrich, i'm going to come back to you. you have talked about citizen review boards to review individual cases, to treat it on an individual basis. you mentioned the fact that someone who's been here 25 years, served the community, should get special consideration under this board. how many years is the threshold for you? if they're here five years but has served the community under the criteria that you've set out before, five years also a candidate? >> i think first of all that anybody who would apply to -- the citizen review board came out of the selective service model used in draft boards in

world war ii. we relied on local citizens to surrender judgment. they had local knowledge. that's the starting point. second, i started with cases that i think are very hard to argue about. somebody who's been here 25 years. somebody who is a good local citizen. may well belong to your church. has children and grandchildren in the united states. i would have said flatly, i do not believe the people of the united states are going to send the police in to rip that kind of person out and ship them out of this country, particularly because those are precisely the people who will end up in churches as sanctuaries. i think we need to be honest about that. i think most of the issues here who have no ties to us should go home instantly. just as i think we ought to make english the official language of government and we ought to have an effective guest worker program with very severe penalties for those employers who hire people illegally. >> the pew center has said 3.5

million people could come under the criteria that you laid out. >> i don't think 3.5 million people who have been here 25 years. >> but they're talking about people who have been here 15 years. >> huh? >> 15 years. >> i wasn't, they were. you use the number that doesn't relate to my proposal. >> under the criteria you have set out, do you have a threshold on the number of people you would consider before the review? >> that's why you have the citizen review panel. the person had to have been here 25 years have genuine ties to the community, be a good citizen and have an american family sponsoring them. they still don't get citizenship. they get residency. they pay a penalty in order to get residency. >> i'm going to turn to governor romney. i think at one point you said something similar in a meeting at bloomberg, that we're not going to be tracking everybody down and moving them out. and yet to our colleague david

muir, when he tried to clarify something you said, you seemed to indicate that people should go back home to their country and in some cases it may mean as much as five years, if they get to the back of the line or more. are you saying -- how many people should be sent back home to their country? should they be tracked down to establish who they are, sent back home to their country? >> i believe that anytime we start talking about a form of amnesty, whether it's technically amnesty or not, when we start talking about how people have been able to come here and stay illegally for some period of time that they're going to be able to stay here and become a permanent resident of the united states with rights to our education system, our health care system and so forth, we will then create another magnet that draws people into our country illegally. so the right course for us is to, once again, talk about what you described, secure the border. once we do that, we can start talking about the 11 million or

whatever number that might be that are in the country illegally. my own view is, those 11 million people should register the fact they're here in the country. they should be given some transition period of time to allow them to settle their affairs and then return home and get in line at the back of the line with everybody else that wants to come here. don't forget, we talk about the difficulty of people going home. there are millions of people who -- many of whom have relatives in this country who are in line. i want to bring people into this country who have skill, experience, family here, who want to draw them in. i do not want to do something, i do not want to do something which encourages another wave of illegal immigration. so from my viewpoint, the key measure is this, no favoritism for permanent residency or citizenship for those who have come here illegally. >> you have said all 11 million. governor perry, there is a case in there, a number of these

cases of people who have signed up for the military, the u.s. military who have been undocumented but nonetheless gone in to sign up. what should happen with them? >> well, let me address the issue that you asked from the start and obviously securing that border is the -- is the key in any of these conversations we're having now are nothing more than intellectual discussions till you secure that border. if this country would simply enforce the laws that are already on the book, you think about all the laws we have that are already out there, laws that clearly say -- that here are our punishments and here's what will happen. if this country would simply enforce the laws that we have on the book, i will tell you one thing as the president of the united states, you will not see me sending my justice department to sue states like arizona that are having their sovereign rights i think put in jeopardy

by our justice department. you will not see a catch and release program like this administration has today, that -- where people who are caught who are here illegally in this country and because they haven't been caught in a violent situation, they're released. released into the general population. that's the problem that we've got in this country. i would suggest to you we spend time with the laws that we got on the book being enforced, we'll have a substantial smaller number of people of which we're going to have to make decisions about at that particular point in time. and then we can have a legitimate conversation about immigration reform. >> i want to change subjects now. [ applause ] foreign policy -- speaker gingrich caused something of a stir overnight in the middle east with comments he made in an interview with the jewish channel in which he called the palestinians an invented people. i just wondered, congressman

paul if i can start with you, do you agree? >> i don't. that's just stirring up trouble. and i believe in a nonintervention as foreign policy. i don't think we should get in the middle ofs. but to go out of our way to say so and is not a people. under the ottoman empire, the palestinians didn't have a state but neither did israel have a state too. this is how we get involved in so many messes. it fails on the side of practicing a little diplomacy, getting ours into trouble, mentioning things that are unnecessary. the people in those regions should be dealing with these problems. we shouldn't be dealing with these things. but historically it -- you know, under the ottoman empire, that is technically correct, but to make these decisions and deciding what the settlement is going to be should be the people that are involved. this idea we can be the policeman of the world and settle all these disputes, i

