i'm contessa brewer. that's it for this edition of "caught on camera." this sunday a special edition of "meet the press" live from new hampshire. we come to the granite state where one in five remains undecided despite seeing these candidates face-to-face in town halls, coffee shops. a big impact on the race. their motto, live free or die. which of these candidates is

best suited to take on president obama? this morning a debate in partnership with facebook, the world's number one social platform and the "new hampshire union leader." the candidates, the issues, and your questions. here now the moderator of "meet the press," david gregory. and good morning and welcome to this special edition of "meet the press." the final debate before new hampshire voting begins. all six candidates are here, and before we begin, you know the drill, we quickly go through the rules. each candidate will have one minute, 60 seconds, to make their statement, to respond to questions, and at my discretion, 30 seconds for follow-ups or rebuttals. we're on a pretty tight schedule, so i will ask the candidates to stay within their allotted time, and we'll see how that goes. we've partnered with facebook,

so some of the questions will come from me, and some, of course, will come from you. we encourage you to weigh in on the debate in realtime. our online app at mtp.msnbc.com. you can monitor the conversation there, and we'll see some of your feedback during that debate over the course of this debate. candidates, good morning. >> good morning. >> i just want to say on behalf of all americans that i thank you for being willing to debate each other, every ten hours, whether you feel you need it or not. this is an important moment. elections are about choices. they're about distinguishing one from the other. there is a political element to that, and, of course, it has to do with policy as well. governor romney has won the iowa caucuses. although narrowly. he's up in the polls here in new hampshire. he's also up in the polls down in south carolina. speaker gingrich, why shouldn't governor romney be the nominee of this party? what about his record concerns

you most or makes him disqualified to be the nominee? >> well, i think what republicans have to ask is who's most likely in the long run to survive against the kind of billion-dollar campaign the obama team is going to run. and i think that a bold reagan conservative with a very strong economic plan is a lot more likely to succeed in that campaign than a relatively timid massachusetts moderate who even "the wall street journal" said had an economic plan so timid it resembled obama's. so i think you've got to look at massachusetts was fourth from the bottom in job creation under governor romney. we created 11 million jobs while i was speaker, and i worked with president reagan in the entire recovery of the 1980s. i just think there's a huge difference between a reagan conservative and somebody who comes out of the massachusetts culture with an essentially moderate record who i think will have a very hard time in a debate with president obama. >> speaker gingrich, bottom line you believe that governor romney is unelectable.

>> i don't believe he's unelectable. look, i think against obama's record, i think, you know, the fact is possible going to have a very hard re-election effort. but i do think the bigger the contrast, the bolder ideas, the clearer the choice, the harder it is for that billion dollar campaign to smear his way back into office. >> because this is your flyer that you're circulating here in new hampshire, it says very clearly romney is not electable. >> i think he'll have a very hard time getting elected. >> governor? >> david, i'm very proud of the record that i have. and i think the one thing you can't fool the people about new hampshire about is the record of a governor next door. and people have watched me over my term as governor and saw that i was a solid conservative and that i brought important change to massachusetts. they recognized that i cut taxes 19 times. balanced the budget every one of the four years i was governor. put in place a $2 billion fund by the time i'd gone. we'd seen job losses in the months leading up to my becoming the governor, and then we began to finally create jobs.

by the way, we created more jobs in massachusetts than barack obama's created in the entire country. we also got our state police to enforce illegal immigration laws. put in place english immersion in our schools. i'm very proud of the conservative record i have, and i think that's why some of the leading conservatives in today's world who are fighting the conservative battles of today that don't have any ax to grind have gotten behind my campaign. governor nikki haley of south carolina. governor chris christie of new jersey. right here, the great senator of new hampshire, kelly ayotte conservatives who looked at my record, looked at my plan to get this economy going. i happen to believe if we want to replace a lifetime politician like barack obama who had no experience leading anything, you have to choose someone who has not been a lifelong politician, who has not spent his entire career in washington, and instead has proven time and again he can lead in the private sector twice, in the olympics, and as a governor. we've got to nominate a leader if we're going to replace someone who is not a leader.

>> senator santorum if you had not lost election in 2006 you would be in washington longer than you were. it would have been 21 years, so you've got a long washington record. how do you address this question? why shouldn't governor romney be the nominee? what is disqualifying in your judgment? >> well, if his record was so great as governor of massachusetts, why didn't he run for re-election? if he didn't want to even stand before the people of massachusetts and run on your record, it was that great, why did you bail out? i mean, the bottom line is, you know, i go and fight the fight. if it was that important to the people of massachusetts that you were going to go and fight for them, at least you could stand up and make the battle that you did a good job. i did that. i ran for re-election a couple of times and i won a couple of times. and in a 71% democratic district. when i ran for re-election, i was redistricted. i was in a 71% democratic district. i had a 90% voting record. it was a hard thing to do. my district is more democratic than the state of massachusetts.

