ABC News/Yahoo/WMUR Republican Debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH (January 7th, 2012)

ABC News/Yahoo/WMUR Republican Debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH (January 7th, 2012)


>>Announcer: Tonight, All eyes on New Hampshire,
after jsut eight votes in Iowa, seperated him,>>ROMNEY: Onto New Hampshire, Lets get that
Job Done>>Announcer: from him,>>Santorum: Game On. We Will win this election.>>Announcer: The game has changed>>Bachmann: I have decieded to stand aside>>Announcer: and now everything is different.>>GINGRICH: What do we need to do as a country
to get back on the right track?>>Announcer: Can anyone overtake Mitt Romney
as he tries to close in and seal the nomination? Can Rick Santorum build on his stunning Iowa
success? Is time running out for these canidates to catch up to the front-runner and save thier
campaigns?>>HUNTSMAN: We have got some tough decisions
to make.>>Perry: We are going to take America back!>>Paul: Believe me, this momentum is going
to continue.>>Announcer: The voting has begun, the stakes
couldn’t be any higher, and we put them all to the test. So whats Next? In this campaign
season filled with so many dramatic suprises. Live from Manchester, New Hampshire and Saint
Anselm College, in partnership with Yahoo News and WMUR-TV; this is the ABC News Republican
Presidental Debate. Your Voice. Your Vote. Now Reporting, Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos,
and joing us tonight from New Hampshire’s own WMUR, politicol director Josh McElveen.>>SAWYER: And good evening to all of you.
Welcome to Saint Anselm College and the first debate of the year, 2012. The voting is underway.
And, George, those eight votes in Iowa reminded us on Tuesday every vote counts.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: No question about it, we
are off and running. Great to be here with you, Josh. And now letís introduce the candidates:
former Governor Jon Huntsman; Texas Congressman Ron Paul; former Governor of Massachusetts
Mitt Romney; former Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum; the former speaker of the House,
Newt Gingrich; and Texas Governor Rick Perry.>>SAWYER: And it is time to remind everyone
again of the rules, which are pretty straightforward, and we remind you again, they were negotiated
and agreed to by the candidates themselves. So letís take you through them. One-minute
responses to the question, with 30 seconds for rebuttal. And weíre showing everybody
at home that the candidates will see green, and then when thereís 15 seconds left, it
will turn yellow and red when the time is up.>>SAWYER: Our audience was chosen by Saint
Anselm College and WMUR. And all of you at home can watch on abcnews.com and yahoo.com.
You can even join the discussion by downloading Yahooís IntoNow app on your iPhone. You can
pitch in your opinions during the debate.>>SAWYER: So lets the — let the debate begin.
And, Governor Romney, weíll begin with you. We just saw 200,000 new jobs created last
month, and there are optimists who say this is the signal that this economy is finally
turning around. Are you with those optimists?>>ROMNEY: Iím an optimist, and I certainly
hope it turns around. We have millions of people whoíve been suffering too long, 25
million people that are out of work or have stopped looking for work, and also a lot of
people whoíve got part-time jobs and need full-time employment. So itís very good news.
I hope we continue to see good news. But itís not thanks to President Obama. His policies
have made the recession deeper, and his policies have made the recovery more tepid. As a result
of everything from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to a stimulus plan that was not as well directed
as it should have been to a whole host of new regulations that have been put on American
businesses, heís made it harder for small entrepreneurs and big businesses to decide
to invest in America and to grow jobs here. And so the president is going to try and take
responsibility for things getting better. You know, itís like the rooster taking responsibility
for the sunrise. He didnít do it. In fact, what he did was make things harder for America
to get going again.>>SAWYER: I want to turn now to Senator Santorum.
Senator Santorum, you have said we donít need a CEO, we donít need a manager as president.
What did you mean by that?>>SANTORUM: Well, we need a leader, someone
who can paint a positive vision for this country, someone who, you know, has the experience
to go out and be the commander-in-chief. Iíve experienced in eight years on the Armed Services
Committee, I managed major pieces of legislation through the House and through the Senate on
national security issues, like Iran, which is the most — you want to talk about the
most pressing issue that weíre dealing with today? Itís Iran And as Newtís talked about
many times, thereís no one that has more experience in dealing with that country than
I do. And that means that we need — we need someone who can — who can go out and paint
a vision of what Americaís strength is about, let our allies know that they can trust us,
let our enemies know that they have to respect us, and if they cross us, they should fear
us.>>SAWYER: It has been written you were talking
about Governor Romney. Were you?>>SANTORUM: Well, I was — Iím talking about
— yeah, in the case of — well, in a manager — as youíre talking about, as far as commander-in-chief
or the manager part?>>SAWYER: The manager part.>>SANTORUM: The manager part. Yeah, well,
of course I was talking about Governor Romney. I was talking about someone who — who — whoís
bring to the table — he says Iím going to be, you know, Iíve got business experience.
Well, business experience doesnít necessarily match up with being the commander-in-chief
of this country. The commander-in-chief of this country isnít a CEO. Itís someone who
has to — has to lead, and itís also — being the president is not a CEO. You canít direct,
you know, members of Congress and — and members of the Senate as to how you do things. Youíve
got to lead and inspire. And thatís what — thatís what I think the people here in
— in Iowa and in New Hampshire were looking for, someone who can inspire and paint a positive
vision for this country. And Iíve been the one thatís been able to do that and thatís
the reason I think weíre doing well in the polls.>>SAWYER: Governor Romney, your response?>>ROMNEY: You know, I — I think people who
spend their life in Washington donít understand what happens out in the real economy. They
think that people who start businesses are just managers. People who start a — as entrepreneurs
that start a business from the ground up and — and get customers and get investors and
hire people to join them, those people are leaders. And the chance to — to lead in — in
free enterprise is extraordinarily critical to also being able to lead a state, like I
led in Massachusetts, and, by the way, lead the Olympics. My experience is in leadership.
The people in the private sector, who are, every day, making this country a stronger
nation and hiring people, theyíre not successful because theyíre managers, theyíre successful
primarily because they are leaders. I wish people in Washington had the experience of
going out and working in the real economy first, before they went there, and theyíd
understand some of the real lessons of leadership.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring Speaker Gingrich
in on this discussion, because, Mr. Speaker, a group supporting you run — one run by one
of your closest long-time advisers just put out a very scathing attack, just today, on
Governor Romney, on his tenure as the CEO of that investment firm, Bain Capital. It
calls that tenure ìa story of greed,î thatís a quote, saying that Bain made spectacular
profits by, again, quote, ìstripping American businesses of assets, selling everything to
the highest bidder and often killing jobs for big financial rewards.î Do you agree
with that characterization?>>GINGRICH: Well, I — I havenít seen the
film, but it does reflect ìThe New York Timesî story two days ago about one particular company.
And I think people should look at the film and decide. If itís factually accurate, it
raises questions. Iím very much for free enterprise. Iím very much for exactly what
the Governor just described, create a business, grow jobs, provide leadership. Iím not nearly
as enamored of a Wall Street model where you can flip companies, you can go in and have
leveraged buyouts, you can basically take out all the money, leaving behind the workers.
And I think most…>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that the Bain model?>>GINGRICH: Well, I — I think you have to
look at the film. You have to look at ìThe New York Timesî coverage of one particular
company. And you have to ask yourself some questions. The Governor has every right to
defend that. And I think — but I think itís a legitimate part of the debate to say, OK,
on balance, were people better off or were people worse off by this particular style
of investment?>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in December, you said
that Governor Romney made money at Bain by, quote, ìbankrupting companies and laying
off employees.î>>GINGRICH: That was, I think, ìThe New
York Timesî story two days ago. They took one specific company. They walked through
in detail. They showed what they bought it for, how much they took out of it and the
1,700 people they left unemployed. Now thatís — check ìThe New York Timesî story, but
thatís their story.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, your response?>>ROMNEY: Well, I — Iím not surprised to
have ìThe New York Timesî try and put free enterprise on trial. Iím not surprised to
have the Obama administration do that, either. Itís a little surprising from my colleagues
on this stage. We understand that in the free economy, in the private sector, that — that
sometimes investments donít work and youíre not successful. It always pains you if you
have to be in a situation of — of downsizing a business in order to try and make it more
successful, turn it around and try and grow it again. And Iím very proud of the fact
that the two enterprises I led were quite successful and the Olympics were successful.
And my state was successful, the state of Massachusetts. But in the business I had,
we invested in over 100 different businesses and net-net, taking out the ones where we
lost jobs and those that we added, those businesses have now added over 100,000 jobs. I have a
record of learning how to create jobs…>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, there have been questions
about that — that — that calculation of a hundred thousand jobs. So if you could explain
it a little more. I — Iíve read some analysts who look at it and say that youíre counting
the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away. Is that accurate?>>ROMNEY: No, itís not accurate. It includes
the net of both. Iím a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.
But — but the — the simple ones, some of the biggest, for instance, thereís a steel
company called Steel Dynamics in Indiana, thousands of jobs there. Bright Horizons Childrenís
Centers, about 15,000 jobs there; Sports Authority, about 15,000 jobs there. Staples alone, 90,000
employed. Thatís a business that we helped start from the ground up. But there were some…>>STEPHANOPOULOS: But that includes jobs
that were created even after you left, right?>>ROMNEY: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Those — those
are businesses we started that continue to grow. And — and weíre only a small part
of that, by the way. We were investors to help get them going. But in some cases, businesses
shrunk. We tried to help turn them around, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But
letís not forget, this is a free enterprise system. We donít need government to come
in and tell us how to make businesses work. We need people with passion, willing to take
risk and help turn things around. And where that works, you create jobs.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring Governor Huntsman
in on this, because supporters of yours have also taken aim at this tenure, Governor Romneyís
tenure at Bain Capital. And, you know the Democrats are preparing to do it, as well.
So on balance, should Republicans worry about this attack? Is — is Governor Romneyís record
at Bain a weakness or a strength?>>HUNTSMAN: Well, itís — part of his record,
and therefore, itís going to be talked about. And I think itís fair for the people of this
nation to have a conversation about oneís record. And Governor Romney can say whatever
he wishes to say about it. I also have private sector experience. I combine a little bit
of what Rick Santorum talked about and what Governor Romney has. I think itís a good
balance. I come from manufacturing. People will find something in my record. But you
know what, itís important for the people to look at our records, because everybody
up here has a record that ought to be scrutinized. But it goes beyond the private sector. You
know, I served as a governor. Mitt served as a governor. Others up here have had positions
of responsibility. Take a look at what we did as governor. I think that is probably
more telling in terms of what I would do or what Mitt would do as president of the United
States. I put bold proposals forward. I delivered a flat tax for my state. I took my state to
number one in job creation, with all due respect to what Rick Perry has said about Texas, we
did a little bit better. We reformed health care without a mandate. We took our state
to number one as the most business-friendly state in America. Now, in a time in our nationís
history when we so desperately need jobs, I think thatís going to be a very material
part of the discussion.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.>>ROMNEY: I congratulate Governor Huntsman
on the success in his governorship to make the state more attractive for business. That
has got to happen. But what — I actually think itís helpful to have people who had
a job in the private sector, if you want to create jobs in the private sector. Weíve
had a lot of presidents over the years who had wonderful experience. And right now we
have people whose backgrounds are in the governmental sector as well as the private sector. I think
now, given what America is facing globally, given an economy that has changed its dynamics
dramatically over the last 10 years, you need to have someone who understands how that economy
works at a very close level if weíre going to be able to post up against President Obama
and establish a record that says this is different than a president who does not understand job
creation.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Youíve got a new ad up
in South Carolina taking direct aim at Senator Santorum. You call him a corrupt — a corporate
lobbyist, a Washington insider with a record of betrayal. You also call him corrupt in
that ad. Senator Santorum is standing right here. Are you willing to stand by those charges
and explain them?>>PAUL: Well, it was a quote. Somebody did
make a survey and I think he came out as one of the top corrupt individuals, because he
took so much money from the lobbyists. But, really, what the whole… [FEEDBACK NOISE] PAUL: There it goes again. [LAUGHTER]>>PAUL: But — but…>>SANTORUM: They — theyíve caught you not
telling the truth, Ron [INAUDIBLE].>>PAUL: But what real — really… [LAUGHTER]>>PAUL: What really counts is — is his record.
I mean heís a big government, big spending individual.Because, you know, he preached
to the fact he wanted a balanced budget amendment but voted to raise the debt to five times.
So he is a big government person. And we as Republicans know something about right to
work. He supported — he voted against right to work. He voted along with No Child Left
Behind, to double, you know, the size of the Department of Education. And he also voted
to — for the prescription drug program. So heís a big government person, along with