mean, soon we'll have to quit because we're flat-out broke. but we cannot continue to get into these issues like this. and getting ourdzs into more trouble. >> this has caused a reaction in the middle east. the chief palestinian knee gosh eighter saeb erakat said, mark my words, these will be the ammunition of the extremists for a long, long time. >> how would he know the difference? simply, is what i said factually correct? yes. is it historically true? yes. are we in a situation l every day rockets are fired into israel while the current administration tries to pressure the israelis into a peace process? hamas does not admit the right of israel to exist and says publicly not a single jew will remain. the ambassador to india said last month there is no difference between fatah and hamas.

we both agree israel has no right to exist. somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. these people are terrorists. they teach terrorism in their schools. they have textbooks that say if there are 13 jews and 9 jews are killed, how many jews are left? we pay for those textbooks through our aid money. time for somebody to say enough lying about the middle east. [ applause ] >> governor romney -- he says he's telling the truth. do you take -- >> i happen to agree with most of what the speaker said except by going out and saying the palestinians are an invented people. that i think was a mistake on the speaker's part. i think -- i think the speaker would probably suggest that as well. i don't think we want to -- maybe not. i think we're very wise to stand with our friends, israel, and not get out ahead of them. this president decided he was going to try to negotiate for israel by saying let's go back

to the '67 borders. israel does not want us to make it more difficult for them to sit down with the palestinians. ultimately, the palestinians and the israelis are going to have to agree on how they're going to settle the differences between them. the united states of america should not jump ahead of bb netanyahu and make it more difficult for him to do his job. we stand with the israeli people. if we disagree with them, like this president has time and time again, we don't do it in public like he's done it. we do it in private. we let the israeli leadership describe what they believe the right course is going forward. we don't knnegotiate for the israeli people. we stand with our friends and make it clear. we're going to tell the truth but we're not going to throw incendiary words into a place which is a boiling pot when our friends, the israelis, would say, what in the world are you doing? >> he said this is going to make life more difficult for the

israelis. >> the israelis are getting rocketed every day. we're not making life more difficult. the obama administration is making life more difficult. the fact is the palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story. somebody had the courage to go back to the 1921 league of nations mandate for a jewish homeland, point out the context in which israel came into existence and palestinian did not become a common term till after 1977. this is a propaganda war in which our side refuses to engage and we refuse to tell the truth. you're not going to win in the long run if you're afraid to stand firm and stand for the truth. >> of course you stand firm and stand for the truth. but you don't speak for israel. >> if bb netanyahu wants to say what you said, let him say that. but our ally, the people of israel, should be able to take their own positions. >> i want to turn, if i can -- >> can i say one last thing? i didn't speak for the people of israel. i speak as an historian who's looked at the world stage for a

long time. i've known bb since 1984. i feel quite confident an apaying number of it's rail hes found it nice to have an american tell the truth about the war they're in the middle of and the casualties they're taking and the people who surround them who say, you do not have the right to exist and we want to destroy you. >> i've known -- [ applause ] >> i've also known bb netanyahu for a long time, we worked together at a consulting group. the last thing netanyahu needs to have not just a person who's an historian but somebody who is also running for president of the united states stand up and say things that create extraordinary tur mult in his neighborhood. if i'm president of the united states, i will exercise sobriety, care, stability and make sure that in a setting like this, anything i say that can affect a place with rockets going in, with people dying, i don't do anything that would harm that process. and therefore, before i made a statement of that nature, i get

on the phone to my friend bb netanyahu and say, would it help if i said this? what would you like me to do? let's work together because we're partners. i'm not a bomb thrower. rhetorically or literally. >> under the rules, we need to let you respond. >> i think sometimes it is helpful to have a president of the united states with the courage to tell the truth. just as it was reagan who went around his entire national security apparatus to call the soviet union an evil empire. reagan believed the power of truth restated the world and reframed the world. i'm a reaganite. i'm proud to be a reaganite. i will tell the truth. even if it causes some confusion sometimes with the timid. >> i think it's important to get everybody in on this. [ applause ] who has the better of this argument, congresswoman bachmann? >> who has the better of this argument? >> yes. >> in 1974, i went to israel for