it was the steel valley of pittsburgh and i stood up and fought for the conservative principles. i didn't do what governor romney did in 1994. i was running the same year he ran in 1994. i ran in the tough state of pennsylvania against an incumbent. governor romney lost by almost 20 points. why? because at the end of that campaign, he wouldn't stand up for conservative principles. he ran for ronald reagan, and he said he was going to be to the left when it comes to gay rights, abortion, a whole host of other issues. we want someone when the time gets tough, and it will in this election, we want someone who is going to stand up and fight for the conservative principles, not bail out and not run and not run to the left of ted kennedy. >> but you did say when you endorsed him four years ago, just those words, that he would stand up for conservative principles, senator. >> vis-a-vis john mccain. >> governor? your response? >> well, a lot of things were inaccurate. i'm not going to go through them one by one. but i can tell you this. but i think it's unusual and perhaps understandable that people who spend their life in politics imagine that if you get in politics, that that's all you want to do. that if you've been elected to something, you want to get re-elected and re-elected. i went to massachusetts to make

a difference. i didn't go there to begin a political career, running time and time again. i made a difference, i put in place the things i wanted to do, i listed out the accomplishments we wanted to pursue in our administration. there were 100 things we wanted to do. those things i pursued aggressively. some we won, some we didn't. run again? that would be about me. i was trying to help get the state in the best shape as i possibly could. left the world of politics, went back into business. now i have the opportunity, i believe, to use the experience i have -- you've got a surprised look on your face. wait. it's still my time. >> are you going to tell people you're not going to run for re-election for president if you win? >> rick? rick? >> it's still my time. >> i'm just asking. >> okay. well -- >> go ahead, governor romney. take 30 seconds there. >> what i'm going to tell you is, this, for me, politics is not a career. for me, my career was being in business and starting a business and making it successful. my life's passion has been my family, my faith, and my country.

i believe by virtue of the experiences i've had that i'm in a good position to make a contribution to washington. i long for a day where instead of having people go to washington for 20 and 30 years, who get elected and then when they lose office they stay there and make money as lobbyists or connected to businesses. i think it stinks. i think we ought to have people go to washington and serve washington and serve as -- as the people of their -- of their nation, and go home. i'd like to see term limits in washington. >> no -- >> as the president of the united states, as the president of the united states, if i'm elected, of course, i'll fight for a second term. >> speaker gingrich? >> there's a lot of work to be done. >> take 30 seconds here. >> i realize the red light doesn't mean anything to you because you're the front-runner. but -- but can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney? the fact is you ran in '94 and lost. that's why you weren't serving with rick santorum. the fact is you had a very bad re-election rating. you dropped out of office. you'd been out of state for

something like 200 days preparing to run for president. you didn't have the interlude of citizenship while you thought about what to do. you were running for president while you were governor. you were going all over the country. you were out of state consistently. you promptly re-entered politics. you happened to lose to mccain. as you had lost to kennedy. now you're back running. you've been running consistently for years and years and years. so this idea that suddenly citizenship showed up in your mind, just level with the american people. you've been running since at least the 1990s. >> governor, please. >> mr. speaker, citizenship has always been on my mind. and i happened to see my dad run for governor when he was 54 years old. he had good advice to me. he said, mitt, never get involved in politics. if you have to win election to pay a mortgage. if you find yourself in a position when you can serve, why you ought to have a responsibility to do so, if you think you can make a difference. he said also, don't get involved in politics if your kids are still young because it may turn their heads.

i never thought i'd get involved in politics. when i saw ted kennedy running virtually unopposed in 1994, a man who i thought by virtue of the policies of the liberal welfare state had created a permanent underclass in america, i said someone's got to run against him. and i happened to have been wise enough to realize i didn't have a ghost of a chance to beat him. this guy from massachusetts -- republican from massachusetts was not going to beat ted kennedy, and i told my partners in my firm, i'll be back in six months, don't take my chair. and i went in and gave it a real battle and went off it. i was happy that he had to take a mortgage out on his house to ultimately defeat me. and i'm -- i'm very proud of the fact that i have stood up, as a citizen, to battle what i felt it was best for the nation. and we're talking about running for president. i'm in this race because i care about the country. i believe my background and experience -- >> all right. let me bring dr. paul into this because there's a question about who is the true conservative in the race. and governor romney said only nine years ago, during an interview with new england cable

news, he said the following, i think people recognize that i'm not a partisan republican, that i'm someone who is moderate and my views are progressive. do you believe governor romney now when he says that he is a man of constancy and that he'll stand up for conservative principles? >> you know, i think this whole discussion so far has been very superficial. and i think the question in a way that you ask is superficial in you're talking about character, which is very important, but i think we should deal with the issues as well. i don't see how we can do well against obama if we have any candidate that, you know, endorsed, you know, single-payer systems and t.a.r.p. bailouts and don't challenge the federal reserve's $15 trillion of injection bailing out their friends. i don't see how we can have anybody really compete with obama who doesn't challenge this huge empire we have overseas, and the overseas spending. i mean, this is how nations come down. is they extend themselves too far overseas. that's how the soviets came

