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.