the first time and i worked there for the summer. i saw a brand-new nation that had begun in 1948 and was making its way into the modernization that we know today. they're a first world nation. i was able to return as a member of congress multiple times. i also met with fiad in ramallah in the very room arafat used as his conference room. i asked fiad about the issue we were very concerned about. and that's how the palestinians teach their children to hate the jews and call them pigs and swine and descendants from haiti. >> but do you think -- >> let me finish. i asked them about this very important issue. how do you find peace when you continue to teach your children hatred? i asked fayed about this issue. he said, we don't to that anymore. our textbooks aren't filled with that. i said, oh, really? i pulled out a manila envelope that i brought with me and i pulled out the pages that i photocopied out of current books that were being used that

clearly showed that. he said, oh, but these are old textbooks. and he said, i said, really, well then why don't you send me the new textbooks that no longer say that and compare them with the old? i checked my mailbox today. he still hasn't sent me those textbooks. that's what needs to change. >> senator santorum, let me put to you george's question. who's got the better of the argument? >> el wiwell, i think you have speak the truth. but you have to do so with prudence. it's a combination. i thought they both made excellent points. we're in a real-life situation. this isn't an academic exercise. we've got -- we have an ally. and the policy of this country should be to stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally. we didn't have an ally in the soviet union. they needed the truth. reagan provided that truth. >> -- prudence, would that be

saying the palestinians are invent order not? >> if i can finish my comment, i'll get to that, george. we have an ally here we have to work closely with. i think mitt's point was correct. we need to work with the israelis to find out, you know what, is this a wise thing for us to do, to step forward and engage this issue? maybe it is. my guess is at this point in time it's not. not that we shouldn't tell the truth. but we should be talking to our allies. it's their fight. we are to be their ally. we're to be supporting them. and i'm -- i've been out here very publicly. that the israelis have the right to determine what happens in their land. and all of israel, including the, quote, you know, west bank, israeli land. we need to work with them as the solution that works best -- >> governor perry -- >> let me just say i think this is a minor issue. that the media is blowing way out of proportion. we have a president of the united states who has put the

most muddled foreign policy in place, that is causing the problems in the middle east. what it goes back to 2009 when we had an opportunity to impact iran. whether it has been the way he stood back in egypt and did not try to negotiate. people who would come in, work with us. now we have radical islamics as the head of egypt. whether it was leading from the rear, if you will, in libya. the idea this president now, with hiiran getting one of our predator drones in their possession, and he had opportunities -- he had two choices. actually, he had three. he chose the worse. and those two opportunities he had was to either retrieve that drone or to destroy it. and he did the worst of the three. and he did absolutely nothing. and the russians and the chinese will have our highly technical

equipment now. this president is the problem. not something that newt gingrich said. [ applause ] >> we have to take a break. i want to say we have a partner in all of this which of course is yahoo!. i want to put up a question which we want to address when we come back about the struggles of the middle class in this country. we have a question on yahoo! about the last time those of you had a personal financial strain that forced you to cut back on necessity as so many people in the middle class say they do. what were the consequences you faced? and will you weigh in on that? and that's when we come back. we know a place where tossing and turning

have given way to sleeping. where sleepless nights yield to restful sleep.

and lunesta can help you get there, like it has for so many people before. when taking lunesta, don't drive or operate machinery until you feel fully awake. walking, eating, driving, or engaging in other activities while asleep, without remembering it the next day, have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations or confusion. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. alcohol may increase these risks. allergic reactions, such as tongue or throat swelling, occur rarely and may be fatal. side effects may include unpleasant taste, headache, dizziness and morning drowsiness. ask your doctor if lunesta is right for you. then get lunesta for $0 at lunesta.com. there's a land of restful sleep. we can help you go there on the wings of lunesta.

i'm just saying, you're for individual mandates, my friend. >> you've raised that before, rick. >> it was true then. >> no, no. >> it's true now. >> rick, i'll tell you what, 10,000 bucks -- >> this a propaganda war in which our side refuses to engage and we refuse to tell the truth when the other side lies and you're not going to win in the long run if you're afraid to stand firm and stand for the truth. of course you stand firm. and stand for the truth. but you don't speak for israel. >> i didn't. >> if bb netanyahu wants to say what you said, let him say it. but our ally, the pea israel, should be able to take their own position, not have us negotiate for them. >> i want to turn -- >> can i say one last thing? i didn't speak for the peel of israel. i spoke as an historian. i feel quite confident an amazing number of israelis found it nice to have an american tell

the truth about the war they're in the middle of and the casualties and the people around them who say you do not have the right to exist.