down. we really have to talk about real cuts. and we haven't gotten around to this yet. so if we want to change things, this is what we have to talk about. character is important and motivation is important, our history is important. but i really consider that in the debate format to be less significant than what we really believe in. >> you read my mind, dr. paul. and we're going to get to some of the tough choices not just on politics but on policy. first, governor perry, i do want to ask you flat out, your stake in your campaign going down to south carolina, is governor romney unelectable in your judgment? >> well, i think you have to ask the question of who is it that can beat obama? who is it that can invigorate the tea party? who is it that can take the message of smaller outsider government that's truly going to change places? as i look from here down to rick santorum, i see insiders. individuals who have been the big spending republicans in washington, d.c., and let's be honest with ourselves. i mean the fact of the matter is that obama has thrown gasoline on the fire, but the bonfire was

burning well before obama got there. it was policies and spending both from wall street and from the insiders in washington, d.c., that got us in this problem. and we need a candidate that cannot only draw that stark contrast between themselves, and barack obama, but also stand up and lead the tea party movement back. 2010 was about the tea party standing up and understanding that republicans, big spending republicans had caused as much of this problem as anything, and it was their power that brought together -- that brought washington, d.c., and the house to republican control, and that's the kind of individual that we've got to have to lead this election. >> before i get to governor huntsman, i'd be remiss, governor romney, if i didn't allow you to respond to the quote i read from you nine years ago. what would you say to conservatives so that they will trust that you will stand up for conservative principles? >> they've got my record as governor. that's the great thing of the people here in new hampshire.

they see what i did as governor of massachusetts. i also had occasion after my last failed attempt to run for president, a learning experience, to sit down and write a book. and i wrote a book and described my view for the country. and people can describe it in differing ways. but my view is that principles that i've learned in business and the principles as governor, frankly, made me more conservative as time has gone on. i've seen a lot of government trying to solve problems and it didn't work. my view is the right course for america is to have someone who understands how the economy works, who will passionately get america back on track. >> all right. we're going to come back to obstacles for the nomination, but let me get to policy, governor huntsman. this is by all accounts an age of austerity for the country. a jobs crisis, also a spending crisis in washington. i wonder what specifically you would do to say to americans, these are cuts i'm going to make in federal spending, that will cause pain, that will require sacrifice? >> let me say first of all, with

respect to governor romney, you know, there are a lot of people who are tuning in this morning, and i'm sure they're terribly confused after watching all of this political spin up here. i was criticized last night by governor romney for putting my country first. and i just want to remind the people here in new hampshire and throughout the united states that i think -- [ applause ] he criticized me while he was out raising money, for serving my country in china, yes, under a democrat. like my two sons are doing in the united states navy. they're not asking what political affiliation the president is. i want to be very clear with the people here in new hampshire and this country. i will always put my country first, and i think that's important. >> all right. well, why don't you give a response, governor romney, and then i'll come back on the austerity question. >> i think we serve our country first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles and do everything in our power to promote an agenda that does not include president obama's agenda.

i think the decision to go and work for president obama is one which you took. i don't disrespect your decision to do that. i just think it most likely that the person who should represent our party running against president obama is not someone who called him a remarkable leader and went to be his ambassador in china. >> this nation is divided, david, because of attitudes like that. [ applause ] the american people are tired of the partisan division. they have had enough. there is no trust left among the american people in the institutions of power and among the american people and our elected officials. and i say we've had enough, and we have to change our direction in terms of coming together as americans, first and foremost -- >> dr. paul said let's not be superficial, let's talk substance. so, governor huntsman, name three areas where americans will feel real pain in order to balance the budget. >> well, i would have to say that i agree with the ryan plan. i think i'm the only one standing up here who has

embraced the ryan plan. it's a very aggressive approach to taking about 6.2 -- $6.2 trillion out of the budget over ten years. and it looks at everything. and what i like about it is it says there will be no sacred cows. department of defense won't be a sacred cow. as president of the united states, i'm going to stand up, and i'm going to say, we are where we are, 24% spending, percentage of gdp. we've got to move to 19%. >> three programs that will make americans feel pain, sir. >> well, let me just say on entitlements, across the board, i will tell the upper income category in this country that there will be means testing. there are a lot of people in this nation -- >> social security and medicare? >> absolutely. absolutely. and also, i'm not going to tie department of defense spending to some percentage of gdp. i'm going to tie it to a strategy that protects the american people. and if we think that we can't find efficiencies and cuts in the department of defense budget, then we are crazy. >> senator santorum, same question.

