and we are back to our final half hour. so much discussion, speaker gingrich, on facebook, in the course of this debate about jobs. and you canunder stand why. and we talked about spending. we talked about economic growth. it was governor romney who made the point to a young person who approached him that if he were president, and when this person got out of college, he or she would have a job. if president obama has a second term, he or she will not have a job. isn't that the kind of thing that makes people angry with politicians, answers like that? >> well, i don't think that's an easy answer. it's a statement of fact.

you know. but let me take -- let me go back, it's exactly the same question. the long-term answer to $4 heating oil is to open up offshore development of oil and gas, open up federal lines to oil and gas, flood the market as dr. paul said, make supply and demand work for us, not against us. the price will come down. under obama 2011 was the highest price of gasoline in history. it is a direct result of his policies, which kill jobs, raise the price of heating oil and gasoline, weaken the united states, increase our dependence on foreign countries, and weaken our national security in the face of iran trying to close the straits of hormuz. so the right president opening up in a reagan tradition and using massive development of american energy was 3.2% unemployment in north dakota. there's a hint here. you can actually have jobs, lower price heating oil, which by the way means less spending

so you get more revenue for federal government from loyalties, less spending on subsidy, people are happier all the way around. that's what supply side economics was originally all about in the 1970s. >> governor romney, on those economic questions you blame president obama for the jobs crisis but when you look at the data and a positive trend line he still only gets the blame and none of the credit. how come. >> actually i don't blame him for the recession and the decline. what i blame him for is having it go on so long and going so deep and having a recovery that's been so tepid. businesses i talk to all over the country that would normally be hiring people are not hiring. and i asked them why. and they say because they look at the policies of this administration and they feel they're under attack. when you have an administration that tries to raise taxes and has on businesses, when it puts in place obama care that's going to raise the cost of health care for businesses, when they stack the national labor relations board with labor stooges, which means that the policies relating to labor are now going to change dramatically in a direction they find uncomfortable, when you

have obama care that places more mandates on them, when you have dodd-frank which makes it harder for community banks to make loans, all these things collectively create a reality of a president who has been anti-investment, anti-jobs, anti-business, and people feel that. and if you want to get this country going again, you have to recognize that the role of government, not just to catch the bad guys, important as that is, it's also to encourage the good guys. >> all right. >> and to return america to a land of opportunity. >> back to john and andy. john, go ahead. >> governor romney, i'm going to stay with you for one moment here talking about regulations. one of your prime new hampshire supporters, senator kelly ayotte has said, quote, new hampshire should not be the tail pipe for pollutants from out-of-state power plants. many senate republicans attack an epa rule limits air pollution that affects downwind states but she and others, including scott brown, joined with the president and senate democrats to block a repeal effort.

now, is this an example that's cross-state air pollution rule of fair regulation? something that we in the northeast are very concerned about in terms of pollution? or is this overregulation, job killing overregulation? >> well, i'm not familiar with the specific regulation as it applies to new hampshire. but i do believe that we have a responsibility to keep the air clean, and we have to kind ways to assure that we don't have the pollution of one state overwhelming the ability of another state to have clean air. i know in my state of massachusetts, we received a lot of air from the rest of the country. obviously given the winds coming from the west of the country to the east, and so the responsibility in our state, was to get the emissions from our power plants down. that's one of the reasons why we moved to natural gas. and really, by the way, a discussion about energy and security, getting the cost of gasoline down, the big opportunity here is not just a new oil distribution system but it's natural gas. we have massive new natural gas

reserves that have been found in pennsylvania, in north dakota, south dakota, texas, natural gas cheap. a fraction of the cost for btu of oil. if we want to help people in new england have not only homes and businesses that emit less pollutants into the air, and therefore would have cleaner air, and also have lower cost of energy, let's build out this natural gas system so that we can take advantage of that new, enormous source of american economic strength. >> speaker gingrich what exactly is an environmental solutions agency. i think a lot of people might not know or understand that why you want to expand the epa, and set up something that kind of looks like the epa? >> if you look at the epa's record, it is increasingly radical. it's increasingly imperieist. it doesn't cooperate, doesn't collaborate and doesn't take into account economics. they went down to find out what it was being cited for and they told them, frankly, we don't know, we can't find the records