diane sawyer and george stephanopoulos. >> we welcome all of you back. we thank the republican candidates for president of the united states for debating here tonight. i want to return to the yahoo! question which brings the struggles of the middle class down to something personal. many of us are forced to make cuts to continue necessities such as mortgage payments, groceries, transportation to work and health care. and then the question continues. they want to know, when is the last time you had a personal financial strain that forced you not only to give up a luxury but also to cut back on necessity? and what were the consequences you faced? this is from an undrew in texas. i'd like to start, governor

perry with you. >> well, obviously, growing up where i grew up, there were some people that probably said -- as a matter of fact, i was on a radio station here, w.h.o., yesterday and talked about my upbringing. growing up in a house that didn't have running water till i was 5 years old. and my mother sewing my own clothes for me till i went off to college. and the idea that luxury really wasn't in my lexicon. as i grew and as i went off and flew in the united states air force and i came back home and as a 27-year-old boy, well, i was a grown man by then, but i didn't have anything -- my social security has a zero in 1978. so i'm sure i was given up some things other people would consider to be luxuries. the fact is i've never had a

time in my life when i felt like that i gave anything up that i didn't have everything that i needed. and i know there are people that are suffering in america today. and that's the reason we need to get this country back working. and having people so that they can have a job and the policies that i've laid out and the record that i've had in the state of texas for the last decade clearly gives that record to the people of this country. >> again, we just want to remind you, when the red comes up, these are the rules that were agreed on here. two governors, governor romney, you grew up in very different circumstances. what about this question? >> i didn't grow up poor. i'm not the person. but i grew up with a dad who had been poor. and my dad wanted to make sure i understood the lessons of hard work. and my mom and dad wanted to make sure i understood the principles that made america the greatest nation on earth. and so they made sure we had jobs as we were growing up.

they made sure we didn't spend money foolishly. they made sure i had a care and concern for other people. i was able to serve my church overseas and to meet people there that had very difficult circumstances in their life. i also spent time in this country serving as a posture in my church. again, having the occasion to work with people that were really struggling. i saw marriages under great stress. when people lose jobs, marriages get strained. people's health gets affected. people become depressed. i'm in this race not because i grew up without means but because i understand what it takes to get america works again and i love this country enormously. and understand the principles and understand the specifics that it takes to get america create jobs again. that's why i'm in the race. >> congressman paul what does this question evoke, how much does it matter to have had personal experience? >> well, i feel very fortunate because although i was raised in a family that was rather poor, but i didn't even know it.

it was during the depression, world war ii. we didn't have very much. i worked my way through college. that was a natural instinct because that's what you were supposed to do. but i finally did a little bit better in medical school because i had my wife work our way through college, medical school. so that worked out a little bit better. but middle class is suffering. not only because we bail out the rich and dump on the poor and they lose their jobs and they lose their houses, but there's a characteristic about monetary policy, when a country destroys its currency it transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, and this is what you're seeing today. the elimination of the middle class. and it's going to get a lot worse unless we address the subject. overspending, overborrowing and printing too much money and understanding the business cycle. >> senator santorum. [ applause ] >> i can say that i grew up in a very modest home and was very blessed to have all my basic

needs met. one of the most basic needs was that i was blessed to have a mother and a father. that was the most important gift that i was given. that i had two parents who were together who loved me, who supported me and made me feel safe and made the little things that no one would consider luxuries today feel like luxuries. because i had that sense of security. unfortunately, america, we see the family continuing to break down. and with that, the economic status of those families. single parent households in america now have poverty levels approaching 40%. so you not only have the lack of security and stability in so many cases because moms are doing heroic work trying to hold things together. but it's hard. and so what we can do as a federal government, we can do more importantly as a leader of this country is try to promote this institution of marriage. try to promote the family. try to nurture this environment that we have. to make sure that families are elevated and supported. and fathers and mothers are

there to take care of their families and there be for their children. that's the most important luxury. is a mom and a dad. >> and congresswoman bachmann, someone said recently that troubled banks got a bailout, troubled homeowners got evicted. your response on this question of the struggles in the middle class. >> well, i opposed the $700 billion bailout for wall street. because wall street rolled the dice, and they made some very foolish decisions. they were only too happy to pocket profits when times were good. but when times went south and things got sour, then they decided to socialize their losses. and american taxpayer was only too good to bail them out. there's people on this stage that supported that bailout. i didn't. behind closed doors, i took on the treasury secretary, hank pa paulson, i took on my own president, because i knew this was going to be a very bad deal. you asked about the luxuries and

where we come from. i was born to a middle class family. my tragedy went throu, my familw a tragedy. my folks got divorced. my mom was a full-time homemaker. we went to below poverty overnight. when i was 13, laid to start getting a job to start getting a family. we're still coupon clippers today. we still go to consignment stores today. we get what that feeled like. i think it's important for the next president to be in touch with what real people struggle with across the country, and i have. >> speaker gingrich. [ applause ] >> when i was young, we lived in an apartment above a gas station on the square in pennsylvania. i had relatives who were steelworkers. others who were deliverymen. my dadmoved around.