three programs that would have to be cut to make americans feel pain, to sacrifice if we're going to balance the budget. >> i would agree with governor huntsman on means testing. i talked about that yesterday. we had about 1,200 people there, and i talked about how we have to make sure that we're not going to burden future generations with a social security program that's underfunded. it's underfunded right now. we have to take those who have been successful, who are seniors, who have tremendous amount of wealth and we've got to reduce benefits. it makes no sense for folks who are struggling right now to pay their payroll taxes, the biggest tax, tax on labor, makes us uncompetitive, and the idea that someone has to raise those taxes to make labor even more uncompetitive for those people to subsidize high income seniors doesn't make any sense to me. food stamps is another place. you've got block grants to send it back to the states just like i did on welfare reform. the same thing with medicaid. those three programs, including housing programs, block grant them, send them back to the states, require work, and put a time limit. you do those three things, we'll help take these three programs,

which are now dependency programs which people are continually dependent upon, and you take them into transitional programs to help people move out of poverty. speaker gingrich, on the issue of medicare, when you were on "meet the press earlier in the year, you had talked about what paul lang was talking about as a step too far, which is moving seniors on to a premium support or voucher program, depending on how you phrase it. as you know, senator santorum thinks that current seniors should be moved of that program into premium support or a voucher program. do you agree with doing it that quickly and making current seniors bear the brunt of that? >> well, the fact is that the ryan lighten bill, which was just introduced recently, actually incorporates allowing people to choose and allows them to stay in traditional medicare with the premium support model or go to new methods. and i think it's a substantial improvement. it allows for a transition in medicare, in a way that makes sense. but, david, you know, i find it fascinating that very, very highly paid washington

commentators, and washington analysts, love the idea of pain. who's going to be in pain? the duty of the president is to find a way to manage the federal government so the primary pain is on changing the bureaucracy. on theft alone we could save $100 billion a year in medicaid and medicare if the federal government were competent. that's $1 trillion over ten years, and the only people in pain would be crooks. so i think a sound approach is to absolutely improve the government, not punish the american people because of the failure of the political class to have any sense of cleverness. >> governor perry, from facebook, a lot of questions as we mentioned have been submitted. this is from martin montalvo, because we do have extended crisis, but a lot of people are hurting, with more americans on government assistance than ever before, is it un-american for americans to feel relieved when the government helps them? >> well, let me answer the question that you asked earlier, what are the three areas that you would make some reductions that people would feel some pain and i would tell you it would be

those bureaucrats at the department of commerce, and energy, and education that we're going to do away with. [ applause ] >> and that's your final answer? >> you know, the fact of the matter is that americans want to have a job. that's the issue here. and the idea that there are people clamoring for government to come and to give them assistance is just wrong-headed, and that's what we need to be focusing on as a people is how do we create an environment in this country where the entrepreneurs know that they can risk their capital, have a chance to have a return on investment and create the jobs out there so that people can have the dignity to take care of their families. that's what americans are looking for. i've done that for the last 11 years in the state of texas and have the executive governing experience that no one else up here on this stage has. >> all right. i'm going to leave it there. we're going to take a quick break. we're going to come back live from new hampshire with many more questions for the

candidates and feedback from you. so please participate online at mtp.msnbc.com. we're coming right back to new hampshire. [ male announcer ] is zero worth nothing? ♪ imagine zero pollutants in our environment. or zero dependency on foreign oil. ♪ this is why we at nissan built a car inspired by zero. because zero is worth everything. the zero gas, 100% electric nissan leaf. innovation for the planet. innovation for all.

the two trains and a bus rider. the "i'll sleep when it's done" academic. for 80 years, we've been inspired by you. and we've been honored to walk with you to help you get where you want to be.

♪ because your moment is now. let nothing stand in your way. learn more at keller.edu. aflac... and major medical? major medical, boyyyy! [ beatboxing ] ♪ i help pay the doctor ♪ ain't that enough for you? ♪ there are things major medical doesn't do. aflac! pays cash so we don't have to fret. [ together ] ♪ something families should get ♪ ♪ like a safety net ♪ even helps pay deductibles, so cover your back, get... ♪ a-a-a-a-a-a-a-aflac! [ male announcer ] help protect your family at aflac.com. [ beatboxing ]

and we are back on this special edition of "meet the press" from here in new hampshire.

we want to get right back to the questions here with our candidates. and before the break we were talking about medicare. paul ryan, senator santorum, had a plan where he'd like to move seniors off, give them a voucher or premium support, and then they would take care of their health care from there. there's a lot of debate about that. and i mentioned, you said seniors should be affected right now, 55-plus, have them affected right now, which has been somewhat controversial. you want to respond to that. >> well, you know, i hear this all the time. i've been campaigning around the state. you know, we should have the same kind of health care that members of congress have. well, that's pretty much what ryan's plan is. the members of congress have a premium support model. so does every other federal employee. i mean it works very well. as you know, the federal government has a liability, they put money out there, and then if you want, you have about this thick if you're an employee in washington, d.c., a whole bunch of different plans to choose from, and you have all sorts of options available to you. if you want more expensive plans, you pay more of a co-insurance. if you want a less expensive