him being very — associated with the lobbyists and taking a lot of funds. And also where
did he get — make his living afterwards? I mean, he became a high-powered lobbyist
on — in Washington, D.C. And he has done quite well. We checked out Newt, on his income.
I think we ought to find out how much money he has made from the lobbyists as well.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: A lot of charges there,
Senator.>>SANTORUM: Yes, I was going to say, do I
have 20 minutes to answer these?>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Take your time.>>SANTORUM: Letís talk about the corruption
issue. The person who — the group that called me corrupt was a group called CREW. If you
havenít been sued by CREW, youíre not a conservative. CREW is this left-wing organization
that puts out a list every election of the top Republicans who have tough races and calls
them all corrupt because they take contributions from PACs. Itís a ridiculous charge. And
you should know better than to cite George Soros-like organizations to say that theyíre
corrupt. So thatís number one. Ron, Iím a conservative. Iím not a libertarian. I
believe in some government. I do believe that government has — that as a senator from Pennsylvania
that I had a responsibility to go out there and represent the interests of my state. And
thatís what I did to make sure that Pennsylvania was able, in formulas and other things, to
get its fair share of money back. I donít apologize for that any more than you did when
you earmarked things and did things when you were a congressman in Texas. As far as the
money that I received, you know, I think Iím known in this race and I was known in Washington,
D.C., as a cause guy. I am a cause guy. I care deeply about this country and about the
causes that make me — that I think are at the core of this country. And when I left
the United States Senate, I got involved in causes that I believe in. I went and worked
at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and wrote on the cause of Iran, and wrote and
lectured all over this country. I got involved with a health care company. Why? Because I
was afraid of what was going to happen, and I was asked by a health care company to be
on their board of directors. Now, I donít know whether you think board of directors
are lobbyists. Theyíre not. Thatís the private-sector experience that Iím sure that Mitt would
— would approve of. You — you also — I also worked for a coal company. As I mentioned
the other day, my grandfather was a coal miner. I grew up in — in — in the coal region.
And when I left the United States Senate, one of the big issues on the table was cap-and-trade,
global warming, and I wanted to stay involved in the fray. So I contacted a local coal company
from my area who — and I asked — I said, look, I want to join you in that fight. I
want to work together with you. I want to help you in any way I can to make sure we
defeat cap-and-trade. And so I engaged in that battle. And Iím very proud to have engaged
in that battle.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Paul, do you
accept it?>>PAUL: Well, you know, it is true — I believe
Congress should designate how the money should be spent. I agree with that. But the big difference
between the way I voted and the senator voted is I always voted against the spending. I
voted against all the spending. Itís only been a couple appropriations bills I voted
for in the past, what, 24, 26 years Iíve been in Washington. So youíre a big spender;
thatís all there is to it. Youíre a big-government conservative. And you donít vote for, you
know, right to work and these very important things. And thatís what weakens the economy.
So to say youíre a conservative, I think, is a stretch. But youíve convinced a lot
of people of it, so somebody has to point out your record. [CROSSTALK]>>SANTORUM: No, I think I have an opportunity
to respond here. Iíve convinced a lot of people of it because my record is actually
pretty darn good. I — I supported and voted for a balanced budget amendment, the line-item
veto. I voted — in fact, I used to keep track when I was in the United States Senate of
all the Democratic amendments and all amendments that increased spending. I — I put on the
board — something called a spend-o-meter. If you look at my spending record and you
— and you take all the, quote, ìspending groups,î I was rated at the top or near the
top every single year. I — I go back to the point. I am not a libertarian, Ron. I agree
with — you vote against everything. I donít vote against everything. I do vote for some
spending. I do think government has a role to play… [CROSSTALK]>>SANTORUM: … particularly in defense…>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Weíll let everybody get
in here, but first I wanted to bring in Governor — Governor Perry on this. Weíll stay on
this subject, donít worry about it.>>PERRY: And Iíll let you — Iíll — Iíll
let you back in here, Ron.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Youíve called Senator
Santorum the…>>PERRY: Yeah. I think youíve just seen
a great example of why I got in this race, because I happen to think that Iím the only
outsider, with the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, who has not been part of the problem
in Washington, D.C., the insiders in Washington, D.C. We — we have to — we have to nominate
someone that can beat Barack Obama, that can get the Tea Party behind them, that can go
to Washington, D.C., and stop the corrupt spending that has been going on. And it doesnít
make any difference whether youíre an insider from Washington, D.C., or youíre an insider
from Wall Street. That is what Americans rightfully see is the real problem in America today.
They want someone who has a record of executive governing experience, like I have in Texas.
Iíve been the commander- in-chief of 20,000-plus troops that get deployed. I have been the
governor of a state that has created a million net new jobs. That is a record that American
people are looking for. That is what Americans are looking for, an outsider that is not corrupted
by the process.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: So, Governor, youíre saying
Congressman Paul is an insider?>>PERRY: I am telling you, anybody that has
had as many — I mean, hereís what frustrates me, is that you go get the earmarks and then
you vote against the bill? Now, I donít know what they call that in other places, but,
Congressman Paul, in Texas, we call that hypocrisy.>>PAUL: Well, I call it being a constitutionalist,
because I believe we should earmark, or designate, every penny. You designate weapons systems.
You designate money to go to spend $1 billion on an embassy in Iraq. Thatís — thatís
an earmark, too. I say the Congress has more responsibility. But this thing, back — back
to Senator Santorum, you know, he ducks behind this — heís for this balanced budget amendment,
but voted five times to increase the national debt by trillions of dollars. This is what
the whole Tea Party movementís about. When — I mean, governmentís practically stopped
over increasing the national debt. You did it five times. So whatís your excuse for
that? Thatís trillions of dollars. You kept this thing going. You didnít do very much
to slow it up when you had a chance.>>SANTORUM: As a matter of fact, I did slow
— do a lot to slow it up when I had a chance. I was the author of the only bill that actually
repealed a federal entitlement, welfare reform. I — I — I actually promoted and talked — and
tried to pass Social Security reform. I worked on Medicare and Medicaid. I was one of the
only guys out there in a time, Ron, when we were running surpluses that was out there
talking about the need for long- term entitlement reform, which is where the real problem is.
When the government runs up a tab and you donít have the money no — no longer to pay,
then you have to increase the debt ceiling. But every time we tried to — we tried to
tie it with reducing spending. Weíre in a point right now where we have blown the doors
off of it. And as you know, back in the last — in the last go round, I stood up and said,
no we shouldnít increase the debt ceiling because weíve gone too far. But, you know,
routine debt ceiling increases have happened throughout the — the course of this country
for 200 years.>>SAWYER: If I can, Iíd like to pivot and
go to another topic here, which is the issue of commander-in-chief and national security.
And Governor Huntsman, you have already said for us that — that the Iranians have made
the decision to go nuclear. You think they want a nuclear weapon. Tell us why you would
be better as commander-in-chief than the other candidates on this stage?>>HUNTSMAN: Because being commander-in-chief
is less about having the discussions we just heard a moment ago. A lot of insider gobbledygook,
a lot of political spin. Itís about leading organizations. Itís about leading people.
Itís about creating a vision. And I have done that my entire career. I did that as
governor. I took my state to the best managed state in America. I took that economy to the
number one position, number one in job creation. As compared and contrasted with Massachusetts,
which was number 47 during a time when, I think, leadership matters to the American
people. But more than anything else, I believe that this nation is looking for, not only
leadership, but leadership that can be trusted. Because letís face it, we have a serious
trust deficit in this nation. The American people now longer trust our institutions of
power. And they no longer trust our elected officials. And Iím here to tell you that
we must find, not just a commander-in-chief, not just a president, not just a visionary,
but weíve got to find somebody who can reform Congress and do what needs to be done with
respect to leading the charge on term limits. Everybody knows that Congress needs term limits.
Everybody knows that weíve got to close the revolving door that has corrupted Washington.
And everybody knows as well, that weíve got to have someone who can deliver trust back
to Wall Street, which has also lost the American peopleís trust.>>SAWYER: Do you want to speak specifically
about anyone on this stage?>>HUNTSMAN: They can all speak for themselves,
but I can tell you, having served as governor successfully, the only person on this stage
as well to have lived overseas four times, Iíve run two American embassies, including
the largest and most complicated we have in the world, the United States embassy in China.
I think I understand better than anyone on this stage, the complex national security
implications that we will face going forward with what is, we all know, the most complex
and challenging relationship of the twenty- first century, that of China.>>SAWYER: Governor Romney?>>ROMNEY: Do you have a question or shall
I just…>>SAWYER: My question is the — the governor
has just said that he thinks he can speak better than anyone else to these…>>ROMNEY: Well he can do a lot better than
Barack Obama, lets put it that way. We — we have a president who had no experience in
leadership. He never led a — a business, never led a — a city, never led a — a state.
And as a result, he learned on the job being president of the United States and he has
made one error after another related to foreign policy, the most serious of which relates
to Iran. We have a nation, which is intent on becoming nuclear. Iran has pursued their
— their ambition without having crippling sanctions against them. The president was
silent when over a million voices took to the streets in Iran. Voices he should have
stood up for and said, weíre supporting you. And heís — and heís failed to put together
a plan to show Iran that we have the capacity to remove them militarily from their plans
to have nuclear weaponry. Look, this is a failed presidency. And the issue in dealing
with the responsibility of commander-in-chief, is the issue of saying, who has the capacity
to lead? Who is someone who has demonstrated leadership capacity? Who has character, shown
that character over their career? Who has integrity and — and I hope — I — each of
these people — I donít — I donít want to be critical of the people on this stage.
Any one of these people would do a better — a better job in many respects than our
president. And I will endorse our — our nominee. I believe in the principles that made America
such a great nation. This is a time when weíre faced, not with a nation that is — that is
extraordinarily secure in a very, very calm world. Weíre facing a very dangerous world.
And we have a president now who unbelievably has decided to shrink the size of the — of
the military. Who unbelievably has said, for the first time since FDR, weíre going to
no longer have the capacity to fight two wars at a time.>>SAWYER: I want…>>ROMNEY: This president must be replaced.>>SAWYER: I want to bring in Josh now.>>MCELVEEN: I want to stay on the topic of
commander-in-chief as well. Obviously that puts you in charge of the most powerful armed
forces in the world. Only two of you on stage have served in the military. Dr. Paul was
a flight surgeon, Governor Perry a pilot. There are 25 million veterans in this country,
three million currently serving active duty so this question is very relevant to a large
number of voters out there. My question goes to you, Governor Perry. Do you believe having
worn a uniform, being part of a unit, better prepares you for the job of commander-in-chief
than those on the state who havenít served?>>PERRY: I think it brings a very clear knowledge
about what it requires for those that are on the front lines, but also having been the
governor of the state of Texas and been the commander-in-chief for 11 years there and
20,000-plus troops that weíve deployed to multiple theaters of operation. But I want
to go back to this issue that we just brought up earlier when we talked about one of the
biggest problems facing this country, and Iranís a big problem, Senator, without a
doubt. But let me tell you what this president is doing with our military budget is going
to put our countryís freedom in jeopardy. You cannot cut $1 trillion from the Department
of Defense budget and expect that Americaís freedoms are not going to be jeopardized.
That, to me, is the biggest problem that America faces, is a president that doesnít understand
the military and a president who is allowing the reduction of the DOD budget so that he
can spend money in other places, and it will put Americaís freedom in jeopardy.>>MCELVEEN: Talk about the understanding
of the military. And letís go to you, Speaker Gingrich. Recently, Dr. Paul referred to you
as a chicken hawk because you didnít serve. Given what you just heard Governor Perry say
about understanding the military and Dr. Paulís comments. How do you respond?>>GINGRICH: Well, Dr. Paul makes a lot of
comments. Itís part of his style. My father served 27 years in the Army in World War II,
Korea, and Vietnam. I grew up in a military family, moving around the world. Since 1979,
I have spent 32 years working, starting with the Armyís Training and Doctrine Command.
I was the longest-serving teacher in the senior military for 23 years. I served on the Defense
Policy Board. But let me say something about veterans, because as an Army brat whose family
was deeply engaged, I feel for veterans. We had a great meeting today in Wolfeboro with
veterans. And I made a commitment in New Hampshire that we would reopen the hospital in Manchester,
we would develop a new clinic in the north country using telecommunications, and we would
provide a system where veterans could go to their local doctor or their local hospital.
The idea that a veteran in the north country in midwinter has to go all the way to Boston
is absolutely, totally, fundamentally wrong. And I would say, as an Army brat who watched
his mother, his sisters, and his father for 27 years, I have a pretty good sense of what
military families and veteransí families need.>>SAWYER: Congressman Paul, would you say
that again? Would you — would you use that phrase again?>>PAUL: Yeah. I — I think people who donít
serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments arenít — they
— they have no right to send our kids off to war, and — and not be even against the
wars that we have. Iím trying to stop the wars, but at least, you know, I went when
they called me up. But, you know, the — the veteransí problem is a big one. We have hundreds
of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, they were unnecessary, they
havenít been won, theyíre unwinnable, and we have hundreds of thousands looking for
care. And we have an epidemic of suicide coming back. And so many have — I mean, if you add
up all the contractors and all the wars going on, Afghanistan and in Iraq, weíve lost 8,500
Americans, and severe injuries, over 40,000. And these are undeclared war. So, Rick keeps
say we — you donít want this libertarian stuff, but what Iím talking about, I donít
bring up the word. You do. But I talk about the Constitution. Constitution has rules.
And I donít like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars, and when those individuals
didnít go themselves, and then come up and when theyíre asked, they say, oh, I donít
think I could — one person could have made a difference. I have a pet peeve that annoys
me to a great deal, because when I see these young men coming back, my heart weeps for
them.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich?>>GINGRICH: Well, Dr. Paul has a long history
of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is, I never asked for deferment.
I was married with a child. It was never a question. My father was, in fact, serving
in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta at the time heís referring to. I think I have a pretty
good idea of what itís like as a family to worry about your father getting killed. And
I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate
information and then just slurs people with.>>PAUL: I need one quick follow-up. When
I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went. [APPLAUSE]>>GINGRICH: I wasnít eligible for the draft.
I wasnít eligible for the draft.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Paul, while
— while weíre on the subject, the speaker said that youíve had a history of inaccurate
statements. There has been quite a bit controversy over this newsletter that went out under your
name, a number of comments that were perceived as racist, as inaccurate. Youíve said that
even though they were written under your name, that youíre not necessarily — that you didnít
necessarily know they were written, you donít necessarily stand by them. Can you really
take the time now and explain to everybody what happened there, how it was possible that
those kind of comments went out under your name without you knowing about it?>>PAUL: Well, itís been explained many times,
and everythingís written 20 years ago, approximately, that I did not write. So concentrating on
something that was written 20 years ago that I didnít write, you know, is diverting the
attention from most of the important issues. But the inference is obvious that — and you
even bring up the word racial overtones. More importantly, you ought to ask me what my relationship
is for racial relationships. And one of my heroes is Martin Luther King because he practiced
the libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience, as did Rosa
Parks did. But, also, Iím the only one up here and the only one in the Democratic Party
that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system. And it has to do
with enforcing the drug laws. Look at the percentages. The percentage of people who
use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way
disproportionately. Theyíre — theyíre prosecuted and imprisoned way disproportionately. They
get — they get the death penalty way disproportionately. How many times have you seen a white rich
person get the electric chair or get, you know, execution? But poor minorities have
an injustice. And they have an injustice in war, as well, because minorities suffer more.
Even with a draft — with a draft, they suffered definitely more. And without a draft, theyíre
suffering disproportionately. If we truly want to be concerned about racism, you ought
to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws, which are being so unfairly
enforced.>>SAWYER: We want to thank you for the first
round of this debate. And we want to take a break right now. And when we come back,
there are so many family issues, the issues of gay rights, that have been front and center
in this campaign. Weíd love to have you address some of those. Again, thank you for being
with us. This is the 2012 debate at St. Anselm. Weíll be back. [COMMERCIAL BREAK]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in Manchester. Governor
Romney, I want to go straight to you.>>Senator Santorum has been very clear in
his belief that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was
embedded in the Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the
right to ban contraception. Now I should add that he said heís not recommending that states
do that…>>SANTORUM: No, I said — letís be clear.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Absolutely. Iím giving
you your due…>>SANTORUM: Iím talking about — weíre
talking about the 10th Amendment and the right of states to act.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: But I do want to get to
that core question.>>SANTORUM: OK.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, do you
believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional
right to privacy?>>ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic
that youíre raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I canít imagine a state
banning contraception. I canít imagine the circumstances where a state would want to
do so, and if I were a governor of a state or…>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Supreme Court
has ruled — [CROSSTALK] ROMNEY: … or a — or a legislature of a
state — I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So youíre
asking — given the fact that thereís no state that wants to do so, and I donít know
of any candidate that wants to do so, youíre asking could it constitutionally be done?
We can ask our constitutionalist here. [LAUGHTER] [CROSSTALK]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Iím sure Congressman Paul… [CROSSTALK]>>ROMNEY: OK, come on — come on back… [CROSSTALK]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: … asking you, do you
believe that states have that right or not?>>ROMNEY: George, I — I donít know whether
a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you
putting forward things that states might want to do that no — no state wants to do and
asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think. [APPLAUSE]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Hold on a second. Governor,
you went to Harvard Law School. You know very well this is based on…>>ROMNEY: Has the Supreme Court — has the
Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? I…>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, they have. In 1965,
Griswold v. Connecticut.>>ROMNEY: The — I believe in the — that
the law of the land is as spoken by the Supreme Court, and that if we disagree with the Supreme
Court — and occasionally I do — then we have a process under the Constitution to change
that decision. And itís — itís known as the amendment process. And — and where we
have — for instance, right now weíre having issues that relate to same-sex marriage. My
view is, we should have a federal amendment of the Constitution defining marriage as a
relationship between a man and a woman. But I know of — of no reason to talk about contraception
in this regard.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: But youíve got the Supreme
Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.>>ROMNEY: I donít believe they decided that
correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle.
And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices
like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying
itís in the federal Constitution. And by the way, if the people say it should be in
the federal Constitution, then instead of having unelected judges stuff it in there
when itís not there, we should allow the people to express their own views through
amendment and add it to the Constitution. But this idea that justice…>>STEPHANOPOULOS: But should that be done
in this case?>>ROMNEY: Pardon?>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Should that be done in
this case?>>ROMNEY: Should this be done in the case
— this case to allow states to ban contraception? No. States donít want to ban contraception.
So why would we try and put it in the Constitution? With regards to gay marriage, Iíve told you,
thatís when I would amend the Constitution. Contraception, itís working just fine, just
leave it alone. [LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: I understand that. But
youíve given two answers to the question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should
overturn it or not?>>ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court
should overturn… [SOMEONE IN AUDIENCE YELLING]>>ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court
should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.>>PAUL: He mentioned my name.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Go ahead then.>>PAUL: I didnít know whether I got time
when it was favorable or not. But thank you. No, I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear.
It is explicit in our privacy. You canít go into anybodyís house and look at what
they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant. This is why the
Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment. As far
as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this because the
Interstate Commerce Clause was originally written not to impede trade between the states,
but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if itís not illegal to import
birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control
pills in that state.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Santorum?>>SANTORUM: Whatís the question? [LAUGHTER]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: On the right to privacy
and the response to Congressman Paul.>>SANTORUM: Well, Congressman Paul is talking
about privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, which I agree with him in, I donít necessarily
agree that the Patriot Act violates that. But I do agree with — obviously we have a
right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. But thatís not what the Griswold decision
nor the Roe v. Wade decision were about. They created through a penumbra of rights a new
right to privacy that was not in the Constitution. And what Iíve — and thatís, again, I sort
of agree with Governor Romneyís assessment — legal assessment, it created a right through
boot-strapping, through creating something that wasnít there. I believe it should be
overturned. I am for overturning Roe versus Wade. I do not believe that we have a right
in this country, in the Constitution, to take a human life. I donít think thatís — I
donít think our founders envisioned that. I donít think the writing of the Constitution
anywhere enables that. SAWYER: I want to turn now, if I can, from the Constitutional and
the elevated here, to something closer to home and to maybe families sitting in their
living rooms all across this country. Yahoo! sends us questions, as you know. We have them
from real viewers. And Iíd like to post one, because it is about gay marriage. But at the
level — and I would really love to be able to ask you what you would say personally,
sitting in your living rooms, to the people who ask questions like this. This is from
Phil in Virginia. ìGiven that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people
to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?î
And, Speaker Gingrich?>>GINGRICH: Well, I think what I would say
is that we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human
between friends occur. For example, youíre in a hospital. If there are visitation hours,
should you be allowed to stay there? There ought to be ways to designate that. You want
to have somebody in your will. There ought to be ways to designate that. But it is a
huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying
we therefore are going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis. The
sacrament of marriage was based on a man and woman, has been for 3,000 years. Is at the
core of our civilization. And itís something worth protecting and upholding. And I think
protecting and upholding that doesnít mean you have to go out and make life miserable
for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance
in our civilization and simply deciding it applies everywhere and itís just a civil
right. Itís not. It is a part of how we define ourselves. And I think that a marriage between
a man and a woman is part of that definition.>>SAWYER: Governor Huntsman, youíve talked
about civil unions. How do you disagree with the others on this stage?>>HUNTSMAN: Well, personally, I think civil
unions are fair. I support them. I think thereís such a thing as equality under the law. Iím
a married man. Iíve been married for 28 years. I have seven kids. Glad weíre off the contraception
discussion. [LAUGHTER] Fifteen minutesí worth, by the way. And I
donít feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. On — on marriage,
Iím a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but
I believe that civil unions are fair. And I think it brings a level of dignity to relationships.
And I believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights. I think they should be part of civil unions,
as well. And states ought to be able to talk about this. I think itís very — I think
itís absolutely appropriate.>>MCELVEEN: Iíd like to go to Senator Santorum
with a similar topic. Weíre in a state where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry.
Eighteen hundred, in fact, couples have married since it became law here in New Hampshire.
The legislature passed it a couple of years ago. And theyíre trying to start families,
some of them. Your position on same-sex adoption, obviously, you are in favor of traditional
families, but are you going to tell someone they belong in — as a ward of the state or
in foster care, rather than have two parents who want them?>>SANTORUM: Well, this isnít a federal issue.
Itís a state issue, number one. The states can make that determination, in New Hampshire.
My — my feeling is that this is an issue that should be — I believe the issue of marriage
itself is a federal issue, that we canít have different laws with respect to marriage.
We have to have one law. Marriage is, as Newt said, a foundational institution of our country,
and we have to have a singular law with respect to that. We canít have somebody married in
one state and not married in another. Once we — if we were successful in establishing
that, then this issue becomes moot. If we donít have a — a federal law, Iím certainly
not going to have a federal law that bans adoption for gay couples when there are only
gay couples in certain states. So this is a state issue, not a federal issue. MCELVEEN:
Well, let me ask you to follow up on that, if you donít mind, Senator. With those 1,800
— if you — we have a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, what
happens to the 1,800 families who have married here? Are their marriages basically illegitimate
at this point?>>SANTORUM: If we have a — if the Constitution
says marriage is between a man and a woman, then marriage is between a man and a woman.
And — and, therefore, thatís what marriage is and — and would be in this country. And
those who are not men and women who are married are — would not be married. Thatís what
the Constitution would say.>>SAWYER: If I could come back to the living
room question again, Governor Romney, would you weigh in on the Yahoo question about what
you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say, ìWe simply