at a time, was fairly frugal, but you didn't feel desperate. today i've had several relatives who have been out of work. who have had to go through very difficult times. my life runs gingrich productions as a company. very small company. does basically movies and books. we have to meet a payroll. we have to find markets. we have to find, you know, go to everything small wibusinesses g through. i know how difficult this economy is at a practical level if you're a small business. >> we said at the start we're getting real-time feedback from our yahoo! audience. over 12,000 people have already weighed in on yahoo! and abcnews.com. and this is directed at speaker gingrich and governor romney. more than 72% say right now they want to hear more from you about your past support for health care mandates. that's something they're still not fully satisfied with what they've heard from you. and speaker gingrich, i mean, governor romney, let me begin

with you. because you were clear. you said you've always been against a federal mandate. you supported it in the state of massachusetts where there ambag. now you say you wouldn't encourage other states to try it. can you explain that? >> states can do whatever the heck they want to do. that's the great thing about our system. i think there's a good deal we did. the people can look at and fight as a model. >> the mandate. >> sure if they want to. it's up to other states to try what works for them. some will like that. some will think it's a terrible idea. we had this idea of exchanges where people can buy insurance from companies, private companies. we have no government insurance by the way in our state. other than the federal medicare/medicaid programs. it's all private pay. people can learn from one another. but my plan was designed for our state and other states should have the right to create plans

that work for them. if they come up with something better than we did, then we can learn from them. the idea of a federal government or federal mandate as you see with obama care flies in the face of the constitution, violates the tenth amendment. i think the supreme court will strike it down. if they don't, i will. >> speaker gingrich, congresswoman bachmann pointed out as late as may of this year you supported some form of the mandate when everyone else has come out against it. what finally tipped you over and convinced you it was unconstitutional? >> i think first of all for the federal government to do it is unconstitutional. a congress which can compel you to purchase this item can compel you to purchase any item. the purchase of freedom would be missed. any majority could then decide to make you do virtually anything. i think that's why you're seeing a dramatic shift backs towards limiting the federal government and towards imposing the tenth amendment as a very serious barrier. i've been working on health issues since 1974. and i tried to find a way to

break out of where we are because the fact is the whole third party payment model, whether public or private, has grown more and more expensive, more and more difficult to sustain. i helped found the center for health transformation for that reason. we need to rethink the entire health system. to move back to a doctor/patient relationship. back toward something like what rick santorum talked about with health savings account. where people are directly engaged in their own health. to a much greater degree than they are in the current system. >> if i can switch to this question. it is about health care. because a number of people -- i was just at a pharmacy here. i do have a cough but i was at a pharmacy here in iowa, and the pharmacists were talking about a big driver of health care costs, and they specifically mentioned habits, unhealthy habits that we all need to learn to do better

on at a young age. they talked about obesity. they talked about exercise. if i can ask you, congressman paul, anything government should do on these fronts? >> on medical or -- >> on these fronts, specifically of healthy behavior at very young age -- at ages -- >> no, essentially not, but they have to be a referee. if people are doing things that hurt other people, yes. but if you embark on instituting society where government protects you from yourself, you're in big trouble, and that's what they're doing. i think what we've had here is the demonstration of why should we have a candidate that's going to have to explain themselves? 77% of the people want further explanations on what your positions are. so i think that is -- you talk about the obama care using force, but that's all government

is, is force. i mean, do you have a choice about paying medicare taxes? so there's not a whole lot of difference. you're forced to buy insurance. that's one step further. but you have to stop with force. once government uses force to mold behavior or mold the economy, they've overstepped the bounds and they violated the whole consent of our revolution and our constitution. [ applause ] >> i just want to ask, does anyone disagree with the first part of congressman paul's answer where he said the government shouldn't be getting involved in these broader issues of behavior? >> listen, i happen to think that the states, that's their call, not the federal government. the states should be able to make decisions on whether -- terry, you probably have some programs here in iowa -- [ inaudible audience comment ] >> there you go. [ applause ]

it should be their call. listen, this goes back to -- congressman paul and i disagree from time to time. the real issues we have in this country are people are sick of washington, d.c. they're sick of the money that they're seeing spent. they're sick of the fraud and the corruption that they're seeing. they're sick of seeing their kids futures mortgaged because we've got a washington, d.c. that is out of touch with the country. it's the reason when i talked about my overhauling washington plan and i've gotten a pretty good response across the country when i talk about going to a part-time congress. cut their pay in half. let them spend half the time in washington, d.c. send them back home to have a regular job like the rest of the people in their districts. and work under the laws that they pass. that i will suggest to you along with a balanced budget amendment to the united states congress will go a long way towards stopping a lot of the nonsense we're seeing coming out of washington. >> governor said this is the healthiest state in the nation.