plan, you don't. but here's the fundamental difference between barack obama and everybody up here. it's whether you believe people can be free to make choices or whether you have to make decisions for them. and i believe seniors just like every other american should be free to make the choices in their health care plan that's best for them. >> governor romney, there's a lot of discussion, a lot of discussion this morning on facebook about taxes. and as we talk about taxes, and spending, of course, we talk about economic security and economic growth. there's been a debate in washington and beyond, as you well know, between warren buffett and grover norquist. grover norquist, the anti-tax crusader says no tax increases under any circumstances. warren buffett says, hey, the wealthier in this country can pay more and they should pay more. indeed, balancing the budget is a way for more economic growth down the line. who knows more about the american economy? grover norquist or warren buffett? >> well, who knows more about tax policy? i'm not sure we're going to choose from the two of them. but i can tell you this the right course for america is not to raise taxes on americans. i understand that president

obama and people of his political persuasion would like to take more money from the american people. and they want to do that so they can continue to grow government. but the answer for america is not to grow government. it is to shrink government. we've been going over the last 20, 30, 40 years, government keeps growing at a faster rate relative to inflation. we've got to stop the extraordinary spending in this country. that's why i put out a plan that reduces government spending, i cut -- i cut programs, a whole series of programs, by the way the number one cut is obama care. that saves $95 billion a year. just as rick indicated, return to states a whole series of programs, food stamps, housing vouchers, medicaid, and then set how much goes to them. and finally with regard to entitlement, in the entitlement area, i do not want to change medicare and social security for current retirees. but for younger people coming up, they have to recognize that in the future, higher income people will receive less payments than the premium support program. >> governor huntsman, who knows more about the american economy? you, in answer to that question,

you seemed to be a little bit uncomfortable with a moment from earlier in this debate cycle when everybody said they would reject even a 10:1 ratio of cuts to new taxes. >> it was a silly format. i mean, it was an important question, and they asked us to raise our hands. i mean for heaven's sake, we didn't get a chance to talk about it. i put a tax reform proposal on the table, endorsed by "the wall street journal," that goes farther than anybody else's on this stage. it calls for what absolutely needs to be done and everybody knows about it. we are so chuck full of loopholes and deductions. it weighs down our tax code to $1.1 trillion. you can't continue to compete that way. we've got to phase out loop holes and say so long to corporate welfare and to subsidies because this country can no longer afford it and we've got to prepare for competition in the 21st century. >> speaker gingrich, if you become president gingrich and the leader of the democrats, harry reid, says he is going to

promise to make you a one-term president, how would you propose to work with someone like that in order to achieve results in washington? >> i think every president who works with the leader of every opposition knows they're working with somebody who wants to make them a one-term president. i mean that's the american process. i worked with ronald reagan in the early 1980s. tip o'neill was speaker. he wanted to make reagan a one-term president. we had to get one-third of the democrats to vote for the reagan tax cuts, and we did. as speaker, i was negotiating with bill clinton. he knew i wanted him to be a one-term president. and we got a lot of things done, including welfare reform, because you have to reach out. i agree with what governor huntsman said earlier. you have to at some point say the country comes first, how are we going to get things done, we'll fight later, let's sit down in a room, let's talk it through, i'll tell you what i need, and i'll tell you what i can't do. you tell me what you need, and you tell me what you can't do. and it sometimes takes 20 or 30 days. but if people of good will, even

if they're partisans, come together, talk it out, you know, we got welfare reform. first tax cut in 16 years, 4.2% unemployment, and four straight years of a balanced budget with a republican speaker and a democratic president. so it can be done with real leadership. >> anybody else have a point of view about how you actually work with the other side when they've committed to working against you? governor? >> yeah. i mean i was governor of a state that had a slightly democratic leaning house and senate. my legislature was 85% democrat. and i went around at the very beginning of having been elected and met with the speaker of the house and the senate president. the senate president said something i won't forget. he said, mitt, the campaign is over, the people expect us to now govern for them. and we did. we met every week. we rotated in offices. we got to know each other personally. we developed a relationship of respect and rapport. even though we disagreed on a lot of issues.

and we had a severe budget crisis. i went to them and said, will you give me unilateral power to cut spending without even a vote in the legislature? they had enough confidence in me they decided to do that. i was able to cut the spending on an emergency basis, not just slow down its rate of growth. we can work together. republicans and democrats are able to go across the aisle because we have common -- we really do have areas of common interests. even though they're dramatically different perspectives on how the world works and what's right, we can find common ground. and i have proven in a state that is very democrat that i'm able to work with people, 19 tax cuts. protected charter schools. drove our schools to be number one in the nation. kept them there rather. that record could work with republicans and democrats who are willing to work together. >> dr. paul, there's this question of argument versus accomplishment. the question again comes from facebook. heath treat writes, i want -- paul treat, rather, i want to know what ron paul's plan of action will be to achieve getting the house and senate to help them do all he's promised. and here's the record, dr. paul.