want to have the right to,î as the — as the person who wrote the e-mail said — ìwe
want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships.î In human terms,
what would you say to them?>>ROMNEY: Well, the answer is, is thatís
a wonderful thing to do, and that thereís every right for people in this country to
form long- term committed relationships with one another. That doesnít mean that they
have to call it marriage or they have to receive the — the approval of the state and a marriage
license and so forth for that to occur. There can be domestic partnership benefits or — or
a contractual relationship between two people, which would include, as — as Speaker Gingrich
indicated, hospital visitation rights and the like. We can decide what kinds of benefits
we might associate with people who form those kind of relationships, state by state. But
— but to say that — that marriage is something other than the relationship between a man
— a man and a woman, I think, is a mistake. And the reason for that is not that we want
to discriminate against people or to suggest that — that gay couples are not just as loving
and canít also raise children well. But itís instead a recognition that, for society as
a whole, that the nation presumably will — would be better off if — if children are raised
in a setting where thereís a male and a female. And there are many cases where thereís not
possible: divorce, death, single parents, gay parents, and so forth. But — but for
a society to say we want to encourage, through the benefits that we associate with marriage,
people to form partnerships between men and women and then raise children, which we think
will — that will be the ideal setting for them to be raised.>>SAWYER: Speaker Gingrich has to weigh in.>>GINGRICH: I just want to raise — since
weíve spent this much time on these issues — I just want to raise a point about the
news media bias. You donít hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church
be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it wonít accept gay
couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven
out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it wonít give
in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by
the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry
of the administration? The bigotry question goes both ways. And thereís a lot more anti-Christian
bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by
the news media. [APPLAUSE]>>ROMNEY: As you can tell, the people in
this room feel that Speaker Gingrich is absolutely right and I do too. And — and I was in a
state where the Supreme Court stepped in and said, marriage is a relationship required
under the Constitution for — for people of the same sex to be able to marry. And John
Adams, who wrote the Constitution, would be surprised. And — and it did exactly as Speaker
Gingrich indicated, what happened was Catholic charities that placed almost half of all of
the adoptive children in our state, was forced to step out of being able to provide adoptive
services. And the state tried to find other places to help children that we — we have
to recognize that — that this decision about what we call marriage, has consequence which
goes far beyond a loving couple wanting to form a long-term relationship. That they can
do within the law now. Calling it a marriage, creates a whole host of problems for — for
families, for the law, for — for — for the practice of — of religion, for education.
Let me — let me say this, 3,000 years of human history shouldnít be discarded so quickly.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Paul — Congressman
Paul, let me bring this to you. Youíre running here in the Republican primary, but you havenít
promised to support the partyís nominee in November. And you refuse to rule out running
as a third party candidate if you fail to get the nomination. Why not rule that out?>>PAUL: Well I essentially have. Itís just
that I donít like absolutes like, I will never do something. But no…>>SANTORUM: Youíve never done it for a debt
ceiling.>>PAUL: Please donít interrupt me. [APPLAUSE]>>PAUL: So, I have said it in the last go-around,
I said — they asked me that about 30 times. I think maybe youíve asked me four or five
already. And the answer is always the same. You know, no, I have no plans to do it. I
donít intend to do it. And somebody pushed me a little bit harder and said why donít
you plan to do it? I just — I donít want to. So I have no intention. But I donít know
why a person canít reserve a judgment and see how things turn out? You know, in many
ways I see the other candidates as very honorable people, but I sometimes disagree with their
approach to government. And Iíd like to see some changes. I — I want to see changes.
When theyíre talking about a — a little bit of a difference in foreign policy and
— and interest in the Federal Reserve, a change in the monetary policy. We havenít
heard one talk — minute of talk about cutting any spending. weíve talked previously about
cutting the military spending. Thatís cutting proposed increases. This is why I have proposed
that we cut a whole trillion dollars that first year. If weíre serious as Republicans
and conservatives, we have to cut. So I want to put as much pressure on them as I can.
But besides, Iím doing pretty well, you know? Third wasnít too bad. I wasnít too far behind.
And doing pretty well. Catching up on Mitt every single day. [LAUGHTER]>>SAWYER: Governor Perry, do you think everyone
on this stage should rule out third party candidacy?>>PERRY: I think anyone on this stage is
better than what weíve got in place. And — and — and let me just address this — this
issue of — of gay marriage just very quickly. And — and itís a bigger issue frankly. I
am for a constitutional amendment that says that marriage is between a man and a woman
at the federal level. But this administrationís war on religion is what bothers me greatly.
When we see an administration that will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that gives
their Justice Department clear instructions to go take the ministerial exception away
from our churches where thatís never happened before. When we see this administration not
giving money to Catholic charities for sexually trafficked individuals because they donít
agree with the Catholic church on abortion, that is a war against religion. And itís
going to stop under a Perry administration. [APPLAUSE]>>SAWYER: I would like to turn now if I can
back to foreign policy and, Governor Huntsman. Afghanistan, 90,000 troops tonight and we
salute them all serving in Afghanistan. What is the earliest you think they should be brought
home?>>HUNTSMAN: You know weíve been at the war
on terror for 10 years now, weíve been in Afghanistan. And I say weíve got a lot to
show for our efforts and I, as president, would like to square with the American people
on what we have to show for it. The Taliban is no longer in power. Weíve run out al Qaeda,
theyíre now in sanctuaries. Weíve had free elections. Osama bin Laden is no longer around.
We have strengthened civil society. Weíve helped the military. Weíve helped the police.
I believe itís time to come home. And I would say within the first year of my administration,
which is to say the end of 2013, I would want to draw them down. And I want to recognize
Afghanistan for what it is. It is not a counter insurgency. I donít want to be nation building
in Southwest Asia when this nation is in such need of repair. But we do have a counter-terror
mission in Southwest Asia. And that would suppose leaving behind maybe 10,000 troops
for intelligence gathering, for Special Forces rapid response capability and training.>>SAWYER: Governor Romney, time to come home?>>ROMNEY: Well, we want to bring our troops
home as soon as we possibly can. And Governor Huntsman says at the end of 2013 the — the
— the president and the — the commanders are saying they think 2014 is a better date.
Weíll get a chance to see what happens over the coming year. We want to bring our troops
home as soon as we possibly can. And — and I will, if Iím president, I will inform myself
based upon the experience of the people on the ground that are leading our effort there.
I want to make sure that we hand off the responsibility to an Afghan security force that is capable
of maintaining the sovereignty of their nation from — from the Taliban. But — but I can
— but I can tell you this, I donít want to do something that would put in jeopardy
much of the — the hard earned success which weíve had there. And I would bring our troops
home as soon as we possibly can, of course, based upon my own experience there, going
there, informing myself of whatís happening there and listening to the commanders on the
ground.>>SAWYER: Governor Huntsman, you have a disagreement?>>HUNTSMAN: Yes. I would have to tell Mitt
that the president of the United States is the commander-in-chief. Of course you get
input and — and advice from a lot of different corners of Washington, including the commanders
on the ground. But we also deferred to the commanders on the ground in about 1967, during
the Vietnam War, and we didnít get very good advice then. Hereís what I think is around
the corner in Afghanistan. I think civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan. And I
donít want to be the president who invests another penny in a civil war. And I donít
want to be the president who sends another man or woman into harmís way that we donít
— weíre not able to bring back alive. I say weíve got something to show for our mission.
Letís recognize that and letís move on.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, do you
have any quarrel with that? [APPLAUSE]>>GINGRICH: Well, I — I think, look, I think
weíre asking the wrong questions. Afghanistan is a tiny piece of a gigantic mess that is
very dangerous. Pakistan is unstable and they probably have between 100 and 200 nuclear
weapons. Iran is actively trying to get nuclear weapons. I mean they go out and practice closing
the Strait of Hormuz, where one out of every six barrels of oil goes through every day.
And if they close the Straits of Hormuz, you have an industrial depression across the planet
within 48 hours. You have the Muslim Brotherhood winning the elections in Egypt. The truth
is, we donít know whoís in charge in Libya You have a — you have a region-wide crisis,
which we have been mismanaging and underestimating, which is not primarily a military problem.
Weíre not going to go in and solve Pakistan militarily. Weíre not going to go in and
solve all these other things. Look at the rate at which Iraq is decaying. I mean they
began decaying within 24 hours of our last troops leaving. And I think we need a fundamentally
new strategy for the region comparable to what we developed to fight the cold war. And
I think itís a very big, hard, long-term problem, but itís not primarily a military
problem.>>SAWYER: Senator Santorum, would you send
troops back into Iraq right now?>>SANTORUM: Well, I wouldnít right now,
but I did…>>SAWYER: If you were president…>>SANTORUM: But what I would say is that
— that Newt is right, we need someone who has a — a strong vision for the region and
we have not had that with this president. He has been making mistakes at every turn
in Iran, in Egypt, I would argue, Libya, Syria, Israel. All of these places, he has made mistakes
on the ground that have shown the people in that region that we are the weak horse. That
is something that cannot happen because it will cause events like youíre seeing in the
Straits of Hormuz. There will be push, push. America is soft and so they can be pushed
around. Thatís what this administration has done. They did it by withdrawing from Iraq,
and as Newt just said, you want to see whatís going to happen, Jon, if we take — if we
get — get out of Afghanistan. Letís just wait the next few weeks and months and see
how things turn out when the United States isnít there and see how consequential our
— our — our efforts are — were for the stability of that region…>>HUNTSMAN: So how long do you want to wait,
Rick? How long do you want to wait?>>SANTORUM: Until the security of our country
is ensured. Thatís what the job of the commander-in-chief is. And you make that decision — not the
generals — you make that decision based on an analysis of understanding how virulent
the threat of radical Islam is. And you confront that threat not just militarily, and importantly
not just militarily. You confront it first by being honest with the American public about
what this threat is. This president has sanitized every defense document, everything. Thereís
no — the — the word radical Islam doesnít appear anywhere. Why? Because we are fighting
political correct — weíre trying to fight this politically correct war and not being
honest with the American public as to who the enemy is, how virulent they are and why
they hate us and what we must do to stop them.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, we know
you have differences with President Obama, but whoís got the better of this argument
right here between Senator Santorum and Governor Huntsman?>>PERRY: Well, I think that you have to — I
would send troops back into Iraq, because I will tell you…>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Now?>>PERRY: I — I think we start talking with
the Iraqi individuals there. The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq
and take over that country, with all of the treasure, both in blood and money, that we
have spent in Iraq, because this president wants to kowtow to his liberal, leftist base
and move out those men and women. He could have renegotiated that timeframe. I think
it is a huge error for us. Weíre going to see Iran, in my opinion, move back in at literally
the speed of light. Theyíre going to move back in, and all of the work that weíve done,
every young man that has lost his life in that country will have been for nothing because
weíve got a president that does not understand whatís going on in that region.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Speaker, do you agree,
send back troops into Iraq right now?>>GINGRICH: Well, no. But let me put it in
context. I was very honored today to have Bud McFarlane come to introduce me at our
veterans rally. Bud was for five years Ronald Reaganís national security adviser, and I
worked with him in the ë80s on the strategy to defeat the Soviet empire. Hereís the key
thing to remember. If youíre — if youíre worried about the Iranians in Iraq, develop
a strategy to replace the Iranian dictatorship and Iraq will be fine. If you want to stop
Wahhabism, get an American energy policy so no American president ever again bows to a
Saudi king, and then you can put pressure on the Saudis, because you have enough American
energy. Stop… [APPLAUSE]>>SAWYER: Governor Romney — Governor Romney,
youíve said that you would not send troops in right now, but give us a sense of the trigger.
What would it take for you to send troops back in?>>ROMNEY: Itís a very high hurdle. The decision
to send our men and women into harmís way is one which would made — be made with great
seriousness and sobriety and… [CROSSTALK]>>SAWYER: What kind of things?>>ROMNEY: Well, you canít begin to say what
the specific circumstances would be, but it would have to require significant, dramatic
American interests. Youíd have to have a president that explained those interests to
the American people, that also indicated how weíre going in. Weíd go in with — with
exceptional force. We would indicate what — how success would be defined, how we would
define, also, when weíre completed, how weíd get our troops out, and what would be left
behind. The president didnít do that in Libya. The president hasnít done that anywhere.
I find it amazing that we have troops in harmís way around the world — and in Afghanistan
right now, in Iraq in the first three years of this presidentís term — he doesnít go
on TV and talk to the American people every month about the sacrifice being made by these