that led to this citation and we're not exactly sure the reference but it must be bad or we wouldn't have sent it out. in iowa they had a dust regulation under way because they control particulate matter. i do agree on clean air. but dust in iowa is an absurdity. and they were worried that the plowing of a corn field would leave dust to go to another farmer's corn field. and they were planning to issue a regulation. in arizona they went in on the dust regulation and suggested to them that maybe if they watered down the earth they wouldn't have these dust storms in the middle of the year and people said the reason it's called a desert is there's no water. now, this is an agency out of touch with reality, which i believe is incorrigible and you need a new agency that is practical, has common sense, uses economic factors and in case of pollution, actually insent vices change, doesn't just punish it. >> andy? >> governor perry, your party's

last nominee, john mccain, wrote in "the washington post" in the op-ed about a year ago, his words, i disagree with many of the president's policies but i believe he is a patriot, sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. i reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead america, or opposed to its founding ideals. agreed? >> i make a very proud statement, and a fact that we have a president that is a socialist. i don't think our founding fathers wanted america to be a socialist country. so i disagree with that premise that somehow or another, that president obama reflects our founding fathers. he doesn't. he talks about having a more powerful, more centralized, more consuming and costly federal government. i am a tenth amendment believing governor. i truly believe that we need a president that respects the tenth amendment, that pushes

back to the states, whether it's how to deliver education, how to deliver health care, how to do our environmental regulations. the states will considerably do a better job than a one side fits all washington, d.c. led by this president. >> can i just jump in, senator santorum, governor perry called the president a socialist. i wonder, senator santorum, when you voted for a new prescription drug benefit that did not have a funding mechanism, were you advancing socialism? >> well, i said repeatedly that we should have had a funding mechanism, and it's one of those things that i had a very tough vote, as you know. in that bill, we had health savings accounts. something i'd been fighting for for 15 years to transform the private sector health care system into a more consumer, bott bottom-up way of doing it. we also had medicare advantage to transform the entire medicare system into -- medicare advantage is basically a premium support type model. >> so is it socialism though?

>> i think i'm just answering your question. maybe we're not communicating well. but i just talked about medical, the health savings account is an anti-socialistic idea to try to build a bottom-up consumer-based economy. in health care. the same thing with medicare advantage. and we also structured the medicare part "d" benefit to be a premium support model as a way of trying to transition medicare. so there were a lot of good things in that bill, there was one really bad thing. we didn't pay for it. we should have paid for it, and that was a mistake. >> congressman paul, i'm going to say many americans, particularly democrats, believe that health care is a right. in your opinion, what services are all americans entitled to expect to get from government? >> entitlements are not rights. 66 rights mean you have a rig right -- rights mean you have a right to your life. you have a right to your liberty. and you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor.

and this is quite a bit different but earlier on there was a little discussion here about gay rights. i, in a way, don't like to use those terms, gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, religious rights. there's only one type of right. it's your right to your liberty. and i think this causes divisiveness when we see people in groups because for too long we punish groups, so the answer then, was, let's relieve them by giving them affirmative action. so i think both are wrong, if you think in terms of individuals, and protect every single individual, no, they're not entitled, one group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else. and the basic problem here is, there's a lot of good intention to help poor people. but guess who gets the entitlements in washington? the big guys get. the rich people. they run the entitlements. the military industrial complex, the banking system, those are the entitlements we should be dealing with. >> in our remaining moment, back

to you, john. >> governor huntsman, andy and i are about to wrap up our debate and as we do, i'd like to ask you as someone who's been here in new hampshire awhile, what does our state not co"live flee or die" mean to you personally and how would it guide you in the white house? >> it is the fulfillment of a citizenry being able to live out the meaning of our founding documents. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. and everywhere i've gone in this great state we've gone 160-plus public events. i feel it, and i sense it, and people take that very seriously. you know what else they take seriously? they take seriously the idea of real leadership. i've heard a lot of obfuscating up here, the blame game, talking about gays, talking about unions, everybody's got something nasty to say. you know what the people of this country are waiting for and the people? they want a leader who is going to unify. who's going to bring us together. because at the end of the day, that's what leadership is all about. it's not about taking on