you have actually sponsored 620 measures. only four made it to a vote on the house floor and only one has been signed into law. >> you know, that demonstrates how much out of touch the u.s. government and the u.s. congress is with the american people. because i'm supporting things that help the american people. that's the disgust that people have, because they keep growing government, whether it's republicans in charge or the democrats in charge. but as far as working with other groups i think my record is about as good as anybody's because i work on the principle that freedom and the constitution bring people together for different reasons. people use freedom in different ways, like it does. it invites different variations in our religious beliefs. economically. we tell people they're allowed to spend their money as they choose. on civil liberties, that's the difference they make. republicans, conservatives aren't all that well known for protecting privacy and personal liberties.

when it comes to this spending overseas, i can work a coalition. matter of fact, my trillion-dollar proposal to cut spending doesn't immediately deal with social security. it's to try to work our way out of social security. i'm cutting a trillion dollars by attacking overseas spending, and going back to '06 budgets, and i do not believe that you have to have pain. people who have gotten special privileges and bailouts from the government, they may get the pain, but the american people, they get their freedom back and get no income tax, they don't suffer anything. >> senator santorum, here's the reality. two previous presidents. president bush talked about being a uniter and not a divider. president obama talked about transforming washington, and it hasn't worked. washington is polarized. the country is polarized. and the american people are pretty sick of the fact that nothing gets done in washington. specifically how do you change that? >> well, let me first address congressman paul because the serious issue with congressman paul here is you're right, he's never really passed anything of any importance. and one of the reasons people

like congressman paul is his economic plan. he's never been able to accomplish any of that. he has no track record of being able to work together. he's been out there on the margins and has really been unsuccessful in working together with anybody to do anything. the problem is that what congressman paul can do as commander in chief is he can from day one do what he says he wants to do, which is pull all our troops back out of overseas, put them here in america, leave us in a -- in a situation where the world has now created huge amounts of vacuums all over the place, and have folks like china and iran and others like city straits of hormuz. as i said last night, we wouldn't have even have the fifth fleet there. the problem with congressman paul is all the things republicans like about him they can't accomplish and all the things they worry about he'll do day one. and that's the problem. so what we need to do is have someone who has a plan, and has experience to do all the things republicans and conservatives would like to do -- >> let me get dr. paul to respond. >> and then i'd like the

opportunity to get back to my answer. >> it's not exactly a simple task to repeal approximately 100 years of us sliding away from our republic, and still running a foreign policy of woodrow wilson, try and make the world safe for democracy. look, we have elections overseas and we don't even accept the elections. no, change in foreign policy is significant. but that's where a nation will come down if they keep doing this. we can't stay in 130 countries, get involved in nation building, we cannot have 900 bases overseas. we have to change policy. what about change in monetary policy? yes, we do. but we've had that for 100 years. and right now we're winning that battle. the american people now agree about 75% of the american people say we ought to audit the federal reserve, find out what they're doing and who are their friends that they're bailing out constantly. >> senator santorum, come back to this point. it's easy to say, boy, i'm going to change the culture in washington. hasn't worked for the past two presidents. >> well, it worked in my case. look at welfare reform.

a federal entitlement that i remember standing next to daniel patrick moynihan, ted kennedy, who were out there just talking about how this was going to be the end of civilization as we know it. there would be bread lines, the horrific consequences of removing federal income support from basically mothers with children. and we stood up and said, no, that creating dependency and creating that dependency upon federal dollars is more harmful than -- and not believing in people and their ability to work is more harmful, and so we stood up and fought, went out to the american public. bill clinton vetoed this bill twice. we had hard opposition, but i was able to work together, and paint a vision. we made compromises but not on our core principles. the core principles this was going to end the federal program, we were going to require work, we were going to put time limits on welfare. i stuck to those principles, and we were able to compromise on some things like transportation

funding, day care funding, all in order to get a consensus that poverty is not a disability and that programs that we need to put in place should help transition people, not make them dependent, and we were able to get 70 votes in the united states senate, including 17 democrats. >> governor huntsman, this question of, if the leader of the democrats promised to make you a one-term president, how would you go about dealing with them in a more effective way than you think the man you serve, president obama, did? >> i think it comes down to one word, david, and i think the one word is trust. when the american people look at the political process play out, they hear all the spinning, and all the doctrinaire language and they still walk away with the belief that they're not being represented in congress. that there's no trust in the executive branch and the simpson/bowles bipartisan proposal lands right on the desk of barack obama and it lands in the garbage can. the first press conference i had when i ran for governor in 2004 was on ethics in government

service. i talked about term limits. i talked about campaign finance reform. i talked about the role of lobbyists and knew i wouldn't make a lot of friends. i have one member of the legislature who supported me in that run. we won because we had the will of the people. and i believe the next president, if that is to be me, i want to roam around this country, and i want to generate the level of excitement and enthusiasm that i know exists among the american people to bring term limits to congress. to close the revolving doors on members going right on out and becoming lobbyists. we've got to start with a structural problem. there is no trust. >> all right. governor perry, i want to continue on the theme of leadership. >> we need to. >> this is -- as you well know, new hampshire is an independent place. and i wonder where, besides criticizing the previous administration for running up the debt, i wonder where you would buck your party.