men and women. I find it extraordinary that — that a very few number of families are
paying the price of freedom in America. So the — the hurdle to actually putting our
troops in harmís way is very, very high. And the — the test is Americaís interests,
our security interests. And they have to be involved in a very significant way to deploy
our troops.>>MCELVEEN: I want to give Congressman Paul
a chance to weigh in here, because foreign policy is something that a lot of people think
is your Achillesí heel when it comes to getting elected. You have said that you wouldnít
have authorized the raid to get Osama bin Laden. You think that a nuclear Iran is really
none of our business. How do you reconcile that, when part of your job as president would
be to… [CROSSTALK]>>PAUL: Well, I think — I think thatís
a misquote. I donít want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I voted to go after bin Laden, so
that, you know, takes care of that. But, you know, this business about when to go in, I
donít think itís that complicated. I think weíve made it much more complicated than
it should be. Yes, the president is the commander-in-chief, but heís not the king. And thatís why we
fought a revolution, not to have a king and decide when we go to war. We would have saved
ourselves a lot of grief if we only had gone to war in a proper manner, and the proper
manner is the people elect congressmen and senators to make a declaration of war, and
then we become the commander-in-chief, and we make these decisions. But we went into
Afghanistan. We went into Iraq. And now weíre in Pakistan. Weíre involved in so many countries.
Now they want to move on to Syria. And they canít — thereís some in Washington now
canít wait until they start bombing Iran. We have to change this whole nature. You know,
something happened this week I thought was so encouraging. And it reminds me of how we
finally talked to the Chinese. I mean, they had killed 100 million of their own people,
but we finally broke the ice by playing ping-pong. But today, the — the American Navy picked
up a bunch of fishermen, Iranian fishermen, that had been held by — by the pirates, and
released them. And they were so welcome, it was just a wonderful thing to happen. This
is the kind of stuff we should deal with, not putting on sanctions. Sanctions themselves
are — always leads up to war. And thatís what weíre doing. Eastern Europe is going
to be destabilized if they donít have this oil. And this just pushes Iran right into
the hands of the Chinese. So our policy may be well intended, but it has a lot of downside,
a lot of unintended consequences, and, unfortunately, blowback.>>SAWYER: A final word on this from Senator
Santorum.>>SANTORUM: Well, Ron, if we had your foreign
policy, there wouldnít have been a fleet there to pick up the Iranian fishermen. And
the fact is, we did have a beneficial relationship with picking them up, and we have a very great
relationship, and which should be much better, with the Iranian people. The Iranian people
have come to the streets — have taken to the streets repeatedly and still do, in trying
to overthrow their government. And we had a president of the United States who stood
silently by as thousands were killed on the streets, and did nothing. Did nothing. In
fact, he tacitly supported the results of the election. Now Ahmadinejad announced right
after the election polls were closed that he won with 60-some percent of the vote and
the president of the United States said, well, that sounds like a legitimate election. Obviously
a Chicago politician. [LAUGHTER] And but thatís not what a president of the
United States does. He doesnít get up and condone this behavior and turn his back on
the folks in the street. When I was in the United States Senate, I pushed to help those
revolutionaries before the revolution, to give them resources, to make sure that we
had the relationships so — because I knew and if you take polls, they do in Iran. The
Iranian people love America because we stand up for the truth and say — and call evil,
which is what Ahmadinejad and the mullahs are, we call evil what it is. Thatís why
they admire us, because we tell the truth. Now we just have to have a president that
helps them to do what is necessary, which is to turn that regime out. STEPHANOPOULOS: We have got to go to break.
Much more to come, weíll be right back. [COMMERCIAL BREAK]>>SAWYER: And
we welcome you back. We want to tackle more
on jobs right now, and specifically the ideas the candidates have, individual unique ideas
for creating more American jobs, and specifically, Josh, asking about what we think created the
age of American energy, which was infrastructure.>>MCELVEEN: Infrastructure. And we have an
example of that here in New Hampshire. If you traveled up I-93 from Boston, I-93 North,
you probably went over what was a widening project thatís going on. Weíre about $350
million away from getting this project completed. And a lot of people here think that this is
a very important project to get done in terms of our regional economy. So the question is,
again, infrastructure. With the increasing demands on our roads and bridges, and the
aging roads and bridges, how committed would you be — and weíll start with you, Governor
Romney — to invest — not so much as a stimulus package, but a true economic growth package
on our infrastructure?>>ROMNEY: Well, there are certain things
that government can do to encourage an economy. And rebuilding an infrastructure thatís aging
is — is — is one of those. We had in my state 550 structurally deficient bridges.
Weíve got to improve our bridges, improve our roads, improve our rail beds, improve
our air transportation system in order to be competitive. But fundamentally, what happens
in America that creates jobs is not government. It has its role. But by and large, it gets
in the way of creating jobs. Itís taxed too much. Itís regulates too much. It has energy
policies that keep us from using our own energy. It has trade policies which too often favor
people who are taking jobs away from us. And so weíre going to have to have government
change its orientation to be encouraging the private sector. And fundamentally, what makes
America the most productive and the — and the wealthiest nation of the major nations
of the world, our GDP per capita. Our income per person in America is 50 percent higher
than that of the average person in Europe. Why is that? Itís because of the entrepreneurial
spirit of the American people, of the ability of Americans to innovate, to create. We have
a nation which is based upon opportunity and merit. We draw people here who seek freedom,
and these people have built enterprises that employ and that make America stronger. We
have a president who has an entirely different view. He wants us to turn into a European-style
welfare state and have government take from some to give to others. That will kill the
ability of America to provide for a prosperous future, to secure our freedom, and to give
us the — the rights which have been in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
I believe in an America thatís based upon opportunity and freedom, not President Obamaís
social welfare state.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, I know
you agree with Governor Romney again on his views on President Obama, but how would your
plans on job creation distinguish you from Governor Romney?>>GINGRICH: Well, youíre talking about infrastructure?>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Infrastructure. And more
broadly, job creation.>>GINGRICH: But — but — but letís stick
with infrastructure then, because I think itís a very big, very important topic. You
cannot compete with China in the long run if you have an inferior infrastructure. Youíve
got to move to a twenty first century model. That means youíve got to be — youíve got
to be technologically smart and you have to make investments. So for example here, the
Northern Pass project ought to be buried and should be along the states right of way. Which
means youíd need these modern techniques to bring electricity from Quebec all the way
down to Boston in a way that also preserves the beauty of northern New Hampshire. I would
have an energy program designed to get us free from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, two-thirds
of the government revenue from that would go to debt reduction and to paying off the
debt. One-third would go to infrastructure, which would give you the ability to have an
infrastructure investment program that would actually get us back on track and you look
at places like the highways youíre describing, the bridges the governor just described. If
you donít have some systematic investment program, then you are not going to be able,
I think, to compete with China and India.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Huntsman, where
is the money going to come from?>>HUNTSMAN: Weíve got to earn our way forward.
Thereís no question about it. Governors learn how to pay the bills. In order to pay the
bills, youíve got to expand your economic base. And thatís a problem we have in the
United States right now. We read about the jobs that have ticked upward in this country
and weíre all very happy about that. Weíre providing people more in the way of real opportunity.
But think of where this country would be, if during the first two years of Barack Obama
you had — if you would have had a different president. I would have ripped open the tax
code and I would have done what Simpson-Bowles recommended. I would have cleaned out all
of the loopholes and the deductions that weigh down this country to the tune of $1 trillion,
100 billion dollars. Weíve got a corrupt tax code. So youíve got to say, how are we
going to pay for it? Weíve got to stimulate some confidence in the — in the creative
class in this country. Right now theyíre sitting on their hands. And theyíre not going
to have a more optimistic view of our direction… [CROSSTALK]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: …the same amount of revenue
as Simpson-Bowles — the Simpson-Bowles plan that — that was the commission appointed
by President Obama. Would anybody else — anybody else on this stage agree with that?>>SANTORUM: Iím sorry?>>STEPHANOPOULOS: To raise the kind of revenues
called for in the Simpson-Bowles Commission?>>SANTORUM: No. No I wouldnít. In fact our
plan puts together a package that focuses on simplifying the tax code and I agree with
Governor Huntsman on that. Five deductions. Health care, housing, pensions, children and
charities. Everything else goes. We focus on the pillars that have — have broad consensus
of this country in the important sectors of our economy, including our children the other
side is the corporate side. Cut it in half, 17.5 percent. But I do something different
than anybody else. Iím very worried about a sector of our economy that has been under
fire. I come from southwestern Pennsylvania, the heart of the steel country, the heart
of manufacturing. And itís been devastated because we are uncompetitive. Thirty years
ago we were devastated because business and labor didnít understand global competitiveness
and they made a lot of mistakes. They did — they werenít prepared for it and we lost
a lot of jobs. Thatís not whatís happening now. Our productivity gains, our labor force,
their doing their job, theyíre being competitive. But theyíre running into a stiff headwind
called government. And itís government taxation, 35 percent corporate tax which is high — the
highest in the world. Itís a tax that doesnít easily offset when we try to export, which
makes it even more difficult… [CROSSTALK]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Everyone on this stage
is for lowering the corporate tax.>>SANTORUM: No one — no one wants to zero
it out for manufacturers and processors, which is what I do because we are at 20 percent
cost differential with our — with our nine top trading partners on average. And that
20 percent cost differential, that is excluding labor costs. So it is government taxation.
Eliminating the corporate tax gets rid of a big chunk of that. Itís regulation. This
administration is on track — we — I — I think itís the Congressional Research Service,
they look at regulations and they price the highest cost ones, ones that are over $100
billion. And Bush and Clinton, they were 60 on average per year under those two administrations.
Last year under President Obama, there was 150 of those types of regulations. [CROSSTALK]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: …whatís wrong with the
Santorum approach… [CROSSTALK]>>SANTORUM: …repeal every one of them and
replace them with ones that are less costly or not replace them at all.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Why not go to zero?>>ROMNEY: Why not go to zero? I — thereís
no question it would be great not to have any taxes, but unfortunately we have to have
taxes to pay for our military, to pay for the programs that care for those that canít
care for themselves, but our taxes are too high. Government at all levels during the
days of John F. Kennedy consumed 27 percent of our economy, about a quarter. Today it
consumes 37 percent of our economy.>>ROMNEY: Weíre only inches away from no
longer being a free economy. And our Democrat friends want us to just keep raising taxes
just a little more. Just give us a little more. Government is already too big. We have
to reign in the scale of the federal government. And so we do need to have our employer tax
rates brought down to be competitive with other nations. Thatís about 25 percent. We
also have to make sure that we give relief to people who need it most. The people that
have been hurt in the Obama economy are the people in the middle-class. And so I put in
place a significant savings incentive, tax reduction. I eliminate any tax on savings
from middle income Americans. No tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. But I look long
term to do just what Jon indicated, which is to take Bowles-Simpson and to reduce the
rates in our tax code, to reduce the number of exemptions and — and limit the amount
of exceptions that can occur. At the same time, I donít want to raise capital gains
tax rates, as they do in Bowles– Simpson. But simplifying the code, broadening the base
is the right way to go for our tax code long term. And immediately, letís get some relief
for middle-income Americans.>>SAWYER: And, Congressman Paul, we hear
over and over again people are hoping for a great vision for America once again, America
on the move once again. Give us the great vision that is realistic given the financial
situation, a realistic great vision for America.>>PAUL: Well, itís to restore America to
our freedoms, restore America to our principles, and that is individual liberty and our Constitution
and sound money. But in doing that, you have to understand economics. You canít solve
any of this economic crisis unless you know where the business cycle comes from and why
you have bubbles and why — why — why they break. You have to understand that weíve
had a financial bubble thatís been going on for 40 years. Itís collapsing. Nobody
quite recognizes it, but weíre in the midst of a real big correction. And the only way
you can get back to growth is you have to liquidate the debt. But instead of liquidating
debt, what weíve done is the people who built up the debt on Wall Street and the banks,
weíve had the American taxpayer bail them out. We — we bought it through the Federal
Reserve and through the Treasury, dumped it on the American people. The middle class is
now shrinking. And we donít have jobs. But if youíre an individual or a businessman,
if youíre consuming everything youíre earning just to finance your debt, you canít have
growth. So we have to liquidate debt. This is the reason I call for cutting spending,
the only one thatís calling for real cuts. You have to have real cuts. Thatís what the
Republican Party used to stand for, but you canít liquidate debt. You canít — you canít
keep bailing out the debt. Thatís what Japan has done for 20 years. And theyíre still