different groups and vilifying them for whatever reason. it's about projecting a vision for a more hopeful tomorrow. that's why there is no trust in this country today. and that's why, as president, i'm going to attack that trust deficit just as aggressively as i attack that economic deficit. because with no trust, i can't think of anything more corrosive longer-term for the people of this nation. >> all right. we're going to -- we're going to leave it there. thank you, john, thank you andy, both. we're going to take another quick break here. i'll be back with a final round of questions, including your questions from your "meet the press" facebook page. we're back with our final moments in just a moment.

we are back. gentlemen, candidates, we have just a few minutes left. and i'd like to try something, because i do want to get to as much substance and pin you down on views as best i can. i know this can be hard for you, but you are spending a lot of money getting your message out in 30-second increments, based on what i've been watching in the hotel room here in new hampshire. so i know you know how to do this. let's try having 30-second

answers to these questions. senator santorum i want to ask you about iran. it's been a big issue in the course of this campaign so far. i wonder why it is, if america lives with a nuclear soviet union, we have come to live with a nuclear north korea, why is it that we cannot live with a nuclear iran? and if we can't, are you prepared to take the country to war to disarm that country? >> they're a theocray. they're a theocracy that has deeply embedded beliefs that the afterlife is better than this life. president ahmadinejad has repeatedly said the principle virtue of the islamic republic of iran is martyrdom. so, when your principle virtue is to die for allah, it's not a threat if they would use a nuclear weapon, it's an encouragement for them to use a vuk weapon and that's why there's a difference between the soviet union and china.

>> what about pakistan? they have nuclear weapons. are you also prepared as president to say they must disarm or else? >> they are not a theocracy and we're very hopeful of maintaining a more secular state than is in place today. but there is a serious threat. and this administration has bungled it about as badly as they can in trying to continue those positive relationships. we've had some real serious problems with the pakistani military. obviously with respect to osama bin laden, and with respect to north waziristan. but you have -- the reason is we have a president who is very weak in that region of the world, is not respected and therefore he's not been able to have that strong hand in working with pakistan that they're used to. >> speaker gingrich, how about tone of this campaign? i was in iowa, i heard you on the stump. you complained bitterly about the super pac, the outside groups that were lodging charges against you, bringing up some old issues against you. and now you have a former campaign spokesman who is

preparing attacks against governor rom fly, calling him, quote, a predator for his involvement at the investment company. you agreed with someone who said that governor romney was a liar when he didn't take account for those attacks against you. are you consistent now as you're preparing to launch against governor romney? >> sure. >> how so? >> i'm consistent because i think you ought to have fact-based campaigns. to talk about the records. >> calling him a predator is not over the line? >> well, i think you have to look at the film, which i haven't seen, but if you look at the "new york times" article, i think it was on thursday, you would certainly have to say that bane at times engaged in behavior where they looted a company living behind 1700 unemployed people. that'sed "new york times." that's not me. so i think -- one of the things i've complained about, got four pinocchios in "the washington post." now to get four pinocchios in a 30-second ad means there's virtually nothing accurate in 30 seconds. >> speaker, you decry the washington establishment and you

just talked about "the new york times" and "the washington post." you have agreed with the characterization that governor romney is a liar. look at him now. do you stand by that claim? >> sure, governor i wish you would calmly and directly state it is your former staff running the pac, it is your millionaire friends giving to the pac, and you know some of those things are untrue. just say that, straightforward. >> well, of course former staff of mine, and of course they're people who support me. they wouldn't be putting money into a pac that supports me if they weren't people who support me. with regards to their ads, i haven't seen them. as you know, under the law i can't direct their ads. >> speaker -- >> hold on a second. i can't direct their ads. if there's anything in them that's wrong i hope they take it out. i hope everything that's wrong is taken out. but let me tell you this, the ad i saw said that you've been forced out of the speakership. that was correct. it said that -- that you sat down with nancy pelosi and argued for a climate change bill. that was correct. it said that you called the -- the ron paul -- paul ryan's plan