what would you say or do to make republicans uncomfortable? >> i hope i'm making republicans uncomfortable right now by talking about the spending that they've done back in the 2000s when we had control of both parties. >> but aside from that. >> listen. dr. paul says the biggest problem facing this country is our work overseas. i disagree with that. the biggest problem facing this country today is a congress that is out of control with their spending. and we've got to have someone, an outsider, that will walk in, not part of the insider group that you see here, people who have voted for raising the debt limit, people who have been part of the problem that is facing america. i will tell you two things that can occur. that a president can lead the charge on. and it will put term limits into place. one of those is a part-time congress to tell those members of congress, we're going to cut your pay, we're going to cut the amount of time that you spend in washington, d.c., send you back to your district so you can have a job like everybody else in

your district has, and live under the laws of which you pass, and then a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. you do those two things -- >> but my question -- >> and that will make them uncomfortable. >> you think telling conservatives a balanced budget amendment is something i'm going to do and i'm going to cut spending. that's going to make them uncomfortable? >> you're darn right. because there's a bunch of people standing up here who say they're conservatives but their records don't follow up on that. >> i've got to take another break here. we'll come back on this point. we'll return with much more, and of course please share your thoughts with us online via facebook at mtp.msnbc.com.

the nbc news/facebook debate continues with the partnership of "the new hampshire union leader." and we are back in new hampshire. i'm happy to be joined now by our local partners for the debate from the "new hampshire union leader," political reporter is with us. good to have you here, john, and from whdh-tv in boston, channel 7 in boston, political editor andy pillar. welcome to you, as well. glad to have you both. john, get us start >> governor huntsman, it's ed. winter in new hampshire. a little mild, but it's still winter. home heating oil is nearly $4 a gallon. yet president obama and congress have cut by 25% the program that helps low-income people heat their homes. about 1 million households that were helped last year won't be

helped this year. is this an example of pain that people should suffer, should this funding be restored? should it be cut more? should this program be eliminated perhaps? where does this fit in? this is a practical problem in this area of the country. >> no. we have people in need. we have people suffering. and this is a challenge that we need to address. but i believe we're not going to be able to effectively confront it head on until such time as this nation begins to move more toward greater energy diversity and energy independence. one of the first things i would do as president is i would take a look at that one product distribution bias that always favors one product, and that's oil. and i'd say, if we're going to do with this nation what needs to be done in terms of using a multiplicity of products that we have in such diversity and abundance and get them to the customers, we're going to have to break up that one product distribution monopoly. and i want to do to that oil distribution monopoly what we did to broadcast communication in the early 1970s. we blew it apart.

we wept to the federal trade commission and said we need more. we need diverse sources to draw from. we need to service the consumers. i believe if we're going to do what needs to be done from an energy independent standpoint, all products, getting the products to the customer, we've got to disrupt that one product monopoly that does not serve this country well, nor its consumers. >> congressman paul, how do you feel about -- [ applause ] how do you feel about subsidies in general for specific energy and also more specifically right now, more immediately, low-income program, heating assistance program? is this something that fits in under your view of what government does do or should not do? >> well, subsidies, per se, it's bad economic policy, it's bad moral policy, because it's using government force to transfer money from one group to another. and economically it does a lot of harm. but when it comes to energy, we should, you know, deregulate

like others talk about. but we need to talk, you know, supply and demand, everybody knows about supply and demand. they talk about oil. if we had more alternative sources we always hope the price will go down. but everybody forgets that there's another 50% of a transaction is the monetary unit. and you don't deal -- very few people talk about the supply and demand of money. and when you create a lot of money, prices go up. so it goes up in the areas where government most gets involved. you know, in education, in medical care, housing. and in energy. so prices go up much faster than any other place, so if you subsidize somebody and you print money to do it, you compound the problem. it's good politics. yeah, i'm going to subsidize you and take care of you, but it's bad economic policy, and it's not a good way to find any answers. >> governor romney, this is such an important topic, because beyond the regional implication, there's also a larger question about the social safety net. you talk all the time about opportunity for americans. what about americans left behind?

in this age of austerity, what do americans have to learn to live with less of? >> well, what we don't need is to have a federal government saying we're going to solve all the problems of poverty across the entire country. because what it means to be poor in massachusetts is different than montana, mississippi, other places of the country. and that's why these programs, all of these federal programs that are bundled to help people and make sure we have a safety net need to be brought together and sent back to the states. and let states that are closest to the needs of their own people craft the programs that are best able to deal with the needs of those folks. so whether it's food stamps and housing vouchers, they're certainly on the list. but certainly medicaid. home heating oil support. what unfortunately happens is with all the multiplicity of federal programs, you have massive overhead, with government bureaucrats in washington, administering all these programs, very little of the money that's actually needed by those that really need help, those that can't care for themselves actually reaches them.