in their doldrums. We did it in the depression. Weíre into this now for five years, and it
has to end. Itís only going to end until after we understand the business cycle.>>PERRY: There is a vision. I mean, Dr. Paul,
there is a vision out there, and itís to get America back working again. I mean, the
— the idea that Americans have lost confidence in Washington, D.C., and lost confidence in
Wall Street is a great example of where they want to go. They want Washington out of their
hair. They want less taxation, less regulation, less litigation. Thereís a model for that
in the state of Texas over the course of the last decade. And if we will put those types
of — of — of policies into place, weíre sitting on 300 years of energy in this country.
Allow our federal lands and waters to be opened up so that we are the people who are developing
domestic energy and we are not being held hostage by companies — countries that are
hostile to America. We can put this country back to work again in the energy industry,
whether itís — you know, any of the energy industry side, whether itís solar or wind
or oil and gas or coal. Use it all. Put the American people to work. Allow those resources
off our federal lands, Dr. Paul, to be used to pay down the debt. And Iíll tell you one
of the things that can turn this economy in New Hampshire around is to pass the right-to-work
law. And it will make New Hampshire a powerful magnet for jobs in the Northeast. [APPLAUSE]>>SAWYER: Governor Huntsman?>>HUNTSMAN: Diane, you hit right on it, and
that is, what is the vision for getting this country moving? We all have records, those
of us who were governors, very specific job-creation record. I delivered a flat tax in my state.
We became the top job-creator in the country. You can look at what Mitt did in Massachusetts.
He was number 47. But more to the point, I went to Lindyís Diner in Keane and had a
conversation with a guy named Jamie, who has a small motorcycle repair shop. And he said,
when he grew up in Keane, it was bustling with activity. He said he had 30 different
jobs growing up. He said there were four machine tool operations in that town. He said, I remember
the excitement, the enthusiasm, and all of the opportunity. And we had this conversation.
I said, you know what? We are once again on the cusp of a manufacturing renaissance in
this country, if we do it right. China is going down in terms of GDP growth from 8 percent,
9 percent, 10 percent to 4 percent or 5 percent, 6 percent. And as they go down in growth,
unemployment goes up. We have an opportunity to win back that manufacturing investment,
if we are smart enough, with the right kind of leadership to fix our taxes. No one up
here is calling for the complete elimination of all the loopholes and the deductions, where
the Wall Street Journal came out and endorsed my tax plan. Thatís what needs to be done,
not tinkering around the edges. If we can fix our taxes, if we can move toward a friendlier
regulatory environment, this country can get back in the game again. We can rebuild our
manufacturing muscle, and we can rebuild some of the job-training opportunities that we
have lost over recent years.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, why not
close all the loopholes, as Governor Huntsman is saying?>>ROMNEY: George, let me step back from that.
I know you want to ask that question. Nothing wrong with it. And I donít want to be critical
of the questions that — that you ask and the other interviewers ask. But — but I think
the — the real issue is the vision for this country. And I — I think people have to recognize
that whatís at stake in this election is jobs, yes; and balancing the budget, yes;
and dealing with our — our extraordinary overhang from our — our entitlements. We
have to make sure theyíre preserved, our entitlements, that is, so we donít kill the
future of the country. Weíve got a lot of issues what about. But, really, this election
is about the soul of America. The question is, what is America going to be? And we have
in Washington today a president who has put America on a road to decline, militarily,
internationally and, domestically, heís making us into something we wouldnít recognize.
Weíre increasingly becoming like Europe. Europe isnít working in Europe. It will never
work here. The right course for America is to return to the principles that were written
down in first words in the Declaration of Independence, we were endowed by our creator
with certain unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
We have the right in this country to pursue happiness as we choose and as people pursue
education and work hard and take risks and build enterprises of all kinds, they lift
themselves and donít make us poorer, they make us better off. The question is, are we
going to remain an exceptional nation, a unique nation in the history of the earth? Thatís
whatís at stake in this election. We have a president that does not understand, in his
heart, in his bones, the nature of American entrepreneurialism, innovation and work. And
— and that is something which weíre fighting for in this election. I hope the people on
the stage share that vision. But we must return America to the principles about — upon which
it was founded if weíre ever going to have a strong balance sheet, a strong income statement,
create jobs, but have a bright future for our kids.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, you just
heard Governor Romney… [APPLAUSE] STEPHANOPOULOS: — make his case. Heís… [APPLAUSE]>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Youíve made the case on
several occasions that heís not the man to carry that message for the Republican Party.
Why not?>>GINGRICH: Well, look, I think thatís a
good message and I agree with him. A — a little bit harsh on President Obama, who,
Iím sure in his desperate efforts to create a radical European socialist model, is sincere. [LAUGHTER]>>GINGRICH: But, you know, I think ìThe
Wall Street Journalî captured it the other day in their dialogue, when their editorial
board met and they said I had a very aggressive pro-jobs program, zero capital gains, 12.5
percent corporate tax rate, 100 percent expensing for all new equipment to dramatically modernize
the system, abolish the death tax and they said that, by contrast — this is their words,
not mine — that Governor Romneyís program was timid and more like Obama. Now, I would
think those are fighting words. And, frankly, if he wants to fight with ìThe Wall Street
Journalî on that, I wouldnít blame him. But I do think thereís a difference between
a bold Reagan conservative model and a more establishment model that is a little more
cautious about taking the kind of changes we need.>>SAWYER: And, Josh?>>MCELVEEN: Senator Santorum, you just heard
from the — both people on either side of you. Enough substance there for you?>>SANTORUM: Well, look, I — I like the vision.
As far as — as far as substance, I agree with Speaker Gingrich. I donít think Governor
Romneyís plan is particularly bold, it — or is particularly focused on where the problems
are in this country. And the governor used a term earlier that — that I shrink from.
And — and itís one that I donít think we should be using as Republicans, middle class.
There are no classes in America. We are a country that donít allow for titles. We donít
put people in classes. There may be middle income people, but the idea that somehow or
another weíre going to buy into the class warfare arguments of Barack Obama is something
that should not be part of the Republican lexicon. Thatís their job, divide, separate,
put one group against another. Thatís not the — thatís not the language that Iíll
use as president. Iíll use the language of bringing people together. And Iíll also be
able to show you that unlike some of the folks up here, that we have a consistent record
of being the person to contrast ourselves on health care, for example. Weíre looking
for someone who can win this race, who can win this race on the economy and on the core
issues of this — of this election. And I was not ever for an individual mandate. I
wasnít for a top down, government-run health care system. I wasnít for the big bank of
Wall Street bailout, as Governor Romney was. And I — and I stood firm on those and worked,
actually, in the coal fields, if you will, against this idea that we needed a cap and
trade program. So if you want someone thatís a clear contrast, that has a strong record,
has a vision for this country thatís going to get this country growing and appeal to
blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Michigan, in Indiana and deliver that message,
that we care about you, too, not just about Wall Street and bailing them out, then Iím
the guy that you want to put in the — in the nomination.>>MCELVEEN: Governor Romney?>>ROMNEY: My plan is a lot broader than just
tax policy. The tax poli — policy Iíve described is — is entitled to help people in this country
that desperately need help right now.>>ROMNEY: Thereís more to it than that.
We have to open up markets for Americaís goods, as the most productive people in the
world, more output per person from an American than anywhere else in the world. We have to
open up markets for our goods. We havenít done that under this president. Europe — European
nations and China over the last three years have opened up 44 different trade relationships
with various nations in the world. This president has opened up none. We have to open up trade.
We have to take advantage of our extraordinary energy resources. At the same time, weíre
going to have to do something about the regulations in this country. As a party, we talk about
deregulation, what weíre really shorthanding is that we want to change old regulations
that are crushing enterprise and put in place those that encourage enterprise. I understand
how the economy works, because Iíve lived in it. There are a lot of guys who have spent
their life in Washington, have a very valid and important experience, but they have not
been on the front line competing with businesses around the world. I have. I know what regulations
kill and which regulations help enterprise. And I want to use the expertise to get America
working again. And Iíll come back to the point I made at the beginning. This is bigger
than that issue. This is really an issue — a campaign about the direction of this country.
This is a choice. And by the way, if we donít make the right choice this time, we may not
be able to for a very, very long time. This is a critical time in the history of this
country.>>SAWYER: Governor Huntsman, vision for dealing
with China, competing around the world?>>HUNTSMAN: Listen, we have the most important
relationship of the 21st Century with China. Weíve got to make it work. Of course we have
challenges with them. Weíve had challenges for 40 years. Itís nonsense to think you
can slap a tariff on China the first day that youíre in office, as Governor Romney would
like to do. Youíve got to sit down and sort through the issues of trade like you do with
North Korea, like you do with Iran, like you do with Burma, and Pakistan, and the South
China Sea. Theyíre all interrelated. And to have a president who actually understands
how that relationship works would serve the interests of the people in this country, from
an economics standpoint and from a security standpoint.>>ROMNEY: Iím sorry, Governor, you were,
the last two years, implementing the policies of this administration in China. The rest
of us on this stage were doing our best to get Republicans elected across the country
and stop the policies of this president from being put forward. My own view on the relationship
with China is this, which is that China is stealing our intellectual property, our patents,
our designs, our know-how, our brand names. Theyíre hacking into our computers, stealing
information from not only corporate computers but from government computers. And theyíre
manipulating their currency. And for those who donít understand the impact of that,
Iíve seen it. Iíve seen it. And that is, if you hold down the value of your currency
artificially, you make your products artificially low-priced and kill American jobs. That has
happened here in this country. And if Iím president of the United States, Iím not going
to continue to talk about how important China is and how we have to get along. And I believe
those things. Theyíre very important. And we do have to get along. But Iím also going
to tell the Chinese itís time to stop. You have to play by the rules. I will not let
you kill American jobs any longer. [APPLAUSE]>>SAWYER: Under the rules, Governor Huntsman.>>HUNTSMAN: I think itís important to note,
as they would say in China, that [speaking mandarin]… [CROSSTALK]>>HUNTSMAN: … he doesnít quite understand
this situation. What he is calling for would lead to a trade war. It makes for easy talk
and a nice applause line but itís far different from the reality in the U.S.-China relationship.
You slap on tariffs, you talk tough like that. Of course you have, that has got to be part
of it as well. But in the end, we get a tariff in return if we donít sit down and have a
logical, sensible conversation. And who does that hurt most? It hurts the small businesses
and the small exporters are who trying to get back on their feet in this country in
a time when this nation can least afford a trade war. [APPLAUSE]>>ROMNEY: Iíve said it before and Iíll
say it again. The last thing China wants is a trade war. We donít want one either. [CROSSTALK]>>ROMNEY: But they sell us this much stuff.
We sell them this much stuff. Tell me, who doesnít want the trade war? They donít want
it real bad. And weíve been listening for 10 years from people talking about how we
canít hold China to the rules of free and fair trade and if I=ím president I will hold
them to those rules. And weíll respect each other but we are not going to let them just
run all over us and steal our jobs.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Weíve got to take a break.
Weíll be right back with a final word. [APPLAUSE]>>ANNOUNCER: Youíre watching live coverage
from Manchester, New Hampshire, of the ABC News Republican Party Debate. [COMMERCIAL BREAK]>>SAWYER: We are back and so grateful for
this debate tonight. And we thought we might just end on something personal. Itís Saturday
night, again, as we meet.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you werenít here
running for president, Governor Perry, what would you be doing on a Saturday night? PERRY:
Iíd probably be at the shooting range. [LAUGHTER]>>SANTORUM: Instead of being shot at.>>PERRY: Yeah.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich?>>GINGRICH: Iíd be watching the college
championship basketball game.>>[UNKNOWN]: Football game.>>GINGRICH: I mean, football game. [LAUGHTER] Thank you.>>SANTORUM: Iíd be doing the same thing
with my family. Weíd be huddled around, and weíd be watching the championship game.>>ROMNEY: Iím afraid itís football. I love
it.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Football?>>ROMNEY: Yeah.>>PAUL: Iíd be home with my family. But
if they all went to bed, Iíd probably read an economic textbook. [LAUGHTER]>>HUNTSMAN: Iíd be on the phone with my
two boys in the United States Navy, because theyíre a constant reminder of what is great
about this nation and awesome about the emerging generation in this country. [APPLAUSE]>>SAWYER: And on that note, once again, we
thank you all. Tuesday, the big primary in New Hampshire. And that is it for us here
at Saint Anselm College in Manchester. And we want to thank all of you in the audience.
And your families, once again, your families are here. And we salute all of you who have
spent your Saturday night here with us, too. And we thank everybody here in New Hampshire
for joining us. And stay with ABC News. We have full coverage coming up.>>STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks to all the candidates,
again. Stick with us, everyone at home. Weíre going to have full analysis coming up in just a couple minutes. Weíll be right back.