to provide medicare reform a -- a right wing social engineering plan. it said that -- that as part of an investigation, an ethics investigation, that you had to reimburse some $300,000. those things were all true. if there was something related to abortion that said it was wrong, i hope they pull it out. anything wrong i'm opposed to. but you know, this ain't -- this ain't the bean bag. we're going to come into a campaign, we're going to describe the differences between us -- >> all right. >> but i do think the rhetoric, mr. speaker, was a little over the top. >> you think my rhetoric was over the top? but your ads were totally reasonable? >> let me understand -- >> i've taken -- >> mr. speaker, the super pacs that are out there running ads, ron paul's, mine, yours, as you know, that is not my ad. i don't write that ad, i can't tell them -- >> how about this. would you both agree to take these super pac ads down? >> but mr. speaker i wouldn't call some of the things you called me public.

i think that's just over the top. >> would you both agree that these super pac ads be taken down? >> david, wait a second. come on. come on. i'm glad finally on this stage weeks later he has said, gee, if they're wrong, they should take them down. they would, of course, we sent a letter in south carolina warning the stations to just fact them before they start running them. but i'm taking his advice. you know, we started to run his commercial from 1994, attacking teddy kennedy for running negative ads. you thought, no, that would be wrong. so instead, i agree with him, takes broad shoulders to run, can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, with the 27 1/2 minute movie comes out, i hope it's accurate. i can say publicly, i hope that the super pac runs an accurate movie about bane, it will be based on establishment newspapers, like "the washington post," "the wall street journal," "the new york times." barron's, bloomberg news, and i hope it is totally accurate and that people can watch the 27 1/2 minutes of his career at bane and decide for them 168s. >> let me ask you senator

santorum, we talk some about the role of government but the presidency is often called the bully pulpit. i wonder as president how you'd use the bully pulpit to try to shape american caught your and value. >> i haven't written a lot of books, i've written one. it was in respns to a book written by hillary christian called "it takes a village." i didn't believe with that. i believe it takes a family. that's what i wrote. i believe there's one thing undermining this country and that's the breakdown of the american family. it's undermining our economy. you see rates of poverty among single parent families. you see moms doing heroic things. but it's harder. it's five times harder in the single parent family. we know there's certain things that work in america. brookings institute came out with a study just a couple of years ago that said if you graduate from high school, if you work, if you're a man, if you marry, if you're a woman, if you marry before you have children you have a 2% chance of being in poverty in america, and to be above the median income, if you do those three things,

77% chance of being above the median income. why isn't the president of the united states, or all our leaders in the country, talking about that and trying to formulate -- not necessarily federal government policies but local policy and state policy and community policy to help people do those things that we know work and we know are good for society. the president doesn't. in fact, he has required programs not to talk about marriage. not to talk about abstinence, in order to get federal funds. he's working against exactly the things he knows works because he has a secular ideology that is against the traditions -- >> dr. paul, quickly, how would you use the bully pulpit? >> i would continue to do what i'm doing now, preaching the gospel of liberty. i think that the most important ingredients in this country that made us great was our founders understood what liberty meant. and that is what we need. we have deserted that. we have drifted a look way. it involves our right to our life. right to our liberty. that we ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor. we ought to understand property

rights. we ought to understand contract rights. we ought to understand what sound money is all about and understand what national defense means. that means defending this country. that is the bully pulpit we need. we need to defend liberty. >> defend liberty and? >> and liberty. >> we're going to take another break here. we'll be back with some closing moments right after this.

i would like to thank the candidates for joining us. i'd also like to thank our debate partners, facebook, the "new hampshire union leader" and our host in concord, the capital center for the arts. thank you for watching and for participating in this debate online. post-debate analysis will continue ton msnbc. be sure to watch complete coverage of the new hampshire primary returns tuesday night on nbc news, msnbc and online at nbcpolitics.com. we'll be back next week from washington. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."