these -- the government -- folks in washington keep building program after program, it's time to say, enough of that, let's get the money back to the states the way the constitution intended and let states care for their own people in the way ther their own people in the way they feel best. >> andy. >> governor romney, i'd like to remind you of something you said in "bay windows," which is a guy paper in massachusetts in 1994 whenl you were running against senator kennedy. these are your words. i think the gay community needs more support from the republican party, and i would be a voice in the republican party to foster anti-discrimination efforts. how have you stood up for gay rights, and when have you used your voice to influence republicans on this issue? >> andy, as you know, i don't discriminate, and the appointments that i made was governor of massachusetts, a member of my cabinet was gay. i appointed people to the bench

regardless of their sexual orientation. we should not discriminate in hiring policies and legal policies. at the same time from 1994 i said to the gay community i do not favor same-sex marian. i oppose same-sex marriage and that has been my view. but if people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try to suggest that people that have different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that in me. >> when's the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights? >> right now. [ applause ] senator santorum, would you be a voice for increasing gay rights in the party? >> i'm surprised it's coming to me. what? what was your question? >> would you be a voice for speaking out for gay rights in your party, and if not, why not? >> i would be a voice in

speaking out for making sure that every person in america, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the quality of opportunity. that does not mean that i would agree with certain things that the gay community would like to do to change laws with respect to marriage, with respect to adoption and things like that. so you can be respectful -- this is the beautiful thing about this country. james madison called the first amendment. he called it the perfect remedy, and that is people of all different background, diversity, opinions, faith, can come into the public square and can be heard and can be heard in way that's respectful of everybody else, but just because you don't agree with someone's desire to change the law doesn't mean you don't like them or you hate them or you want to discriminate against them, but you're trying to promote things that you think are best for society, and i do so, and i think if you watch the town hall meetings that i've been doing all over new hampshire, i do so in a respectful tone. i listen to the other side, i

listen to their arguments and we do so in a very respektsful way. you know what? we may not agree. that's why we leave it open to the members of the congress and the senate to support their ideas. >> what if you had a son who came up to you and say he was gay? >> i would love him as much as i did the second before he said it and i would try to do everything i can to be as good a father to him as possible. >> governor perry, we're going to move on. right-to-work continues to be a major issue in the state of new hampshire. you've spoken about promoting, having states pass state laws. what about on the federal level? do you see this as a federal issue and one that you would promote it as president? >> it is a federal issue. jim demint's legislation, i

would support that of repealing that legislation that forces states to make that decision to be a right-to-work rather than all of this country being right-to-work. listen, i'm not anti-union. i'm pro job. and the way you promote this kun tree's rehabilitation from the obama administration's attack on job creation is by taxes and regulation, particularly the regulatory side, and pulling those regulations that have gone forward in the last since '08 and test them. do they create or kill jobs? if they kill jobs, you throw them out. that will make more of a difference. i'm a right-to-work guy. i'm from a right-to-work state. if new hampshire wants to become the job crater in the northeast, you pass that legislation in this state. >> i'd like to ask both governor romney quickly and senator santorum quickly what possible

contributions do labor unions provide at this point in 2 -- the 21st century. >> let me just say this with regards to unions. i agree with governor perry. right-to-work legislation makes a lot of set for hnew hampshire and for the nation. but also let's not forget the government unions and the impact they're having. if we're going to finally pull back the extraordinary political power government unions are exerting in this country, we oar going to have to say that people who work for the government, government workers, should have their compensation tied to that which exists in the private sector. people who are government servant, public servants, should not be paid more than the taxpayers. >> very quickly, because we're about to hit a hard break. a quick comment on this? >> yes, i will. i signed a pledge for right to work. i didn't vote for it because pennsylvania is not a

right-to-work state and i didn't want to vote for a law that would change the law in pennsylvania. number two, they can do training. i've worked with a lot of labor unions in philadelphia and other places to do a lot of community involvement work and they try to participate as good members of a business. >> i've got to cut yu off. i apologize. we have mandatory break. we'll be back with more questions in just a moment. back then he had something more important to do. he wasn't focused on his future. but fortunately, somebody else was. at usaa we provide retirement planning for our military, veterans and their families. now more than ever, it's important to get financial advice from people who share your military values. for our free usaa retirement guide, call 877-242-usaa. you walk into a conventional mattress store, it's really not about you. they say, "well, if you want a firm bed you can lie on one of those. we provide the exact individualization that your body needs.

it's really shaping to my body. once they get our bed, they're like, "why didn't i do this sooner?" during the final days of our year-end closeout event, save up to $800 on selected 2011 bed sets. plus, free shipping on all beds. only at the sleep number store, where queen bed sets now start at just $899.

we have come to the end of our first hour of this nbc news/facebook debate here in new hampshire. a few nbc stations may be leaving us now. for most of you and everyone watching live on msnbc, and online, please stay tuned.