Author:

100 thoughts on “ABC News/Yahoo/WMUR Republican Debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH (January 7th, 2012)”

  • Huntsman is by far the best, best record as governor, consistant, great foreing policy experience, and he's actually nice guy and can have a civil debate with Obama, unlike the others. Seeing a debate between Obama and huntsman would be good for America, any of these other candidates and it'll just be another mud slinging, partisan race.

  • dunadainjedi25 says:

    12:38 to 17:30 you just watch the exchange between Santorum and Paul and then look at Romney whenever they show him. He's just sitting there watching them give him this election. ROMNEY 2012!

  • @ucancallmetheseeker Every U.S citizen is now really responsible for his own demise. Nobody is going to protect you from yourself! I'm so sorry that a lot of Americans don't see the evil and stupidity of those manipulated assholes on the stage, except Paul. This is so stupid…just fucking stupid. I have a degree in economics and those retards don't know shit about economy. The only one who knows true fundamentals is Paul. It is just disgusting…

  • William Seifenmacher says:

    What does it say about the state of our country and it's political process when Ron Paul is branded as "crazy" and "extreme" for saying that the president and congress should obey the constitution?

  • What debate? This is a forum for Obama proxies to level accusations and spread defamation on the candidates. The dinosaur media sucks and blows, and Opie and Farrah here should never be allowed to moderate a debate.

  • Ron Paul can't be elected because of the lunatic supporters with hot headed libertarian mind. Remember, they are politician after all. They all do their best job to enhence their records/ credentials, but talking aloud before the election is just BS. Look how Obama promised for all the changes he would bring to WH. that was greatest BS in washington history. Look for the man with best experienced, smartest and boldest and support the man.

  • Now I see Dr. Pauls stategy….Get the entire Republican party to fight amoungst themselves, therefore turning the entire party off to the public, making them not want to vote republican. Meanwhile, RP rides the GOP tide through Maine, ND, etc etc, coming in 2nd, 3rd in each…Then electing to run as an independent. Leaving Romney up there with a terrible identity crisis to repair. Securing all those republican votes, the independents, and sneak past 'em all!

  • I like what Huntsman had to say. He was the only candidate capable of coherently speaking his mind without making me feel alienated. I would have liked to have heard more from this man, but like the competitive beast it is, he allowed the other candidates to feed of his instantiated ideas without taking the opportunity for himself, to finish what he started. In my own humble opinion, he is the only candidate on stage with an identity that doesn't come off sounding desperately condescending.

  • @isaiah5178 Ron Paul is usually attacked so he has to first defend himself then move on to what you said. He can get tripped up in that. But I would still rather have Paul sitting at the desk in the white house.

  • If you've ever had a debate course you can tell in the first few minutes that Mitt Romney is well schooled in the particular art of turning an attack into a positive answer that highlights a strength of his. It's astonishing actually. I'm not even for the guy, but I have to be honest about what I'm seeing.