we'll return to the healthiest state in the nation in just a minute. ♪ [ male announcer ] how could a luminous protein in jellyfish, impact life expectancy in the u.s., real estate in hong kong, and the optics industry in germany? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. with investment information, risks, fees and expenses do you have an irregular heartbeat called atrial fibrillation, or afib, that's not caused by a heart valve problem? are you taking warfarin to reduce your risk of stroke caused by a clot? you should know about pradaxa. an important study showed that pradaxa 150mg reduced stroke risk 35% more than warfarin. and with pradaxa,

there's no need for those regular blood tests. pradaxa is progress. pradaxa can cause serious, sometimes fatal, bleeding. don't take pradaxa if you have abnormal bleeding, and seek immediate medical care for unexpected signs of bleeding like unusual bruising. pradaxa may increase your bleeding risk if you're 75 or older, have kidney problems or a bleeding condition, like stomach ulcers. or if you take aspirin products, nsaids, or blood thinners. tell your doctor about all medicines you take, any planned medical or dental procedures, and don't stop taking pradaxa without your doctors approval, as stopping may increase your stroke risk. other side effects include indigestion,stomach pain, upset, or burning. if you have afib not caused by a heart valve problem, ask your doctor if pradaxa can reduce your risk of a stroke. for more information or help paying for pradaxa, visit pradaxa.com.

i was raised in a system -- in a family that was rather poor but i didn't even know it. you know, it was during the depression, world war ii, and we didn't have very much. i worked my way through college. i finally did a little bit better in medical school because i had my wife work our way through college, medical school. >> we lived in an apartment above a gas station in pennsylvania. >> i didn't grow up poor. i'm not the person. but i grew up with a dad who had been poor and my dad wanted to make sure i understood the lessons of hard work. and my mom and dad wanted to make sure that i understood the principles that made america the greatest nation on earth. >> i was born here in iowa to

middle class family. but my family went through a tragedy that millions of families go through. my folks got divorced. americans are always ready to work hard for a better future. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future.

♪ hi. looking good! you've lost some weight. thanks! you noticed! you know these clothes are too big no so i'm donating them. not going back there again. good for you! how'd you do it? eating right, whole grain. whole grain? whole grain. [ female announcer ] people who choose more whole grain tend to weigh less than those who don't... multigrain cheerios has five whole grains and 110 lightly sweetened calories per serving... more grains. less you! multigrain cheerios. you can seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

live from drake university in des moines, iowa, once again, diane sawyer and george stephanopoulos. >> talking about the fact the question we get so often is why can't people who disagree respect for each other? and can we all work together? even people who disagree to move the country forward. >> so in the form of a closing statement, we just want each of you, you're all running against each other, but in these last few minutes, stick to the

minute, we will not run over the commercial, tell us the one thing you've learned from someone else, one of your challengers on stage, senator santorum. >> i'll go back to the comment i made earlier. when i was first running for office, you know, newt gingrich was the guy whose tapes i listened to as a young man. trying to decide to run for congress. he laid out a vision for conservative governance. in a very tough congressional district outside of suburban pittsburgh. no one gave me a chance of winning it. election night, the wall street journal called to find out the name of the guy who won. they didn't even know my name at the rnc. that's a true story. and you don't get a lot of true stories but that's a true story. so, you know, i came out as a conservative. i think that's, again, the thing that distinguishes me. i've run as a conservative in a

60% democratic district and won and 70% democratic district and won in the state of pennsylvania with almost more republicans and won again in the year george bush lost the election. i stuck by the conservative principles newt outlined in the late '80s, and they've always served me well. i've been a consistent conservative. >> governor perry. >> i tell you, congressman paul got me really intrigued with the whole federal reserve and i've spent a substantial amount of time reading about and currency wars, the book by james ricard, but congressman paul is the individual on the stage that got me most interested in a subject that i found to be quite interesting and at the root of a lot of the problems that we have, and i thank you for that, but the one thing that i found outside of these fine individuals on this stage is that the people of this country,

the people of this country really want to get america back on track. and congressman, whether it's somebody like you and your idea act that we talked about the other day, there are really good men and women in this country that want to get this country back headed down the track. and they understand, michele, just as you've said, that this election is about the future of this country. one of the most important elections, if not the most important election, and we got to get it right. >> over to you, governor romney. >> i always find the principle of leadership to be most interesting. and as i look at the people on the stage, each exhibits different qualities of leadership. one of the things about ron paul that always amazes me is when i come to the debate like this, the only signs i see are the ron paul people. [ applause ]

freezing temperatures, they're always there. he ignite, an enthusiasm with a number of people that's very exciting to watch. in choosing a president, it's the qualities of leadership that are going to make the difference, because our positions on issues, are important of course. i happen to think i've got the right position on issues. of course or i wouldn't have them. fundamentally, we know that down the road what's going to determine who is a great president or not is their qualities of leadership and getting america back on track. and i believe right now just as governor perry just said, this is a time for real leadership, because this country is going in a very dangerous direction. this is a time where america has got to return to principles that will keep us the hope of the earth and the shining city on the hill, that light from that shining city has dimmed over the last three years and i will help restore it. >> mr. speaker. [ applause ] >> well, i want to say two people, one on the stage and one

not. governor branstad is my role mode. get out of politics for a while. come back when you're clearly too old, too experienced, win the governorship decisively, did a great job. [ applause ] i just want to say, rick perry got me engaged about three years ago when this whole tenth amendment in a big serious way. and i think he has helped ignite a fire that is going to change america. and rick santorum's consistency and courage on iran has been a hallmark of -- if we do survive, it will be in part because of people like rick who had the courage to tell the truth about the iranians for a long time. [ applause ] >> i have learned that you should never give up on your opposition, because if you're persistent and you present your

case, they will come your way, so, rick, i appreciate it. i appreciate it. -- the federal reserve, wonderful. i work on the assumption that freedom brings people together. it's based on tolerance and nonviolence. if it's tolerance it should be bringing all kinds of people together. that's following our constitution. we shouldn't be fighting among ourselves. because we shouldn't be fighting in washington if we all take the same oath of office. where does the fight come from? somebody is messing up somewhere. so i would say that with persiste persistent, i think we can all prevail and come up with the right answers. [ applause ] >> i would agree with everything that's been said here tonight but i would also add, again, someone that i mentioned a bit earlier, and that was herman

cain. when he brought up the 9/9/9 plan. you can't have a debate without saying 9/9/9 in the debate. i think one thing he showed us is the power of being very plain spoken. and also reducing something to a very simple level so people get it. and people were very excited about that plan because they could understand what that meant. and i think that's a challenge for every one of us. because a lot of times you can end up sounding and talking like a big bureaucrat in washington it people don't want that. they don't want washington. they want outside of washington. and rightfully so. that's why i think in this race i'm in. i'm the proven consistent conservative and i'm going to go with win win win rather than 9/9/9. >> again, we are at the end of the time agreed upon by all of you, the candidates, and we thank you so much. we thank the people of iowa. 24 days, voting begins. >> that's the time for us. we'll be back with our political team. we're hearing lots of opinions on yahoo! and twitter.

wheat get to that in just a minute. >> much more to come as abc news live coverage of the iowa republican party debate continues. the uso provides every american a way to support our wounded warriors and their families. [ male announcer ] don't have the hops for hoops with your buddies? lost your appetite for romance? and your mood is on its way down. you might not just be getting older. you might have a treatable condition called low testosterone or low t. millions of men, forty-five or older, may have low t. so talk to your doctor about low t. hey, michael! [ male announcer ] and step out of the shadows. hi! how are you? [ male announcer ] learn more at isitlowt.com. [ laughs ] hey!

♪ ...romance... ♪ ...documentaries... or whatever else, then you'll love netflix. netflix lets you watch unlimited movies and tv episodes over the internet on your pc or tv via game console or other devices. and best of all, it's instant. watch as many movies and tv episodes as you want for only 8 bucks a month. start your free trial today. we are back. we want to thank the candidates again. some still on the stage. >> with family members. we thank all of you, as we said, at the beginning of this again, because we know it's a sacrifice for family members as well. >> we want to check in with our team. jake tapper in the spin room. >> i think everybody here pretty

much feels newt gingrich, even though a lot of people were attacking him tonight, he delivered well. he defended his positions and articulated his explanations. one thing i want to settle is $10,000 bet that former massachusetts governor mitt romney tried to wager with rick perry. perry said, i read your first book and it said in there your mandate in massachusetts should be the model for the country. romney disputed that, offered to bet him $10,000. we do think actually that governor perry was not quoting exactly what mitt romney said. what he had written was we can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country. but the bigger issue i think is the fact that mitt romney was trying to wager a $10,000 bet in a debate in iowa. the median income in this country means that $10,000 is roughly three months income.

even though he was just joking around, i think that probably did not help him. even if he won the letter of the bet, by making the bet, as matthew dowd pointed out, he probably lost -- >> what is the romney camp saying about that? >> well, have already sent out e-mails to many of our contacts. it's interesting we're talking about the $10,000 bet. a columnist with the register has penned a column saying not too many caucusgoers in iowa would ever place a $10,000 bet, even if it was a sure thing. we asked americans a couple of days from now, they likely won't even remember which issue this was about but they will remember the $10,000 figure. >> let me bring in matthew dowd. political analyst. he's seen both sides of the aisle. >> to me, these debates are always big monments. this was the last big moment that we have going into christmas and then going into the caucuses on january 3rd. when you look at these big

moments, you always look at the movement coming in of the candidates. what i think happened tonight is mitt romney had to stop some bleeding. i don't think he did that. so the movement for mitt romney is going to continue i think not going in the direction he wants. i think newt gingrich in the movement is going to solidify his support. so that's a good thing for hip because he has a double digit lead here in iowa. i think michele bachmann is going to come out of this debate with a little bit of lift. i think her attack on romney and gingrich will stick a little. i think this is the first debate since the ames straw vote in august where she's had a great debate. i think she'll be helped by this debate. it's going to come out newt gingrich in the league. i don't think mitt romney helped himself. >> that newt/romney line did seem to take off online. >> it absolutely did. look this was supposed to be a debate where newt gingrich was the one under the line of fire and instead it really is mitt romney who made most of the headlines and not all of them were very good.

obviously, the $10,000 bet being the top one here. i think if -- as we've seen throughout the course of this campaign, the fact is, these debates have shaped the course of the polls and the way that voters see these candidates. and bottom line, now we understand why newt gingrich is at the top of those polls. >> if i could bring in our political analyst. your take? >> i think we're going to come away from this debate with two words, consistent conservative. over the next following days we're going to hear michele bachmann and rick santorum and others continue to challenge mitt romney and newt gingrich to clarify their position on the individual mandate. two words, consistent conservative. >> donna, that clearly has been one of the big things. i want to bring in lesley sanchez, republican strategist, sitting next to you, do you really -- think they really made

some gains? >> i disagree. the reason is she harkens too many messages to cain. that is not a balloon you want to put out there. she had many opportunities to solidify her position, show a contrast. but she just kept moving the wrong message. i think it was very substantive in the sense of putting things on health care and the focus there. but she didn't do herself a service. >> and let me bring this back to you, it seems like most of the candidates were pretty ginger when they addressed that whole question of family and infidelity in their marriage. with the exception perhaps of governor perry who repeated twice i think -- i'm going to forget the exact line, but if someone breaks it with their wife, they might break it with a business partner as well. did that cut? >> yeah, it was an interesting moment. both governor perry directly saying if you're going to cheat on your spouse, you'll cheat on your business partner. or cheat in other ways.

and how could anybody trust you. rick santorum also saying that it should be considered. that it is an indication of how trustworthy you are. the other candidates backed off it. actually was a moment that was not bad for newt gingrich even though he was the elephant in the room as it were. he acknowledged having made mistakes in his past. he said it was an important and legitimate line of inquiry for the american people. and then he talked about how he was a grandfather and he basically said he hopes people will judge him by who he is now and not by the mistakes he's made in the past. he acknowledged the failing and forgiveness obviously a big theme in christianity and a big item with conservative evangelicals, many of whom we've spoke within here in iowa. have serious issues. of his personal life. i don't think he won them over. i think he at least made a sincere effort to acknowledge he made a mistake. >> we see david muir standing next to you. covering the romney campaign for

us. your perspective. >> i have to say, going into this debate, the story line was will mitt romney find a way to deliver some sort of knockout punch to stop this surge in the polls of newt gingrich? and we were talking here as a group that it seemed to be gingrich who delivered the first punch, talksing about a career politician, that romney would have been win had he won against kennedy in '84. there didn't seem to be any knockout punches at least directed at gingrich, which is what we expected tonight. >> i want to bring that to matthew dowd. i was a little surprised that first round where governor romney, at first did not want to draw any distinction with newt gingrich and as david muir pointed out, in that first exchange, consistent conservative, it was newt more on offense. >> that was the amazing thing. everybody predicted. even newt signaled he was going

to deflect the attacks and not engage on them. there was not a single attack tonight that he did not not engage on. every single one. right up front. that line, you would have been a career politician but to the fact you lost to ted kennedy, reminded me of the line benson used against quayle, he sort of turned the whole line on its head and used another line. to me the conventional wisdom had said ten days ago mitt romney was the likely nominee. i think coming out of this debate and going into it i think the conventional wisdom is going to be that newt gingrich has become more of the inevitable nominee. i think this debate tonight really helps on that. i think he stood strong in all the priors he got. romney i think didn't look as good. i think right now gingrich is the guy that everybody knows has to be beat. >> that's why i wonder. romney at one point talked about sobriety and civility. that was what they talked about earlier this week. we've see if he pushes that further in the days ahead.

>> weigh in, all of you watching on yahoo.com and also on abcnews.com, real-time conversation going on out there. you and i will be back in the morning. >> full wrap-up tomorrow morning. we'll see you then. >> we thank you.