  • sellingmiamihomes says:

    Everybody wants Ron Paul for President how do these other people even get voters? RON PAUL for President 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • RON PAUL 2012!!!

    Keep speaking the truth. You are one of the last hopes for a return to freedom in this country. Definitely a true R3volution!

  • Romney made a very good point. This is a very important election. Many things in this country are building very quickly, and that is the reason why Ron Paul should be the next president of the United States. He is the only one who is going to actually reduce government size and spending.

  • @ianwins1 You know that's funny, but I noticed that also. I don't buy into the reptilian theory, but it is strange how his eye did change like that. Interesting…

  • @29:33 "When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids and I went." applause. quick, make Ron Paul look bad, make Ron Paul look bad! Newt set them up real nice for that "racist" crap. and, of course, as any time he's permitted to speak, he brings up a real issue, and speaks the truth. …How dare he? Crazy old man.

    Ron Paul 2012

  • UH did anyone at @37:54 that Diane Sawyer makes an oh-so-funny joke about diverting from the "constitutional" and elevated and get back to something "closer to home." Diane… no one is laughing. she says "constitutional" as if it's some silly, small side issue, something only someone as crazy as Ron Paul could find important…IT'S OUR CONSTITUTION. if anything can show us how corrupt things are, THAT WAS IT

  • That why this vote campaign : Mitt Ronmney 39.3%, Ron Paul 22.9%, Jon Huntsman 16.9%,Newt Gingrich 9.4%, Rick Santorum 9.4% wow that sound good Mitt Ronmney beat on newt gingrich got out now!!!!!

  • That why this vote campaign : Mitt Ronmney 39.3%, Ron Paul 22.9%, Jon Huntsman 16.9%,Newt Gingrich 9.4%, Rick Santorum 9.4% wow that sound good Mitt Ronmney beat on newt gingrich got out now!!!!! :Igorel88 that well didn't got won for ron paul lose…

  • Baltimore's Cryptic says:

    its just funny to hear them all defend america when pauls the only one who dont stand for 1867. how i see, paul is the only person on that stage thats not a traitor. You dont trade liberties for security and you dont wage war against your own country. how dont the country see these acts for what they are. it seems like the rest of the world can see it.

  • Baltimore's Cryptic says:

    Debates should be longer and the spectators should be able to heckle an ask the real questions that no ones asking.

  • @dlifeon It's kind of hard to know this when he is barely given time talk and asked personal questions he has already answered.

  • To quote someone else @1:31:14 mark, Ron Paul is saving Romney for last to finish him off with fava beans and a nice chianti.

  • Wow Rick Santorum 14 mins in had allot of frothy liquid coming out of his ass. It is a Joke to have anyone on stage who has ever been a government lobbyist. Its obvious unless your a idiot that lobbyist has sold his soul, it honestly should be illegal because of the corruption it causes to allow lobbyist to hold public office or anyone who has served in public office to become one. That should be against the law, its pathetic anyone has voted for any man who has ever been a lobbyist the end!

  • @jongmin I will vote for Paul but I do not think he can get elected because of the press. Its pathetic and sad we live in a country that big business controls about everything. Big Business will not allow any of their media outlets to even recognize Ron Paul is clearly running at second right now. He would have a far better change against Obama than anyone else on this stage, Mitt is going to have a hard time, religion should not be an issue but it is, and he is flip flopper on everything.

  • @isaiah5178 God this is pathetic there was once a time when the Republican Party stood for Regulations its the lack of Regulations that ruined the US, man how stupid are you. My God seriously, the banks just did the biggest ponzi skeem in the history of the world all of it legal but heck if they had regulations to stop them that would ruin what.. Fuck how Rep party is one thats believes in Good Regulations and not government take over. Proper Regulations are NEED BIG TIME you dumb fuck

  • 03:10 Romney is blaming the recession on Obamacare??! It hasn't even come into effect yet! Unless he thinks a tax on indoor tanning and preventing discrimination against pre-existing conditions has 'slowed the recovery'. What a joke!

  • Rick Perry acts less like the TX governor and more like the TX court jester. And Mitt Romney will be toast once his actions at Bain sink into all non-Right wing voters.

  • Mormons believe they descended from Ephraim & are related to O.T. Jews. All others are Gentiles. Their book Doctrine & Covenants section 57 v.3-5 discusses land lines running directly between Jew and Gentile-infers the "saints" belong to neither class.They also have a long unwritten history of using this word "Gentile" to mean all nonmormons.

  • @ASexyChef Polititians gave the money to the banks. The banks did not steal anything. It was given to them. Bush & Paulson & Democrats & Republicans & Bernanke GAVE our money to banks here and abroad.

  • @NOSERPICOINUTAH No, I do not think anyone can have a none changing view over anything if they live longer. You get older and your views do change, its part of growing as an adult, but someone who changes what they say because of the people they talk to or like Newt deny what you said because it upsets some people and a few others have done that, totally deny saying what you said flip flopping. Romney and Newt flip flop allot about say anything to be elected or supported.

  • @Ipostle Give me a break, the bail out was suposed to be used to help home owners, and no money went to that, so sorry the banks did steal, its the sad fact the US allowed banks to do it that is pathetic. The bankers also committed Fraud, when you sell a protect for 10 times its market value, that is against the law unless they are banks, I am sorry your just a hardcore idiot for not grasping the banks did things that in any other businesses would easily be jail time but deregulation made it ok

  • @ASexyChef I'm not giving my Rulers breaks.You can beat up banks all you want.I don't believe the history the networks give me. Rulers sold all the people out during TARP. If you wanna believe the economist sky is falling crap then you are the fool.

  • @Ipostle By rulers I guess you are saying the politicians our the rulers? Yet they seem to have proven they have their masters, so their master than would be ours going by your logic right? So if the bankers get 7 trillion than use that to bribe our rulers to do their will, than the bankers are our actual rulers, politicians do whatever it is their major contributors want, the bankers, GE, Big Oil, all control whom you call rulers, so they clearly are the Real Rulers..

  • @Ipostle The economy is fucked, the sky will be were it is and nope its not falling but the economy is built on lies, and bullshit, and its not going to be too far into the future when their new little house of cards they built will crash. My bet will be Europe and the Euro will crash sometime within the next 5 years, when that happens gold and minerals will be hugely invested in, created a great bubble there and that will than crash, and than the world will truly be in the Great Depression.

  • not american ,and i am a labour (democrat) supporter , but listening to ron paul if i could i would become a republican and vote for him in a heart beat , he just seems to be one of the few american politics who makes sense and comes across as a very intellegent man with strong morals ,
    i hope he becomes president eventually
    ron paul 2012

  • while these republican clowns are still fighting for leadership…..democrats just are as confident with Obama running despite the vast ugly media representation…..I might single out ron Paul…he is something else..he is not like the whole clown pack

  • @iamthatguyontv haha you dumbass democrat, grow up. Learn something about politics and how people like you are a reason that this country is being run into the ground before you come up with immature little names.

  • @HUFFDADDY2 i am not a democrat nor a republican, you realize i just trolled the shit out of you right? Although, i find it interesting that you repunblicunts try to stay living in past and among lies rather than stepping out into the light and truth of politics. people like you have no evidence or facts, so you don't matter and your opinion is about as helpful as genocide 😀

  • By the way it was thye republican party that overly spent during both ways. For the ones that served kissing ass in the millitary dosn't impress me. There Hasn't been a war sence WWI and WWII that hasn't been a total wast of time. Iraq was pointless and Afganistan we should have stormed it right away and took out Osama in stead of taking almost 10 yrs to find him.
    Longer we keep troops there more money we spend!

  • Why the hell does someones sex life belong in a debate. Who cares!!! Talk about ther real problems and stay out of peoples bed rooms. Its called freedom of choice so get on with the real issue!!

  • Threefoot McMillan says:

    Four talking heads remains. Santorum wants to nuke Cuba,his anger alone says it. He's speaking to a base thinking that will humble them.Someone tell him to review the bay of pigs please. Ron Paul, well he's neither here or there. The other two Newt and Romney seems to be trap in the repeal world.Repeal this,real that,is there cry.The thing is, while they talk repeal they not telling us it will take two terms to get the Acts pass.

  • Threefoot McMillan says:

    @Faboba This country was in a recession under George Bush,he was so happy to leave office.The issue is this, Romney is saying let Americans pay for health care.How can we do that if many jobs have been lost, can he give every American jobs the first term in office? Millions of Americans will have health care because the jobs are gone and the GOP want to repeal what Obama has put tin place!!

  • ron paul is a democrat not a republican I think he has a hard time understanding so..but he seems like he would be a good singer..the way he talks and acts.ahaha

  • @Faboba some people believe obamacare is part contributor to the slow recovery because it's so vague that employers have NO idea what to expect out of it…you can't hire additional employees when you're not sure how much they're going to cost.

  • adorablecreature79 says:

    This is so freakin ridiculous. THIS is what the GOP has turned into… with the exception on Ron Paul because he's not really a Republican. With him aside…. the GOP is PATHETIC! There are no good candidates!!!!!! All these guys make Elmer Fudd look smart!

  • do you know how much he wants to change? our definitions of conservative is pretty different. Libertarian would be the label and non-shifting set of principles that Ron Paul believes in. It is the closest philosophy that America was founded on by the founding fathers. So in that regard he's conservative, but the term has multiple definitions and has changed in stance on various issues.

  • @Faboba: your absolutely right, obamacare has not gone into full swing yet and it is already having an affect on the company because of the costs that are going to be imposed on employers as a result! Take your partisan blinders off and wake up to the fact that shoving mandatory healthcare down everybodys throats is NOT a practical solution to solve the healthcare costs and discriminatory practices that are currently in place.

  • The costs that will be imposed… in 2014. See that was my point – costs in the future, recession today. Unless Romney believes in backwards causation he's just blowing smoke. And as to whether it's a 'practical solution'; look, it's not as if the Democrats in the main and their supporters wouldn't have preferred to pass, say, Single Payer healthcare; mandatory health insurance is the most they were able to pass and at least makes healthcare as a whole cheaper by solving the emergency care cost.

  • Brahvan Ranganathan says:

    Paul:Ausome, Huntsman:Not that bad. Romney: Corporate Robot. Perry: Not the brightest, but a good person. Gingrich and Santorum: Psychotic bigots.

  • hmm RON Paul seems the most logical person here among republicans he should go up against Obama in a debate that would be fun to listen to.

  • I am finally watching these to figure out how/why Mitt Romney became the republican candidate and feel it is a real shame that Jon Huntsman didn't end up being that candidate. But aside from Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney does look like the best candidate so not bad. Ron Paul is definitely not the Ralph Nader equivalent of Republican party. Both the Ricks would cause me to vote for anybody else. Newt seemed very rational and good but also has the ethics violations stigma so not viable.

  • The law distinguishes between different types of behaviour. Same sex unions are not the same as an union between people  of the opposite sex. And there is no chance of procreation between couples of the same sex where as it's always possible between opposite sex couples, even those who don't intend to have children or are elderly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *