Campaign Headlines October 11, 2012: President Barack Obama’s ABC News Interview — Debate Performance: ‘I Had a Bad Night’

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

President Obama on Debate Performance: ‘I Had a Bad Night’

Source: ABC News Radio, 10-11-12

ABC News

President Obama on Wednesday said in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that he plans to more aggressively confront Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in their second debate next week, trying to allay concerns among supporters that a lackluster first debate performance may have cost him the race.

“Governor Romney had a good night. I had a bad night. It’s not the first time,” Obama said in his first televised interview since the Denver debate on Oct. 3. Despite Romney’s post-debate momentum and surge in the polls, the “fundamentals of what this race is about haven’t changed,” he said….READ MORE

Campaign Buzz January 7, 2012: ABC News / Yahoo!/ WMUR-TV New Hampshire Republican Primary Debate — 15th GOP Debate — Mitt Romney Retains Frontrunner Status

CAMPAIGN 2012

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University. Ms. Goodman has also contributed the overviews, and chronologies in History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 4th edition, edited by Gil Troy, Fred L. Israel, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger to be published by Facts on File, Inc. in late 2011.

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

PHOTO: GOP debate
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry take their positons before a Republican presidential candidate debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. on Jan. 7, 2012. (Elise Amendola/AP Photo)

IN FOCUS: ABC NEWS / YAHOO!/ WMUR-TV NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY DEBATE

New Hampshire Debate in 2 Minutes: Highlights from the GOP presidential debate in Manchester, N.H…. – ABC News, 1-7-12

ABC News New Hampshire Republican Debate Video ABC News, 1-7-12

Republican Debate: Live Blog of ABC News, Yahoo News and WMUR Presidential Debate: ABC News, Yahoo News and WMUR are sponsoring the first debate of the remaining Republican presidential candidates. The debate is being held at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire ahead of next Tuesday’s all-important New Hampshire primary … – ABC News, 1-7-12

New Hampshire Debate Live Blog: The Republican candidates for president have gathered at St. Anselm’s College for the first of two back- to-back debates that could serve as a televised confrontation of Mitt Romney, who has a large lead… – NYT, 1-6-12

New Hampshire ABC debate: The live blog!: The six major Republican presidential candidates will take the debate stage for the first time in almost a month tonight in New Hampshire — and the Fix will bring every minute of it to you live. The debate, which is being sponsored by ABC and WMUR…. – WaPo, 1-7-12

Recommended: Live-tweeting the debate: The NBC political team will be live-tweeting the debate, which is sponsored by ABC News, Yahoo and WMUR, in this post beginning at 9 pm ET. … – msnbc.com, 1-7-12

Live blog of tonight’s Republican presidential debate in Goffstown, NH: The Republican presidential campaign entered a potentially formative 12-hour span tonight, as the candidates began back-to-back debates just three days before the New Hampshire primary. … – Boston.com, 1-7-12

“I was not ever for an individual mandate. I wasn’t for a top-down, government-run health care system. I wasn’t for the big bank of Wall Street bailout, as Governor Romney was. We’re looking for someone who can win this race, who can win this race on the economy and on the core issues of this election.” — Rick Santorum

“Business experience doesn’t necessarily match up with being the commander-in-chief of this country. The commander-in-chief of this country isn’t a CEO.” — Rick Santorum

“I think people who spend their life in Washington don’t understand what happens out in the real economy. The people in the private sector. They’re not successful because they’re managers. They’re successful primarily because they are leaders.” — Mitt Romney

“As far as substance, I agree with Speaker [Newt] Gingrich. I don’t think Governor Romney’s plan is particularly bold, or is particularly focused on where the problems are in this country… there are no classes in America. We are a country that don’t allow for titles. We don’t put people in classes. There may be middle income people, but the idea that somehow or another we’re going to buy into the class warfare arguments of Barack Obama is something that should not be part of the Republican lexicon. That’s their job, divide, separate, put one group against another. I’ll use the language of bringing people together.” — Rick Santorum

“I mean, he became a high-powered lobbyist 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.” — Ron Paul

“I’m 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.” — Newt Gingrich

“We understand that in the free economy, in the private sector, that sometimes investments don’t work and you’re not successful. It always pains you if you have to be in a situation of downsizing a business in order to try and make it more successful, turn it around and try and grow it again.” — Mitt Romney

Ron Paul: “You’re a big-government conservative. To say you’re a conservative, I think it’s a stretch, but you’ve convinced a lot of people of it.”

Rick Santorum: “If you haven’t been sued by CREW, you are not a conservative. It’s a ridiculous charge and you should know better than to cite George Soros-like organizations.”
I think I’ve convinced a lot of people of it because I think my record is pretty good. I’m not a libertarian, Ron, I agree with you. You vote against everything; I don’t vote against everything.”

Ron Paul: “I think people who don’t serve when they could and get three or four or even five deferments have no right to send our kids off to war and be even against the wars we have. I’m trying to stop the wars but at least I went when they called me up.”

Newt Gingrich: “Dr. Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is I never asked for a deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question. I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people.”

Ron Paul: “When I was drafted I was married with two kids and I went.”

Newt Gingrich: “I wasn’t eligible for the draft. I wasn’t eligible for the draft.”

Rick Perry: “I would send troops back into Iraq. 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. … I think it is a huge error for us.”

Mitt Romney: “There’s every right for people in this country to form long-term relationships with each other, that doesn’t mean they need to call it marriage.”

Newt Gingrich: “It’s a huge jump from being understanding, considerate, concerned [for same-sex couples], which we should be, to saying we’re therefore going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis. The sacrament of marriage is based on a man and a woman, has been for 3,000 years, is at the core of our civilization and is worth protecting and upholding. I think protecting and upholding that doesn’t mean you need to make life miserable for others.”

Rick Santorum: “I believe the issue of marriage itself is a federal issue. Marriage is… a foundational institution in our country and we have to have a singular law with respect to that.”

Newt Gingrich: “You don’t hear the opposite question asked: should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t adopt to same-sex couples? The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is on the other side and none of it gets covered by the media.”

Mitt Romney: “People in this room think Speaker Gingrich is right, and I do too.”

“I don’t intend to do it. And somebody pushed me a little bit hard and said why don’t you plan to do it? I just — I don’t want to. So I have no intention. But I don’t know why a person can’t 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.” — Ron Paul

Mitt Romney: “I’m going to tell the Chinese, it’s time to stop. I’m not going to let you kill American jobs.”

Jon Huntsman responded in Chinese: “He doesn’t understand the situation.”

“The president is trying to take responsibility for the economy. It’s like the rooster taking responsibility for the sunrise — he didn’t do it.” — Mitt Romney

  • Debate Fact Check: Net Jobs and Obama on Iran: Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, a private equity firm, came under scrutiny at Saturday night’s Republican debate, leading him to claim that he helped create 100000 jobs, even when layoffs from downsized firms were factored … – NYT, 1-8-12
  • FACT CHECK: Romney, in debate, offers an iffy accounting of his claim of job: After months of getting a pass on the subject from his rivals, Mitt Romney was challenged in the Republican presidential debate Saturday night on his frequent claims that he created great numbers of jobs in the private sector. .. – AP, 1-7-12
  • Fact Checking the New Hampshire Debate: Newt Gingrich raced out of the gate in tonight’s debate by being skeptical of Mitt Romney’s claim that Bain was responsible for creating 100000 jobs, and he pointed to scrutiny of the firm in a recent New York Times article and a documentary. … – ABC News, 1-7-12
  • Romney Unruffled in GOP Debate as Rivals Attack Each Other: Mitt Romney was unruffled in the New Hampshire Republican debate Saturday night that saw heated exchanges between Ron Paul and his rivals but relatively little criticism leveled against the frontrunner.
    Rick Santorum, who is riding high after his number two finish in the Iowa caucus, was one of the few candidates to go aggressively after the former Massachusetts governor, taking on his economic plan and health care record.
    The former senator, who has portrayed Romney as a cold, calculating, chief executive and not an inspirational leader, continued that line of attack tonight…. – ABC News, 1-7-12
  • Romney Eludes Rivals’ Attacks at Republican Debate in N.H.: A relaxed and self-assured Mitt Romney sailed above the fray at a crucial debate on Saturday night as his Republican rivals engaged in a spirited fight to determine which of them would emerge as his most formidable opponent when the party’s nominating contest moves past New Hampshire….. – NYT, 1-7-12
  • GOP debate: Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul spar over military service: One thing you don’t do in Republican debates (or really, any US debate) is accuse another candidate of dishonoring military service…. – LAT, 1-7-12
  • Republican debate turns testy: Romney noted that Huntsman had been serving the Obama administration in Beijing while others on the debate stage were trying to elect Republican candidates in the 2010 election. Huntsman, whose personal rivalry with Romney is deep-rooted… – LAT, 1-7-12
  • Rivals hit Mitt Romney on business record: Mitt Romney’s carefully honed message focuses on his experience at Bain Capital, the buyout firm he founded with William Bain Jr. and other Bain & Co. partners. But that experience is under fire from other candidates. … – The Boston Globe, 1-8-12
  • Republican debate: Newt Gingrich warms up Mitt Romney attacks for debates: Gearing up for the first debate since he dropped from the top of the polls, Newt Gingrich stood in front of a large tank here and previewed the assaults he’s preparing against Mitt Romney at this weekend’s two debates…. – Politico, 1-7-12
  • Newt says Bain is fair game: The questions about Mitt Romney’s private sector work turned to Newt Gingrich and the blistering ads about Bain Capital that a super PAC supporting him is set to air in South Carolina. “I haven’t seen the film. … – Politico, 1-7-12
  • Romney raps Huntsman for Obama administration service: Mitt Romney, after getting hit by Jon Huntsman for his jobs record in Massachusetts, turned the tables by saying to his opponent, “Governor, for the last two years you were implementing the policies of this administration in China. … – Politico, 1-7-12
  • Huntsman criticizes Romney in Mandarin over China policy: Republican presidential contender Jon Huntsman says his opponents’ policies would start a trade war with China. Huntsman, the former ambassador to China, says tough talk and new tariffs aren’t the answer. And during Saturday’s debate…. – WaPo, 1-7-12
  • Huntsman, Out of Options, Bets It All on New Hampshire: And he was only a secondary presence at Saturday’s night Republican debate in New Hampshire, barely attacking his rivals…. – NYT, 1-8-12
  • Perry: “I would send troops back into Iraq”: Rick Perry said he would send US troops back to Iraq at a Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire on Saturday… – CBS News, 1-8-12
  • Mitt Romney under attack from other GOP candidates ahead of NH debate: Republican front-runner Mitt Romney warned his supporters Saturday against complacency as his rivals prepared to gang up on him in a nationally televised nighttime debate with the goal of breaking his stride toward the GOP nomination. … – WaPo, 1-7-12
  • New Hampshire debates: Will Romney’s rivals try to slow him down?: If anyone is going to take it to Mitt Romney, it might as well be now. The slowly diminishing field of GOP presidential candidates, as odd as it may seem, has two debates that will begin within 12 hours of each other… – LAT, 1-7-12
  • In Republican debate tonight, Romney, Santorum have targets on backs: GOP rivals to Iowa caucus winners Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are expected to take off the gloves in Republican debate tonight and follow-up one Sunday in New Hampshire…. – CS Monitor, 1-7-12
  • Santorum telegraphs punches at Romney before GOP debate: If Rick Santorum’s blistering remarks about Mitt Romney on Saturday are any indication, this evening’s televised debate will be the most acrimonious of the Republican presidential campaign. Following his success in the Iowa caucuses…. – LAT, 1-7-12

Full Text Campaign Buzz January 7, 2012: ABC News / Yahoo!/ WMUR-TV New Hampshire Republican Primary Debate Transcript — 15th GOP Debate — Mitt Romney Retains Frontrunner Status

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

 

Richard Perry/The New York Times

The debate was the first of two back-to-back forums this weekend as candidates make their case to New Hampshire voters. Mitt Romney emerged largely unscathed and glided with ease on questions surrounding same-sex marriage, contraception and abortion. More Photos »

2012 ABC / Yahoo!/ WMUR New Hampshire GOP primary debate — Transcript

Source: WaPo, 1-7-12

Below is a transcript of Saturday night’s ABC News /Yahoo!/WMUR-TV New Hampshire Republican primary debate, courtesy of FDCH Transcripts:

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE SPONSORED BY ABC NEWS

JANUARY 7, 2011

SPEAKERS: FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, R-PA.,

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH, R-GA.,

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS,

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.,

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS,

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN JR., R-UTAH,

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

DIANE SAWYER,

ABC NEWS

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS,

ABC NEWS

JOSH MCELVEEN,

WMUR

[*]

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 let’s 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 let’s take you through them.

One-minute responses to the question, with 30 seconds for rebuttal. And we’re showing everybody at home that the candidates will see green, and then when there’s 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 Yahoo’s 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, we’ll 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: I’m an optimist, and I certainly hope it turns around. We have millions of people who’ve been suffering too long, 25 million people that are out of work or have stopped looking for work, and also a lot of people who’ve got part-time jobs and need full-time employment. So it’s very good news. I hope we continue to see good news.

But it’s 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, he’s 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, it’s like the rooster taking responsibility for the sunrise. He didn’t 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 don’t need a CEO, we don’t 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. I’ve 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 we’re dealing with today? It’s Iran.

And as Newt’s talked about many times, there’s 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 America’s 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 — I’m talking about — yeah, in the case of — well, in a manager — as you’re 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 — who’s bring to the table — he says I’m going to be, you know, I’ve got business experience. Well, business experience doesn’t necessarily match up with being the commander-in-chief of this country.

The commander-in-chief of this country isn’t a CEO. It’s someone who has to — has to lead, and it’s also — being the president is not a CEO. You can’t direct, you know, members of Congress and — and members of the Senate as to how you do things. You’ve got to lead and inspire.

And that’s what — that’s 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 I’ve been the one that’s been able to do that and that’s the reason I think we’re doing well in the polls.

SAWYER: Governor Romney, your response?

ROMNEY: You know, I — I think people who spend their life in Washington don’t 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, they’re not successful because they’re managers, they’re 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 they’d 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 “a story of greed,” that’s a quote, saying that Bain made spectacular profits by, again, quote, “stripping American businesses of assets, selling everything to the highest bidder and often killing jobs for big financial rewards.”

Do you agree with that characterization?

NEWT GINGRICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I — I haven’t seen the film, but it does reflect “The New York Times” story two days ago about one particular company. And I think people should look at the film and decide. If it’s factually accurate, it raises questions.

I’m very much for free enterprise. I’m very much for exactly what the Governor just described, create a business, grow jobs, provide leadership.

I’m 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 “The New York Times” 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 it’s 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, “bankrupting companies and laying off employees.”

GINGRICH: That was, I think, “The New York Times” 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 that’s — check “The New York Times” story, but that’s their story.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, your response?

ROMNEY: Well, I — I’m not surprised to have “The New York Times” try and put free enterprise on trial. I’m not surprised to have the Obama administration do that, either. It’s a little surprising from my colleagues on this stage. We understand that in the free economy, in the private sector, that — that sometimes investments don’t work and you’re 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 I’m 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 — I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away.

Is that accurate?

ROMNEY: No, it’s not accurate. It includes the net of both. I’m 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, there’s a steel company called Steel Dynamics in Indiana, thousands of jobs there. Bright Horizons Children’s Centers, about 15,000 jobs there; Sports Authority, about 15,000 jobs there. Staples alone, 90,000 employed. That’s 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 we’re 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 let’s not forget, this is a free enterprise system. We don’t 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 Romney’s 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 Romney’s record at Bain a weakness or a strength?

HUNTSMAN: Well, it’s — part of his record, and therefore, it’s going to be talked about. And I think it’s fair for the people of this nation to have a conversation about one’s 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 it’s a good balance. I come from manufacturing. People will find something in my record. But you know what, it’s 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 nation’s history when we so desperately need jobs, I think that’s 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 it’s helpful to have people who had a job in the private sector, if you want to create jobs in the private sector. We’ve 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 we’re 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: Congressman Paul, let’s stay on the issue of records. You’ve 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 — there it goes again.

SANTORUM: They caught you not telling the truth, Ron.

(LAUGHTER)

PAUL: But really — what really counts is his record. I mean, he’s 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 he’s 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: Let’s talk about the corruption issue. The person who — the group that called me corrupt was a group called CREW. If you haven’t been sued by CREW, you’re 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.

It’s a ridiculous charge. And you should know better than to cite George Soros-like organizations to say that they’re corrupt. So that’s number one.

Ron, I’m a conservative. I’m 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 that’s what I did to make sure that Pennsylvania was able, in formulas and other things, to get its fair share of money back. I don’t 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 I’m 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 don’t know whether you think board of directors are lobbyists. They’re not. That’s the private-sector experience that I’m 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 I’m 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. It’s only been a couple appropriations bills I voted for in the past, what, 24, 26 years I’ve been in Washington.

So you’re a big spender; that’s all there is to it. You’re a big-government conservative. And you don’t vote for, you know, right to work and these very important things. And that’s what weakens the economy. So to say you’re a conservative, I think, is a stretch. But you’ve 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. I’ve 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, “spending groups,” 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 don’t vote against everything. I do vote for some spending. I do think government has a role to play…

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: … particularly in defense…

STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ll let everybody get in here, but first I wanted to bring in Governor — Governor Perry on this. We’ll stay on this subject, don’t worry about it.

PERRY: And I’ll let you — I’ll — I’ll let you back in here, Ron.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve called Senator Santorum the…

PERRY: Yeah. I think you’ve just seen a great example of why I got in this race, because I happen to think that I’m 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 doesn’t make any difference whether you’re an insider from Washington, D.C., or you’re 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. I’ve 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, you’re saying Congressman Paul is an insider?

PERRY: I am telling you, anybody that has had as many — I mean, here’s what frustrates me, is that you go get the earmarks and then you vote against the bill? Now, I don’t 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. That’s — that’s an earmark, too. I say the Congress has more responsibility.

But this thing, back — back to Senator Santorum, you know, he ducks behind this — he’s 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 movement’s about.

When — I mean, government’s practically stopped over increasing the national debt. You did it five times. So what’s your excuse for that? That’s trillions of dollars. You kept this thing going. You didn’t 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 don’t 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.

We’re 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 shouldn’t increase the debt ceiling because we’ve 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, I’d 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. It’s about leading organizations. It’s about leading people. It’s 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 let’s 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 I’m here to tell you that we must find, not just a commander-in-chief, not just a president, not just a visionary, but we’ve 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 we’ve got to close the revolving door that has corrupted Washington. And everybody knows as well, that we’ve got to have someone who can deliver trust back to Wall Street, which has also lost the American people’s 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, I’ve 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, we’re supporting you. And he’s — and he’s 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 don’t — I don’t 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 we’re faced, not with a nation that is — that is extraordinarily secure in a very, very calm world. We’re 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, we’re 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 haven’t 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 we’ve 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 Iran’s 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 country’s freedom in jeopardy.

You cannot cut $1 trillion from the Department of Defense budget and expect that America’s freedoms are not going to be jeopardized. That, to me, is the biggest problem that America faces, is a president that doesn’t 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 America’s freedom in jeopardy.

MCELVEEN: Talk about the understanding of the military. And let’s go to you, Speaker Gingrich. Recently, Dr. Paul referred to you as a chicken hawk because you didn’t serve. Given what you just heard Governor Perry say about understanding the military and Dr. Paul’s comments. How do you respond?

GINGRICH: Well, Dr. Paul makes a lot of comments. It’s 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 Army’s 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 veterans’ 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 don’t serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments aren’t — they — they have no right to send our kids off to war, and — and not be even against the wars that we have. I’m trying to stop the wars, but at least, you know, I went when they called me up.

But, you know, the — the veterans’ problem is a big one. We have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, they were unnecessary, they haven’t been won, they’re 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, we’ve lost 8,500 Americans, and severe injuries, over 40,000. And these are undeclared war.

So, Rick keeps say we — you don’t want this libertarian stuff, but what I’m talking about, I don’t bring up the word. You do. But I talk about the Constitution. Constitution has rules. And I don’t like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars, and when those individuals didn’t go themselves, and then come up and when they’re asked, they say, oh, I don’t 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 he’s referring to.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what it’s 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 wasn’t eligible for the draft. I wasn’t eligible for the draft.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Paul, while — while we’re on the subject, the speaker said that you’ve 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. You’ve said that even though they were written under your name, that you’re not necessarily — that you didn’t necessarily know they were written, you don’t 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, it’s been explained many times, and everything’s written 20 years ago, approximately, that I did not write. So concentrating on something that was written 20 years ago that I didn’t 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, I’m 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. They’re — they’re 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, they’re 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.

We’d love to have you address some of those.

Again, thank you for being with us.

This is the 2012 debate at St. Anselm.

We’ll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve 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 — they’ve caught you not telling the truth, Ron (INAUDIBLE).

PAUL: But what real — really…

(LAUGHTER)

PAUL: What really counts is — is his record. I mean he’s a big government, big spending individual.

SANTORUM: The group that called me corrupt was a group called CREW. If you haven’t been sued by CREW, you’re not a conservative. It’s — it’s a ridiculous charge. It’s — and — and you should know better.

ANNOUNCER: Back live from Manchester, New Hampshire, in a moment.

(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 he’s not recommending that states do that…

SANTORUM: No, I said — let’s be clear.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Absolutely. I’m giving you your due…

SANTORUM: I’m talking about — we’re 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 you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t 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 you’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m 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 don’t 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 it’s — it’s known as the amendment process.

And — and where we have — for instance, right now we’re 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 you’ve got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.

ROMNEY: I don’t 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 it’s 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 it’s 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 don’t want to ban contraception. So why would we try and put it in the Constitution?

With regards to gay marriage, I’ve told you, that’s when I would amend the Constitution. Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE) STEPHANOPOULOS: I understand that. But you’ve 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 didn’t 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 can’t go into anybody’s 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 it’s 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: What’s 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 don’t 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 that’s 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 I’ve — and that’s, again, I sort of agree with Governor Romney’s assessment — legal assessment, it created a right through boot-strapping, through creating something that wasn’t 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 don’t think that’s — I don’t think our founders envisioned that. I don’t 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 I’d 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. “Given 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?” 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, you’re 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 it’s something worth protecting and upholding. And I think protecting and upholding that doesn’t 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 it’s just a civil right.

It’s 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, you’ve 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 there’s such a thing as equality under the law.

I’m a married man. I’ve been married for 28 years. I have seven kids. Glad we’re off the contraception discussion.

(LAUGHTER)

Fifteen minutes’ worth, by the way. And I don’t feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. On — on marriage, I’m 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 it’s very — I think it’s absolutely appropriate.

MCELVEEN: I’d like to go to Senator Santorum with a similar topic. We’re 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 they’re 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 isn’t a federal issue. It’s 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 can’t 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 can’t 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 don’t have a — a federal law, I’m 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 don’t 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, that’s 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. That’s 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, “We simply want to have the right to,” as the — as the person who wrote the e-mail said — “we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships.” In human terms, what would you say to them?

ROMNEY: Well, the answer is, is that’s a wonderful thing to do, and that there’s every right for people in this country to form long- term committed relationships with one another. That doesn’t 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 can’t also raise children well.

But it’s 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 there’s a male and a female. And there are many cases where there’s 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 we’ve spent this much time on these issues — I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t 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 won’t 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 there’s 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 shouldn’t be discarded so quickly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Paul — Congressman Paul, let me bring this to you. You’re running here in the Republican primary, but you haven’t promised to support the party’s 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. It’s just that I don’t like absolutes like, I will never do something. But no…

SANTORUM: You’ve never done it for a debt ceiling.

PAUL: Please don’t 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 you’ve asked me four or five already. And the answer is always the same. You know, no, I have no plans to do it. I don’t intend to do it. And somebody pushed me a little bit harder and said why don’t you plan to do it? I just — I don’t want to. So I have no intention. But I don’t know why a person can’t 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 I’d like to see some changes. I — I want to see changes. When they’re 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 haven’t heard one talk — minute of talk about cutting any spending. we’ve talked previously about cutting the military spending. That’s cutting proposed increases. This is why I have proposed that we cut a whole trillion dollars that first year.

If we’re serious as Republicans and conservatives, we have to cut. So I want to put as much pressure on them as I can. But besides, I’m doing pretty well, you know? Third wasn’t too bad. I wasn’t 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 we’ve got in place. And — and — and let me just address this — this issue of — of gay marriage just very quickly. And — and it’s 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 administration’s 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 that’s never happened before. When we see this administration not giving money to Catholic charities for sexually trafficked individuals because they don’t agree with the Catholic church on abortion, that is a war against religion. And it’s 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 we’ve been at the war on terror for 10 years now, we’ve been in Afghanistan. And I say we’ve 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. We’ve run out al Qaeda, they’re now in sanctuaries. We’ve had free elections. Osama bin Laden is no longer around.

We have strengthened civil society. We’ve helped the military. We’ve helped the police. I believe it’s 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 don’t 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. We’ll 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 I’m 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 don’t want to do something that would put in jeopardy much of the — the hard earned success which we’ve 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 what’s 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 didn’t get very good advice then.

Here’s what I think is around the corner in Afghanistan. I think civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan. And I don’t want to be the president who invests another penny in a civil war. And I don’t want to be the president who sends another man or woman into harm’s way that we don’t — we’re not able to bring back alive.

I say we’ve got something to show for our mission. Let’s recognize that and let’s move on.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, do you have any quarrel with that?

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Well, I — I think, look, I think we’re 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 don’t know who’s 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. We’re not going to go in and solve Pakistan militarily. We’re 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 it’s a very big, hard, long-term problem, but it’s not primarily a military problem.

SAWYER: Senator Santorum, would you send troops back into Iraq right now?

SANTORUM: Well, I wouldn’t 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 you’re seeing in the Straits of Hormuz. There will be push, push. America is soft and so they can be pushed around.

That’s what this administration has done. They did it by withdrawing from Iraq, and as Newt just said, you want to see what’s going to happen, Jon, if we take — if we get — get out of Afghanistan. Let’s just wait the next few weeks and months and see how things turn out when the United States isn’t 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. That’s 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. There’s no — the — the word radical Islam doesn’t appear anywhere.

Why?

Because we are fighting political correct — we’re 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 who’s 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. We’re going to see Iran, in my opinion, move back in at literally the speed of light. They’re going to move back in, and all of the work that we’ve done, every young man that has lost his life in that country will have been for nothing because we’ve got a president that does not understand what’s 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 Reagan’s national security adviser, and I worked with him in the ‘80s on the strategy to defeat the Soviet empire.

Here’s the key thing to remember. If you’re — if you’re 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, you’ve 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: It’s a very high hurdle. The decision to send our men and women into harm’s way is one which would made — be made with great seriousness and sobriety and…

(CROSSTALK)

SAWYER: What kind of things?

ROMNEY: Well, you can’t begin to say what the specific circumstances would be, but it would have to require significant, dramatic American interests. You’d have to have a president that explained those interests to the American people, that also indicated how we’re going in. We’d go in with — with exceptional force. We would indicate what — how success would be defined, how we would define, also, when we’re completed, how we’d get our troops out, and what would be left behind.

The president didn’t do that in Libya. The president hasn’t done that anywhere. I find it amazing that we have troops in harm’s way around the world — and in Afghanistan right now, in Iraq in the first three years of this president’s term — he doesn’t 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 harm’s way is very, very high. And the — the test is America’s 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 Achilles’ heel when it comes to getting elected. You have said that you wouldn’t 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 that’s a misquote. I don’t 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 don’t think it’s that complicated. I think we’ve made it much more complicated than it should be. Yes, the president is the commander-in-chief, but he’s not the king. And that’s 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 we’re in Pakistan. We’re involved in so many countries. Now they want to move on to Syria. And they can’t — there’s some in Washington now can’t 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 that’s what we’re doing.

Eastern Europe is going to be destabilized if they don’t 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 wouldn’t 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 that’s not what a president of the United States does. He doesn’t 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. That’s 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, we’ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: So you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here. (LAUGHTER)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But do you believe states have that right or not?

ROMNEY: George, I don’t know whether the state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve 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…

(YELLING)

ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Go ahead.

PAUL: I didn’t know whether — I didn’t 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 can’t go into anybody’s house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Back live from Manchester, New Hampshire, in a moment.

(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 that’s going on. We’re 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 we’ll 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 that’s aging is — is — is one of those. We had in my state 550 structurally deficient bridges. We’ve 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. It’s taxed too much. It’s 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 we’re 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? It’s 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 that’s based upon opportunity and freedom, not President Obama’s 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, you’re talking about infrastructure?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Infrastructure. And more broadly, job creation.

GINGRICH: But — but — but let’s stick with infrastructure then, because I think it’s a very big, very important topic. You cannot compete with China in the long run if you have an inferior infrastructure. You’ve got to move to a twenty first century model. That means you’ve got to be — you’ve 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 you’d 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 you’re describing, the bridges the governor just described. If you don’t 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: We’ve got to earn our way forward. There’s no question about it. Governors learn how to pay the bills. In order to pay the bills, you’ve got to expand your economic base. And that’s a problem we have in the United States right now. We read about the jobs that have ticked upward in this country and we’re all very happy about that. We’re 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. We’ve got a corrupt tax code.

So you’ve got to say, how are we going to pay for it? We’ve got to stimulate some confidence in the — in the creative class in this country. Right now they’re sitting on their hands. And they’re 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: I’m sorry?

STEPHANOPOULOS: To raise the kind of revenues called for in the Simpson-Bowles Commission?

SANTORUM: No. No I wouldn’t. 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. I’m 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 it’s been devastated because we are uncompetitive. Thirty years ago we were devastated because business and labor didn’t understand global competitiveness and they made a lot of mistakes. They did — they weren’t prepared for it and we lost a lot of jobs.

That’s not what’s happening now. Our productivity gains, our labor force, their doing their job, they’re being competitive. But they’re running into a stiff headwind called government. And it’s government taxation, 35 percent corporate tax which is high — the highest in the world. It’s a tax that doesn’t 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. It’s regulation. This administration is on track — we — I — I think it’s 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: …what’s 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 — there’s 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 can’t 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: We’re 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. That’s 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 don’t 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, let’s 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, it’s 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 can’t 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 we’ve had a financial bubble that’s been going on for 40 years. It’s collapsing. Nobody quite recognizes it, but we’re 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 we’ve done is the people who built up the debt on Wall Street and the banks, we’ve 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 don’t have jobs. But if you’re an individual or a businessman, if you’re consuming everything you’re earning just to finance your debt, you can’t have growth. So we have to liquidate debt. This is the reason I call for cutting spending, the only one that’s calling for real cuts. You have to have real cuts. That’s what the Republican Party used to stand for, but you can’t liquidate debt. You can’t — you can’t keep bailing out the debt. That’s what Japan has done for 20 years. And they’re still in their doldrums. We did it in the depression. We’re into this now for five years, and it has to end. It’s 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 it’s 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. There’s 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, we’re 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 it’s — you know, any of the energy industry side, whether it’s 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 I’ll 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 Lindy’s 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. That’s 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 don’t 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 what’s 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 they’re preserved, our entitlements, that is, so we don’t kill the future of the country. We’ve 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, he’s making us into something we wouldn’t recognize.

We’re increasingly becoming like Europe. Europe isn’t 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 don’t 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?

That’s what’s 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 we’re 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 we’re 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. He’s…

(APPLAUSE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve made the case on several occasions that he’s not the man to carry that message for the Republican Party.

Why not?

GINGRICH: Well, look, I think that’s a good message and I agree with him. A — a little bit harsh on President Obama, who, I’m sure in his desperate efforts to create a radical European socialist model, is sincere.

(LAUGHTER)

GINGRICH: But, you know, I think “The Wall Street Journal” 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 Romney’s program was timid and more like Obama. Now, I would think those are fighting words. And, frankly, if he wants to fight with “The Wall Street Journal” on that, I wouldn’t blame him.

But I do think there’s 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 don’t think Governor Romney’s 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 it’s one that I don’t think we should be using as Republicans, middle class. There are no classes in America. We are a country that don’t allow for titles. We don’t put people in classes. There may be middle income people, but the idea that somehow or another we’re going to buy into the class warfare arguments of Barack Obama is something that should not be part of the Republican lexicon. That’s their job, divide, separate, put one group against another.

That’s not the — that’s not the language that I’ll use as president. I’ll use the language of bringing people together.

And I’ll 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. We’re 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 wasn’t for a top down, government-run health care system. I wasn’t 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 that’s a clear contrast, that has a strong record, has a vision for this country that’s 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 I’m 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 I’ve described is — is entitled to help people in this country that desperately need help right now.

ROMNEY: There’s more to it than that. We have to open up markets for America’s 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 haven’t 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, we’re going to have to do something about the regulations in this country.

As a party, we talk about deregulation, what we’re 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 I’ve 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 I’ll 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 don’t 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. We’ve got to make it work. Of course we have challenges with them. We’ve had challenges for 40 years. It’s nonsense to think you can slap a tariff on China the first day that you’re in office, as Governor Romney would like to do.

You’ve 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. They’re 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: I’m 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. They’re hacking into our computers, stealing information from not only corporate computers but from government computers. And they’re manipulating their currency.

And for those who don’t understand the impact of that, I’ve seen it. I’ve 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 I’m president of the United States, I’m not going to continue to talk about how important China is and how we have to get along. And I believe those things. They’re very important. And we do have to get along. But I’m also going to tell the Chinese it’s 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 it’s important to note, as they would say in China, that (speaking mandarin)…

(CROSSTALK)

HUNTSMAN: … he doesn’t 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 it’s 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 don’t 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: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The last thing China wants is a trade war. We don’t want one either.

(CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: But they sell us this much stuff. We sell them this much stuff. Tell me, who doesn’t want the trade war? They don’t want it real bad. And we’ve been listening for 10 years from people talking about how we can’t hold China to the rules of free and fair trade and if I=’m president I will hold them to those rules. And we’ll respect each other but we are not going to let them just run all over us and steal our jobs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ve got to take a break. We’ll be right back with a final word.

(APPLAUSE)

ANNOUNCER: You’re watching live coverage from Manchester, New Hampshire, of the ABC News Republican Party Debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: We’re 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 we’ve done is the people who build up the debt on Wall Street and the banks, we’ve had the American taxpayer bail them out.

ROMNEY: 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 American stronger. We have a president who has an entirely different view. He wants us to turn into a European-style welfare state.

GINGRICH: You cannot compete with China in the long run if you have an inferior infrastructure. You’ve got to move to a 21st-century model. That means you’ve got to be — you’ve got to be technologically smart, and you have to make investments.

HUNTSMAN: We’ve got to earn our way forward. There’s no question about it. Governors learn how to pay the bills. In order to pay the bills, you’ve got to expand your economic base.

ANNOUNCER: Back live from Manchester, New Hampshire, in a moment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SAWYER: We are back and so grateful for this debate tonight. And we thought we might just end on something personal. It’s Saturday night, again, as we meet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you weren’t here running for president, Governor Perry, what would you be doing on a Saturday night? PERRY: I’d probably be at the shooting range.

(LAUGHTER)

SANTORUM: Instead of being shot at.

PERRY: Yeah.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich?

GINGRICH: I’d be watching the college championship basketball game.

(UNKNOWN): Football game.

GINGRICH: I mean, football game.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you.

SANTORUM: I’d be doing the same thing with my family. We’d be huddled around, and we’d be watching the championship game.

ROMNEY: I’m afraid it’s football. I love it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Football?

ROMNEY: Yeah.

PAUL: I’d be home with my family. But if they all went to bed, I’d probably read an economic textbook.

(LAUGHTER)

HUNTSMAN: I’d be on the phone with my two boys in the United States Navy, because they’re 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. We’re going to have full analysis coming up in just a couple minutes. We’ll be right back.

END

 

Full Text Campaign Buzz December 10, 2011: ABC News Yahoo Iowa Republican Presidential Debate Full Transcript

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

PHOTO: Republican presidential candidates stand together prior to their Republican debate, Dec. 10, 2011, in Des Moines, Iowa.
Republican presidential candidates stand together prior to their Republican debate, Dec. 10, 2011, in Des Moines, Iowa. (ABC)

Source: ABC News, 12-10-11
The following is a full transcript of the ABC News Iowa Republican debate, with Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich, anchored by ABC News’ Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos.

DIANE SAWYER: And a good evening to all of you welcome to Iowa, welcome to Drake University as the presidential voting draws near, the time is coming. And the political team of ABC News has been out in force throughout this state. And we just wanna say to the people of Iowa, we are endlessly struck by how seriously you take your role as first in line for the vote.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Every four years first.

DIANE SAWYER: That is true. And it’s 24 days now and counting until the voting begins in the caucuses. And– and it’s at the time for closing arguments, so let us introduce the presidential candidates from the Republican party for the United States of America here at the debate tonight.

Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (AUDIENCE WHOOP), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich of Georgia (AUDIENCE WHOOP), Texas Congressman Ron Paul, (APPLAUSE) and Congresswoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann. (APPLAUSE) Thank you all.

Before we begin if we can just one note, because George and I have been talking and all of us have been talking to many of you about what it takes to run for the presidency in this country right now. And we are talking about the determination, the physical stamina, the road you travel, the miles you travel and the sacrifices your families make as you do it. So we thought maybe at the end of this year– the– the end of this road does approach, we could all just salute your commitment to the presidential race and to democracy in this country. We salute you.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The rules of the debate are pretty straightforward, the candidates have negotiated them, agreed to them. They’re gonna forgo opening statements and then they will give, they’ve agreed, one minute responses to questions from Diane and me, 30 seconds for rebuttal to those. And we wanna show everybody at home that the candidates can see as well, this clock right here. And we’ll shift from green to yellow to red over the course of the allotted time.

The audience here at Drake was chosen by the Iowa Republican Party, and all of you at home can follow on ABCNews.com and Yahoo.com. You can even join the discussion by downloading Yahoo’s Enter Now app on your iPhone, and with that you can actually pitch in with opinions during this debate.

DIANE SAWYER: So it is time to begin. And people are telling us that they do feel it’s time to choose. And the number one issue on which they’re going to choose, jobs in America. And we would like to hear from all of you in this opening round. And the question is this: what is your distinguishing idea, distinguishing, from all of the others on this stage, about how to create jobs in this create, how to bring jobs back from overseas. And if you will, how many jobs do you think you can create and how long will that take? And Speaker Gingrich, will you lead us off?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I think that there’s a clear record, I worked with Ronald Reagan in the early ’80s and his recovery program translated into today’s population of about 25 million new jobs in a seven-year period. As Speaker of the House, I worked with– President Clinton and he followed with a very similar plan.

And we ended up with about 11 million new jobs in a four-year period. Went down to 4.2% unemployment. Starts very simply, taxes, lower taxes, less regulation, an American energy plan, and actually be positive with our people to create jobs. The opposite of the Obama plan, which is higher taxes, more regulation, no American energy, and attack people who create jobs with class warfare.

So I think there are a number of steps you can take. I would start with zero capital gains, hundreds of billions of dollars would pour into the country, I’d go to 12.5% corporate tax rate, that would bring in at least $700 billion in repatriated money back from overseas. I would then go to 100% expensing for all new equipment– abolish the (UNINTEL) news– write it off in one year, and I’d abolish the death tax penalty. Those steps would begin to dramatically create jobs.

DIANE SAWYER: And I want to turn to Governor Romney, if I can. Because you’ve given a number and you’ve given a time frame, 11.5 million jobs in four years, aiming for six percent– unemployment rate at the end of the first time. What is the distinguishing idea to do that?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, having spent my life in the private sector, I understand where jobs are created. They’re not created in government, they’re not created in Washington. They’re created on Main Streets and streets all over America. And to help make America the most attractive place in the world for investment, for new enterprise, for entrepreneurs and for job growth, there’s seven things you have to do. There’s not just one, there’s seven.

One, make sure that our employer tax rates are competitive with other nations. They’re not now. We’re the highest in the world. Number two, get regulators and regulations to recognize their job is not to burden the– the private enterprise system, but to encourage it. Number three, to have trade policies that make sense for America, not just for the people with whom we trade.

This president has not done that. And China, that’s been cheating, has to be cracked down on. Number four, we have to have energy policies that take advantage of our extraordinary energy resources. Number five, the rule of law, and the Boeing– effort on the part of the N.L.R.B. violated that. Number six, grade institutions to create human capital, and number seven, finally a government that doesn’t spend more money than it takes in.

DIANE SAWYER: And Congressman Paul, a number as a time frame and an idea.

RON PAUL: My — approach is slightly different. Where I think all for less taxes and less regulations, we recognize this. But I emphasize the fact that you have to know why we have a recession, and why we have unemployment before you can solve the problem. And the re– the financial bubbles are created by excessive credit and stimulation by the Federal Reserve. And then you have bubbles and you have to have a correction.

The– this stimulus creates es– excessive debt and malinvestment. As long as you don’t correct that and you maintain the debt and the malinvestment, you can’t get back to economic growth again. Unfortunately, so far what we have done, is we have not liquidated the debt, we have dumped the debt on the American people through TARP funding and– and as well as the Federal Reserve.

So the debt is dumped on the people. And what did we do? We bailed out the people that were benefiting during the formation of the bubble. So as long as we do that, we’re not gonna have economic growth. We– you did the same thing in the Depression, the Japanese are doing it right now, so it’s time we liquidate the debt and look at monetary policy. And then, of course, lower taxes. And I would like to– do in the first year, cut $1 trillion, ’cause that is the culprit, big spending and big government.

DIANE SAWYER: I wanna come back to those of you with another direct question of whether there is a number of jobs that can be created and a time frame you can tell the American people you can do it in. But I want to turn to Governor Perry for your distinguishing idea.

RICK PERRY: Yeah, the distinguishing mark is– a tax policy that puts a flat tax in place of– 20%. And you– as they’ve said, you get rid of the regulatory burden that’s killing people. And I have a record of doing that as the governor of the state of Texas over the last 11 years. We created over a million jobs in that state while America lost over two million jobs.

So there’s a very clear blueprint of how to make this work. But I wanna talk about one other issue, and– and Congressman Paul touched on it. And it’s this idea, I can– I can on a map diagram the problem that we’ve got in America today. And it d– it’s this direct line between Washington D.C. and Wall Street. And it’s the corruption that’s gone on. It’s the idea of TARP. It’s the idea of $7.7 trillion that we didn’t even know was being put into these peoples and these banks.

That’s what Americans are really upset with. And it’s gonna take an outsider who can come in to put in the model of taxes and regulation. And– and be able to balance that budget by the year 2020 with 18% of G.D.P. That’s what the American people want, and an outsider like Rick Perry is gonna do that.

DIANE SAWYER: All right, Congresswoman Bachmann?

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well– one of our former competitors was Herman Cain and he always reminded us of the 9-9-9 plan. And what I would like to do is have the Win-Win-Win plan. And the way that we can do that is first addressing the tax code. I’m a former federal tax lawyer. And that literally, we will create millions of dollars if we abolish the tax code and embrace a pro-growth policy not only by lowering the rates for businesses, but by individuals as well.

And making it a tax code that applies fairly and the same to all Americans. That’s very important. And something else I wanna do with my tax code policy is make sure that everyone pays something. Because today, 47% of the American people pay nothing in federal income tax. Everyone benefits by the country, they need to pay. But also, one of my “Win” points is with American energy production.

If we legalize American energy, we’ll create 1.4 million jobs in just a few years’ time. And here’s something we– else that we can do under the “Win” plan. We can cut government bureaucracy, which is ObamaCare. N.F.I.B. tells us, that’s the small business agency, that we will lose 1.6 million jobs over five years if we keep ObamaCare. I wanna– I am committed to repealing ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, cutting out the E.P.A., and we’ll save millions of jobs if we do that.

DIANE SAWYER: Senator Santorum?

RICK SANTORUM: Well, I was just down in Fremont County, which is down in the far southwest corner of the state, and they just lost about, a couple hundred jobs at a ConAgra plant down there. And Governor Branstad and Lieutenant Governor Reynolds understand, that’s why they asked us to have a forum here in Pella a few weeks ago on manufacturing.

They understand that the heartland of America is suffering because the manufacturing economy of this country continues to go down. We used to have 21% of people employed in this country in manufacturing, it’s now nine. And it hurts disproportionately small town and rural America. So what I learned from traveling around Iowa is we had to get a plan together that’ll revitalized manufacturing.

So I took the corporate tax, not the 12%. I zeroed it out for all manufacturers. We want manufacture, we want “Made in the U.S.A.” to be the moniker under my administration. We want an administra– we want– to put a platform together that’s gonna repeal regulations that are crushing our– our b– manufacturers and businesses. I’ll repeal, one thing a president can do, he can’t pass a law, but he can repeal regulations.

And Barack Obama has given us– a bevy of regulations that need to be repealed, starting with a lot of our energy regulations that driving up our energy costs. That’s another part of d– of the plan, is to– to make sure we have lower electricity rates, that we have oil and gas drilling going on here, so manufacturing can afford to be here. You put together that plan, we will get– not only revitalize the economy, we’ll– we’ll take care of an area of the ec– of this country that has suffered in– in recent times. And that’s rural and small-town America.

DIANE SAWYER: I just wanna point out, I think that Governor Romney is the only one who actually gave a four-year, first-term number, which was again, 11.5 million jobs. Wondered if anyone else wanted to come in with a four-year, first-term promise for the American people.

RICK SANTORUM: I’m not–

MALE VOICE #2: Well–

RICK SANTORUM: –I– I– I– I’m not gonna make a promise, because I don’t believe you s– I don’t believe that government can sit there and– and– and from the top down dictate how many jobs are here. What we can do is we can create an atmosphere for businesses to thrive. And we know what that means. Less regulation, where– a regulation that works for– for– for businesses, taxation that makes us competitive, a litigation environment that makes us competitive.

You create the platform. You create the– you create that petri dish, you’ll get lots of things growing there. And I don’t need– some government bean counter to tell us we’ve got a right– right program to be able to c– create jobs in this country.

DIANE SAWYER: I wanna move on if I can, to another question which represents some of the urgent and tough choices presidents have to make, because this one is coming up soon, December 31st. And it is the payroll tax cut. And as we know, the payroll tax cut, which funds the Social Security– fund in this country is part of the argument, part of the debate, part of the consideration about the economy in this country right now.

And– by some estimates, if this tax cut expires on December 31st, it could add as much as $1,000 to the tax burden of American working families. And I know you are divided down the middle, if I can turn to you, Congresswoman Bachmann, and we know that you are a tax attorney, and– you’re familiar with these issues. Should this tax cut go?

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, I– this tax shouldn’t– cut shouldn’t have been put in the first place, the payroll tax extension, because last December, I fought against this. And I encouraged my colleagues not to go down this road. This is President Obama’s plan, a temporary gimmick, not permanent solution. That’s what the business community is looking for.

That’s where real jobs will be created. The reason why this is so detrimental to the economy as well is that this blew a hole, in other words, it took away $111 billion away from the Social Security Trust Fund. This is a very real issue for senior citizens, because we have to pay the Social Security checks that are going out.

I’m completely different from b– Barack Obama on this issue. I don’t agree with Barack Obama. We have candidates on this stage that are standing with Barack Obama on this issue. But this year alone, it– this will also cost the Social Security Trust Fund another $112 billion. And we don’t have enough money this year in the Social Security Trust Fund to put out those checks.

Which means, we have to go to the General Treasury to get the money. And trust me, when you open the door to the General Treasury, the only thing that comes out are moths and feathers. There’s nothing in there. So we have to recognize, we can’t spend money that we don’t have. And that’s what Barack Obama’s trying to do. Temporary gimmicks, not permanent solutions–

DIANE SAWYER: But (UNINTEL) is a decision that does have to be made in three weeks. And Governor Romney, you have said it’s a “temporary Band-Aid,” but you have indicated that you are in favor of keeping it. So how do you differ from Congresswoman Bachmann? Is it worth it?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I don’t wanna raise taxes on people– particularly people in the middle class that are suffering right now under the Obama economy. It’s a temporary tax– cut, and it’ll help people in a d– very difficult time. But– but let’s– let’s recognize, this is just a Band-Aid.

The extraordinary thing is, we have a president who’s been in office three years with a fiscal crisis and a jobs crisis. The– these unemployment numbers we’re seeing, they’re not just statistics, they’re real people. They’re young people that can’t start their lives, can’t go to college, they’re people in their 50s that ex– expected to be in their big earning years, and they’re not gonna be able to– to have the– the kind of future they hope for.

And– and this is a president who has not, at this stage, put forward a plan to get this economy going again. All he does is talk about little Band-Aids here and there throwing gasoline on a fire, on a few embers. The right thing to do is to talk about how he’s gonna make America competitive again. I spoke with businesspeople all over the country and have been one myself for 25 years.

People aren’t investing in America because this president has made America a less attractive place for investing and hiring than other places in the world. That’s got to change. And it’s a shame that we’ve got a president who thinks that being hands-on in the economy means working on his golf cred. You know, the– the– the right course for America is to have a president who understands the economy and will make that his– his focus and put in place a plan to get this economy going.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanna grab that– this conversation, but– but very quickly, I believe Speaker Gingrich is also for extending the payroll taxes and so is Congressman Paul, Governor Perry, I believe you’re against it– some are so tur–

RICK PERRY: Very much so.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah, you’re the only one I– what is your position on it?

RICK PERRY: Is there a Social Security Trust Fund and– or not? And is the Social Security system gonna be funded by payroll taxes or not? And the President of the United States runs around and talks about how Republicans don’t care about Social Security and how they’re gonna– they’re gonna rip apart the Social Security system, and he’s the one defunding the Social Security system.

We’re either gonna have a serious debate on how to fix Social Security, and we’re not gonna do it by taking resources away from Social Security to pay benefits. So I’m– I’m all for tax cuts, I– I mean, I’ll welcome the president to sit down with– Republicans in Congress to work on a tax cut that’s gonna create growth in the economy. But to– to take the Social Security Trust Fund that is– that is so sacrosanct to the Democrats when it comes for election time.

And then to use that as a tax and then try to beat up Republicans for– for not supporting the tax cut is– is absurd. You either care about Social Security and you wanna fund it, or you don’t.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So it’s very divided. Three and three, Congressman Paul, 30 seconds rebuttal, Senate–

RON PAUL: Well– well I want to– extend the tax cut, because if you don’t, you raise the taxes. But I wanna pay for it. And it’s not that difficult. In my proposal, in my budget, I wanna cut hundreds of billions of dollars from overseas. The trust fund is gone. But how are we gonna restore it? We have to quit the spending. We have to quit this being the policemen of the world.

We don’t need another war in Syria and another war in Iran. Just get rid of the embassy in Baghdad. We’re pretending we’re comin’ home from Baghdad. We built an embassy there that cost a billion dollars and we’re putting 17,000 contractors in there, pretending our troops are coming home. I could save–

(GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: UNINTEL)

RON PAUL: –and we don’t have to raise taxes on Social Security– on the– on the– on the– on the tax–

(OVERTALK)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: As I said, I do wanna broaden this out, and all of you have been debating for the past several months– two big questions for this nomination fight. Who has the most consistent conservative candidate among you, and which of you is best able to defeat President Obama? And Governor Romney, Speaker Gingrich crystallized his argument a couple of weeks ago. He said, and I quote, “I’m a lot more conservative than Mitt Romney, and a lot more electable than anyone else.” (LAUGH) I know you don’t agree with that thought. (LAUGH)

MITT ROMNEY: Well, of course I don’t agree with that. (LAUGHTER) I don’t think most people agree with that. Speaker Gingrich has been in government for a long time and we can look at his record, we can look at my record. But really, this is more about– about us talking about what we believe. And w– and whether we can lead the country at a time when– when we need to restore the kind of values that make America the greatest nation on Earth.

We have in Washington a president who believes in a fundamental transformation of America into an entitlement society. Where the government takes for some from some and gives to everybody else. And the only people that do real well in that setting are the people in the government. This nation was founded on the principle of being a merit society, where education, hard work, risk taking, have lifted certain individual, and they have helped lift– lift the entire nation.

That’s what’s going on today. And the reason I oughta be the nominee of our party is I believe I can take that message to our president and to the American people. And they’ll say, “Mitt Romney understands the economy ’cause he’s lived in it.” I understand a merit-based society, I believe in the principles that made America the greatest nation on Earth. And Speaker Gingrich and I have a lot of places where we disagree, we’ll talk about those–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Why don’t you name them?

MITT ROMNEY: What, places where we disagree? Let’s see– we can start with– with his idea to– to have– a lunar colony that would mine– minerals from the– from the moon, I’m not in favor of spendin’ that kinda money– to do that. (LAUGHTER) He said that he would– he would like to– eliminate in some cases the child labor laws so that kids could clean schools. I don’t agree with that– that idea.

His plan in capital gains, to remove capital gains for people– at the very highest level of income is different than mine. I’d– I’d– eliminate capital gains, interest, and dividends for people in middle income. So– we have differences of viewpoint on– on some issues. But– but the real difference, I believe, is our backgrounds. I spent my life in the private sector.

I– I understand how the economy works. And I believe that for Americans to– to say goodbye to President Obama and elect a Republican, they need to have confidence that the person they’re electing knows how to make this economy work again and create jobs for the American middle class.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Your response?

NEWT GINGRICH: (THROAT CLEAR) Just a second. You had four allegations, do I get four responses?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Take your time. (LAUGHTER)

NEWT GINGRICH: Okay. Let’s start with the last one, let– let’s be candid. The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994. (LAUGHTER)

MITT ROMNEY: Now– now wait a second, that– (AUDIENCE BOOING) I mean you’ll– Okay, go ahead.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –you’ll get another response, go ahead.

MITT ROMNEY: Okay. (LAUGH)

NEWT GINGRICH: Do I– do I get to– continue–

MITT ROMNEY: Please, please.

NEWT GINGRICH: No, and I’m just saying, I’ve– I looked at it, I thought, you know, I’m a citizen, I’ve served the country in many ways, you’re a citizen, you served the country in many ways. But it’s a bit much, you’da been a 17-year career politician by now, if you’d won. That’s– that’s all I’m saying on that one.

Now number two, I’m proud of trying to find things that give young people a reason to study science and math and technology and telling them that some day in their lifetime, they could dream of going to the moon, they could dream of going to Mars. I grew up in a generation where the space program was real, where it was important, and where frankly it is tragic that NASA has been so bureaucratized, aims at you– Iowa– Iowa State’s a perfect example.

Iowa State’s doing brilliant things, attracting brilliant students. I wanna give them places to go and things to do. And I’m happy to defend the idea that America should be in space and should be there in an aggressive, entrepreneurial way. Third, as to schools, I think virtually every person up here worked at a young age. What I suggested was, kids oughta be allowed to work part-time in school, particularly in the poorest neighborhoods, both because they could use the money.

If you take one-half of the New York janitors who are unionized and paid more than the teachers, an entry-level janitor gets paid twice as much as an entry-level teacher. You take half of those janitors, you could give virtually– you could give lots of poor kids a work experience in the cafeteria and the school library and– and front office, and a lot of different things.

I’ll stand by the idea, young people oughta learn how to work. Middle class kids do it routinely. We should give poor kids the same chance to pursue happiness. Finally (APPLAUSE) on– finally on capital gains taxes I asked you about this at Dartmouth (?). I’m astonished, you’re a businessman. You wanna create jobs. A $200,000 cap on or capital gains tax cut is lower than Obama.

Now you know if you really wanna create jobs, you wanna– you wanna encourage the people who make more than $200,000 who actually have capital to invest the capital in the U.S. I’ll stick with zero capital gains will create vastly more jobs than your proposal–

(OVERTALK)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, your response, then I wanna bring in the others.

MITT ROMNEY: Yeah, yeah. My proposal actually does create 11.5 million jobs, and it does so by a higher– a G.D.P. growth rate than we’ve seen over these last Obama years. And– and in my view, the place that we could spend our precious tax dollars for a tax cut is on the middle class, that’s been most hurt by the Obama economy. That’s where I wanna eliminate taxes on interest dividends and capital gains.

And with regards to the idea that if I’da beaten Ted Kennedy I coulda been a career politician, that’s probably true. If I would’ve been able to get in the NFL liked I hope when I was a kid, why, I woulda been a football star all my life too, (LAUGHTER) but– but I– but I– (APPLAUSE) I spent– I spent my life in the private sector. Losing to pl– Teddy Kennedy was probably the best thing I coulda done for– for preparing me for the job I’m seeking, because it– it put me back in the private sector. I worked in the private sector, I learned lessons that are desperately needed in Washington.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanna bring–

MITT ROMNEY: We don’t need– we don’t need folks who are lifetime– lifetime Washington people to– to– to get this country out of the mess it’s in. We need people from outside Washington, outside K Street. And by the way, one more thing, to have kids work in the– in the library and to– and to help out in school and to clean the blackboards does not require changing our– our– our child labor laws in this country. We of course should encourage more kids to–

(OVERTALK)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We will– we will come back to that, I wanna bring Congressman Paul in on this, because– Congressman, you’ve been running ads that are quite tough–

RON PAUL: Quite what?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Quite tough on Speaker Gingrich here in Iowa this week, accusing him of quote, and this is a quote from your ad, “serial hypocrisy.” Why do you think Speaker Gingrich is a hypocrite?

RON PAUL: Well, he’s been on different positions, you know, on so many issues. You know, single payer– he’s taken some positions that are not conservative. He– he supported the TARP funds. And– the other– really annoy– should’ve (LAUGH) annoyed a lot of people, he received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. Now, Freddie Mac is essentially a government organization.

While he was earning a lot of money from Freddie Mac, I was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from. So Freddie Mac is bailed out by the tax payers. So in a way, Newt, I think you probably (LAUGH) got some of our tax payer’s money. They g– they got taxed, and they got money on, and they’re still getting bailed out.

But– you’re a spokesman for ’em and you received money for ’em, so I think– I think this is– something that– the people oughta know about. But there’s been many positions, and you have admitted many of the positions where you have changed positions. But– you know, if you were lookin’ for a consistent position, you know, I– I think there’s gonna be a little bit of trouble anybody competing with me on consistency. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

(OFF-MIC CONVERSATION)

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, first of all, as you say in your own, normally in your own speeches, the housing bubble came from the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply. Now, that’s the core of the housing bubble and I happen to be with you on auditing the Fed and on fund– and frankly on firing Bernanke. Second, I was never a spokesman for any agency, I never did any lobbying for any agency. I offered strategic advice. I was in the private sector. And I was doing things (LAUGHTER) in the private sector.

RON PAUL: Oh come– okay, okay. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

(OVERTALK)

RON PAUL: –private sector. (LAUGH)

NEWT GINGRICH: And– and when you’re in the private sector, and you have a company and you offer advice like McKinsey does, like a bunch of other companies do, you’re allowed to charge money for it.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: All right–

NEWT GINGRICH: Ca– ca– it’s called free enterprise.

RON PAUL: It’s the tax payer’s money though, we had to bail these people out–

NEWT GINGRICH: Well I was– I’m not for bailing them out, in fact, I’m for breaking them up.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring Congresswoman Bachmann in on this, because you make similar accusations against Speaker Gingrich. You called him a “poster boy of crony capitalism.” Did he answer your concerns?

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, when you’re talking about taking over $100 million, and when your office is on the Rodeo Drive of Washington D.C., which is K Street, and you’re taking money to influence the outcome of legislation in Washington, that’s the epitome of the establishment, that’s the epitome of a consummate insider. But your question was, who’s the proven con– constitutional conservative in this race, and that would be me.

I’m 55 years old, I’ve spent 50 years in the real world as a private business woman living real life and– and building a real business. But you have to take a look at the candidates that– that are on the stage. You started out with Mitt Romney with Newt Gan– Gingrich, asking them about whether or not they’re the conservative in this race.

But you have to take a look. You– when you look at Newt Gingrich, for 20 years, he’s been advocating for the individual mandate in healthcare. That’s– that’s longer than Barack Obama. Or if you look at Mitt Romney as the governor of Massachusetts, he’s the only governor that put into place socialized medicine. No other governor did. Our nominee has to stand on a stage and debate Barack Obama and be completely different.

I led 40,000 Americans to Washington D.C., to the Capitol, to fight ObamaCare. I didn’t advocate for it. If you look at– at– at Newt/Romney, they were for ObamaCare principles. If you look at Newt/Romney, they were for cap and trade. If you look at Newt/Romney, they were for the illegal immigration problem. And if you look at (LAUGH) Newt/Romney, they were for the $700 billion bailout. And you just heard Newt/Romney is also with Obama on the issue of the payroll extension.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay.

MICHELE BACHMANN: So if you want a difference, Michele Bachmann is the proven conservative. It’s not Newt/Romney.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You threw– you threw a lot out there. (APPLAUSE) So let’s get both– both of them a chance to respond, Speaker Gingrich, you go first, because you were in there twice– also on r– on– Romney, and then–

NEWT GINGRICH: Okay– those four points–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –Senator Romney, right go ahead.

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, Michele, you know, a lot of what you say just isn’t true, period. I have never– I have– I oppose cap and trade, I testified against it, the same day that Al Gore testified for it. I helped defeat it in the Senate through American solutions. It is simply untrue. I fought against ObamaCare at every step of the way. I did it with– the Center for Health Transformation was actively opposed, we actively campaigned against it.

You know, I think it’s important for you, and the– this is fair game, and everybody gets to– to– to pick fights. It’s important that you be accurate when you say these things. Those are not true. And most of the money I made, frankly, I made in ways that are totally– had nothing to do with anything you’ve described. I did no lobbying, no representation. And frankly, my– my speech– my– my speech money and other things I did, they had nothing to do with that.

It was a lot larger source of income. So, you know, I’ve had 24 books and I’ve had 13 New York Times best-sellers. Now– that was not people who wanted influence running around buying my books. I know that doesn’t fit your model, it happens to be true.

MICHELE BACHMANN: Can I respond? (APPLAUSE)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Thirty seconds, then Governor Romney.

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well you’d have to go back to 1993 when Newt first advocated for the individual mandate in healthcare, and as recently as May of this year, he was still advocating for the individual mandate in healthcare. And Governor Romney sent his team to the White House to meet with President Obama to teach them how to spread the RomneyCare model across the nation. That’s why I say, Newt/Romney, you’ve got to have our nominee as someone who is a stark, distinct difference with President Obama.

Who can go toe to toe and hold him accountable. President Obama knows me in Washington D.C. I’ve taken him on on issue after issue. Our nominee has to be willing to not agree with Barack Obama the– on these issues, but stand 180° opposite of all the candidates on this stage I’ve been fighting President Obama for every year that I’ve been there, and I’ve taken him on. And I will take him on in the debate and defeat him.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney. (APPLAUSE)

MITT ROMNEY: I know Newt Gingrich. And Newt Gingrich is a friend of mine. But, he and I are not clones, I promise. (LAUGH) That– that is not the case. So this Newt Gingrich thing, we gotta get that out of our mind altogether– Newt and Romney thing, sorry. Let– let me say this about– about health care. One, I didn’t send a team of anybody to meet with Barack Obama. I wish he’d have given me a call. I wish when he was putting together his health care plan, he’d have had the courtesy and– and perhaps the judgment to say, “Let me– let me talk to a governor. Let’s talk to somebody who’s dealt with a real problem that– that understands this topic,” and get on the phone.

I’d have said (BACKGROUND VOICE), “Mr. President, you’re going down a very, very bad path. Do not continue going down that path because what you’re gonna do is you’re gonna raise taxes on the American people. You’re gonna cut Medicare. Let’s not forget, only one president has ever cut Medicare for seniors in this country, and it’s Barack Obama. We’re gonna remind him of that time and time again.

And finally, the plan we put in place in Massachusetts, it deals with the 8% of our people who didn’t have insurance. The 92% of people who did have insurance, nothing changes for them. If I’m President of the United States, we’re gonna get rid of ObamaCare and return, under our constitution, the 10th Amendment, the responsibility and care of health care to the people in the states.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanna bring Governor Perry– (APPLAUSE) you’ve heard this argument, I wonder which side you come down on.

RICK PERRY: Yeah, well, I– I’m– I’m stunned, ’cause– the fact of the matter is, you know, Michele kinda hit the nail on the head when we talked about the individual mandate. Both of these gentlemen have been for the– individual mandate. And I’m even more stunned, Mitt, that you said you wished you could’ve talked to Obama and said– “You’re goin’ down the wrong path,” because that is exactly the path that you’ve taken Massachusetts. The Beacon Hill study itself said that there’s been 18,000 jobs lost because of that individual mandate.

The study continued to say that there’ve been over $8 billion of additional cost. I wish you coulda had the conversation with the people of Massachusetts a long time before that phone call would’ve been with– the– President Obama, ’cause the fact of the matter is, you’re for individual mandate. And you can get up and stand– up and talk about, you know, “I’m against it now. And I’m gonna– rescind ObamaCare. I’m gonna repeal ObamaCare.” But the record is very clear. You and Newt were for individual mandates. And that is the problem. And the question is then, “Who can stand on the stage, look Obama in the eye, and say, ‘ObamaCare is an abomination for this country,’?” And I’m gonna do that. And I can take that fight to him and win that fight.

DIANE SAWYER: Governor Romney, (INAUDIBLE). (APPLAUSE)

MITT ROMNEY: A good deal of what you said was right. Some was wrong. Speaker Gingrich said that he was for a federal individual mandate. That’s something I’ve always opposed. What we did in our state was designed by the people in our state for the needs of our state. You believe in the 10th Amendment. I believe in the 10th Amendment. The people of Massachusetts favor our plan three to one. They don’t like it, they can get rid of it. (COUGH) That’s the great thing about (COUGH) a democracy, where individuals under the 10th Amendment have the power to craft their own solutions.

By the way, the– the problem with President Obama’s plan is it does three things we didn’t in my opinion, among others. I understand we disagree on this. But among others, one, it raises taxes by $500 billion. We (NOISE) didn’t raise taxes. Two, it cuts Medicare by $500 billion. We didn’t do that, either. And three, it doesn’t just deal with the people that don’t have insurance. It’s a 2,000-page bill that takes over health care for all the American people. It is wrong for health care. It’s wrong for the American people. It’s unconstitutional. And I’m absolutely adamantly opposed to ObamaCare.

And if I’m the President of the United States, I will return to the people and the states the power they have under the constitution and they can craft the solutions they think are best for them. And my view– you had a mandate in your state. You mandate that girls at 12 years old had to get a vaccination for– for a sexually-transmitted disease. So it’s not like we have this big difference on mandates. We had different things we mandated over. I– I wanted to give people health insurance. You want to get young girls– a vaccine. There are differences.

DIANE SAWYER: Governor, if we could ask Speaker Gingrich to respond.

NEWT GINGRICH: Yeah, I– I just wanna make one point that’s historical. (CLEARS THROAT) In 1993, in fighting HillaryCare, virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less-dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do. The Heritage Foundation was a major advocate of it. After HillaryCare disappeared it became more and more obvious that mandates have all sorts of problems built into them. People gradually tried to find other techniques. I frankly was floundering, trying to find a way to make sure that people who could afford it were paying their hospital bills while still leaving an out so libertarians to not buy insurance. And that’s what we’re wrestling with. It’s now clear that the mandate, I think, is clearly unconstitutional. But, it started as a conservative effort to stop HillaryCare in the 1990s.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry.

RICK PERRY: I’m– I’m– (THROAT CLEARING) I’m listenin’ to you, Mitt, and I’m hearin’ you say all the right things. But I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts which should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of– of the– the reprint of the book. But, you know, I’m just sayin’, you were for individual mandates, my friend.

MITT ROMNEY: You know what? You’ve raised that before, Rick. And– you’re simply wrong.

RICK PERRY: It– it– it was true then. (CHUCKLE) It’s true now.

MITT ROMNEY: That– now, this– Rick, I’ll– I’ll tell you what. (CHUCKLE) 10,000 bucks– (APPLAUSE) $10,000 bet?

RICK PERRY: I’m not in the bettin’ business, but, okay.

MITT ROMNEY: Oh, I– I’ll–

RICK PERRY: I’ll show you the– I’ll– I’ll– I’ll show you the book.

MITT ROMNEY: I wrote– I’ve got the book. And–

RICK PERRY: And we’ll show– (LAUGH)

MITT ROMNEY: And I– and I– and I wrote the book. And I haven’t– and chapter seven is a section called The Massachusetts Model. And I say as close as I can quote, I say, “In my view, each state should be able to– to fashion their own program for the specific needs of their distinct citizens.” And then I go on to talk about the states being the laboratories of democracy. And we could learn from one another. I have not said, in that book, first edition or the latest edition, anything about our plan being a national mo– model imposed on the nation.

The right course for America, and I said this durin’ the debates the last time around, I’ll say it now and time again, is to let individual states– this is a remarkable nation. This idea of federalism is so extraordinary. Let states craft their own solutions. Don’t have ObamaCare put on us by the federal government.

MICHELE BACHMANN: George and Diane–

(OVERTALK)

MICHELE BACHMANN: George and Diane, can I just say something? This is such an important issue. We have one shot to get rid of ObamaCare, that’s it. It is 2012. Do we honestly believe that two men who’ve just stood on this stage and defended RomneyCare when it was put in place in Massachusetts and the individual mandate when he proposed it in 1993, are they honestly going to get rid of it in 2012?

MITT ROMNEY/NEWT GINGRICH: Yes.

MICHELE BACHMANN: This is going to be a very– (LAUGH) but, I don’t think so. (CHEERING) It’s gonna be a very heavy lift.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I gotta get Senator Santorum in here.

MICHELE BACHMANN: It’s gonna be a very heavy lift.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator.

RICK SANTORUM: This is not about what you say at a debate or what you say in a campaign when you’re talking to audiences that you wanna get– that you– that you know what you wanna hear. Back in 1994 when they would– I was running for the United States Senate and I did not support an individual mandate and I was a conservative, I supported something called Medical Savings Accounts that I drafted with John Kasich when I was in the House because I believe in bottom-up solving the problems in America, not top-down government solutions.

That’s what I learned– I actually learned it, some of it, in listening to some of your GOPAC tapes. But, you’ve strayed on that issue, as you have on others. The record is important. But what the question was about a consistent conservative, well, you can’t talk about whether someone’s consistent unless you look at their record. And I’d agree with Michele. I mean, I think Michele has been consistent in– as– as a consistent conservative. But, she’s been fighting and losing. I fought and won. I was in the United States Senate and I fought and– and passed Welfare Reform. It– I was the principal author when I was in the United States House and was– and– and managed the bill on the floor of the United States Senate.

I was the– leader on– on pro-life issues and pro-family issues. And I fought those issues and endured tough debates and won. I went out and fought on na– national security issues, conservative things like putting sanctions on Iran. And again, the consistent track record of being there in good times and in bad, and I think you heard the difference– you’re not gonna hear them talk about all the positions I took and flip-flopped on. I was there. I led. And I won.

And if you’re lookin’ for someone who can be a consistent conservative, and there’s others on this platform, but who can lead the fight, win the issues, and plus, win in states that are important for us to win elections like Pennsylvania and–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I– I– I’m tryin’ to be– we’ve tried to– I’ll– I’ll– I’ll risk using the word, we’ve tried to be liberal with the time. But, the time (LAUGH)– (UNINTEL)close as we can. We– and we are running up against a commercial break, but it did invoke you kinda swimming backwards, so 30 seconds to respond.

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, you know, I think the important thing to know is that you fight and that you lead. And I led when I– I was– when I was in the United States Congress, we were in the minority. Nancy Pelosi wasn’t interested in my pro– pro– pro– growth policy on health care. But, I didn’t sit on my hands. I saw what was happening to this country. Our country was going to lose because of socialized medicine.

And so I did everything I could, including bringing and leading 40,000 people to the Capitol to get the attention of the– of the Congress to get rid of ObamaCare. As President of the United States, my proven consistent record will be that I will take on every special interest. I will take on K Street. And I will pre-lobby. And I’ll make sure that I help elect 13 more Republican U.S. Senators so we have 60 senators in the Senate, a full complement in the House. And I won’t rest until we repeal ObamaCare. You can take it to the bank.

RICK SANTORUM: But, if I can– if I can res– if I can respond to that, because she referenced that– she referenced there (BACKGROUND VOICE) are differences between the two of us, I was in the minority in the House of Representatives, too. And along with Jim Nussle from here in Iowa, I– we formed a– a group called the Gang of Seven and we won. We exposed the House banking scandal. We overturned a huge scandal. We– we sent the– eventually sent the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Dan Rostenkowski ended up in jail, because, no, we didn’t just fight. But we fight and we figured out a way to win, even in the minority.

DIANE SAWYER: And we wanna thank all of you. And again, these are the rules that you set up. We wanna be fair. And we wanna hear everything you have to say. These issues are so important. But, it really does help if you stick to the rules that were agreed on. And we appreciate that. And if– we could, when we come back, we’re gonna tackle some other very big issues, immigration, big questions about foreign policy, and also one about states and family values. And that will be when we come back. (MUSIC)

ANNOUNCER: You’re watching live ABC News coverage of the Iowa Republican Party debate. (MUSIC)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MITT ROMNEY: (MUSIC) The real difference, I believe, is our backgrounds. I spent my life in the private sector. I understand how the economy works. And I believe that for Americans to– to say goodbye to President Obama and elect a Republican, they need to have confidence that the person they’re electing knows how to make this economy work again and create jobs for the American middle class.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Your response?

NEWT GINGRICH: (CLEARS THROAT) Just a second. We had four allegations. Do I get four responses?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Take your time. (THROAT CLEARING) (CHUCKLE)

NEWT GINGRICH: Okay. Let’s– let’s start with the last one. Let’s be candid. The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994. (BOOS)

MITT ROMNEY: Now– now wait a second, now wait a second. That’s– that was– that was–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That was– you’ll– you’ll get another response, go ahead.

NEWT GINGRICH: Do– do I get to go ahead and continue?

MITT ROMNEY: Please, please.

NEWT GINGRICH: No, and I’m just saying–

MICHELE BACHMANN: You want a difference, Michele Bachmann is a proven conservative. It’s not Newt Romney.

MALE VOICE: You threw– you threw a lot out there. (APPLAUSE)

ANNOUNCER: Back live from Des Moines, Iowa (INAUDIBLE).

(OFF-MIC CONVERSATION)

ANNOUNCER: Live from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, once again, Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We are back. It has been a rocking debate so far. And we want to get to another issue that you all talked about extensively in this campaign, and that is values, family, and faith. Governor Romney and Governor Perry, you both made it a feature of ads you ran in Iowa this week, which leads to this question from our partners at the Des Moines Register. And we’re gonna show it up on the screen. “Should voters consider marital fidelity in making their choices for president?” And– and Governor Perry, in South Carolina this week you said this is an important issue. Why?

RICK PERRY: Well– it– I said that– not only did I make a vow to my wife, but I made a vow to God. And– that’s pretty heavy liftin’ in my book. When I make a vow to God– then– I would suggest to you that’s– even stronger than a handshake in Texas. (APPLAUSE)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The question is– is about its relevance to the presidential race. So, let me just follow up quickly. Do you think a candidate who breaks his marital vows is more likely to break faith with voters?

RICK PERRY: Well, you know, I– I think the voters are wise enough to figure that one out. I’ve always kind of been of the opinion that– if you cheat on your wife, you’ll cheat on your business partner. So– I think that– issue of fidelity is– important. I mean, it’s– it– it’s a characteristic of which people look at– individuals, whether it’s in their business lives or whether it’s in their personal lives, or whether it’s pickin’ someone that– served– in public office for them.

Individuals who have been– fidelit– in– in fidelity with– with their spouse– I think that sends a very powerful message. If you will cheat on your wife, if you will cheat on your spouse, then why wouldn’t you cheat on your business partner or why wouldn’t you cheat on anybody for that matter?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Santorum, you ran this week, last Sunday, and you– summed up your position of character counts. You said this is relevant as well.

RICK SANTORUM: I– I think character issues do count. And I think– all– all of– all of your record– personal as well as political record is there– for the public to look at. I would not say it’s a disqualifier. I wouldn’t go that far. I think people make mistakes and– you are held accountable to those mistakes and– the public can listen to– the circumstances and– and make their decision.

But certainly, it’s a factor. And it– and it should be a factor. You’re electing a leader. You’re electing someone that trust is everything, and particularly in this election. This election, the people of this– of Iowa– I hear this all the time. Who can we trust? And I– I go out and talk about my record. I talk about the fact that I’ve been married 21 years and have seven children.

I talk about the fact that I’m– I have a record of consistent– and– and conservative politics. I talk about– you know, my past. I think that’s important, and for the people to go and determine whether they’re trustworthy enough to earn their support.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Paul, what’s your view on this?

RON PAUL: You know, I think character is, obviously– very important. I– I don’t think it should be necessary to have to talk about it. I think it should show through in the way we live. And I think it should show through in– in a marriage. And I happen to have been married for 54 years and family person. But, I don’t think we should have to talk about it. But, you know what? (UNINTEL) is– every bit as important. It– if your marriage vows are important, what about our oath of office? That’s what really gets to me.

That’s where you’re really on the line as a public figure. And that’s where I think a lot of people come up real short. Because there’s many times that I have been forced to Congress because I take my oath very seriously. I am up sometimes, believe it or not, voting all by myself (CHUCKLE) thinking that, “Why aren’t there people paying att– why don’t they read Article One, Section Eight?” You know, if– if we took that oath of office seriously in Washington, we’d get rid of 80% of the government.

The budget would be balanced. We’d have sound money. And we would have prosperity. And we wouldn’t be the policemen of the world. We wouldn’t have a Federal Reserve System, and we wouldn’t be invading the privacy of every single individual in this country with bills like the Patriot Act. We’d have a free society and a prosperous society. (APPLAUSE)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, you– you chose to make your family and your faith– the feature of your first ad here in Iowa this week. Why?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, actually– the president, President Obama’s PAC– came out with an ad attacking me– and said that I’m– I’m not a person of core values, I’m not– I don’t have a core. And we said– you know in my prior campaigns I’ve come out with ads that show who I am and why I’ve gotten in this race. And that relates to my family and my kids. I’m really concerned about America. I think the issue people have to concentrate on is– is, “Who can lead America to a place where we– we don’t become a Greece or an Italy?”

Because, frankly, that’s the path we’re on. That’s where we’re going. Who can make sure that America’s values, our merit-based society, continues to be the– the hallmark of what allows our economy to create jobs? Who can make sure that it’s good to be middle class in America again? Who can make sure that America is the job-creating engine it once w– once was? Who can make sure that the kids going to school know that when they get outta school, they’re gonna have a job waiting for them that meets the– the– the kinda skills that they’ve created?

I– I believe I’m that person. And– and part of my motivation for doing those things is I love this country, I love the values of this country, a– and I wanna make sure that– that my kids and my grandkids, and I have quite a few of them, 16, that they have an America that’s as prosperous as the America that I’ve enjoyed and just as free.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanna get– Congressman– Congresswoman Bachmann and then Speaker Gingrich, you wrap this up.

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, the founders spoke about this. And the question was asked, “What is it that we need to have in the president?” And they wrote in the Federalist Papers. They didn’t look at wealth. They didn’t look at education. They didn’t look at position. (COUGH) They looked at just one issue. And it was, “What’s the measure of a man? Or, what’s the measure of a woman, in our case, for being the next president of the United States. Will they keep their word? Will they be a man or woman of integrity?” That’s what they cared about.

That was more important than anything else. And I think– here in Iowa, that’s what I’ve seen. That is also what people care about. Who are you, really? What is your center? What’s your core? What’s your world view? What drives you? And so people want to know, “What’s your faith?” I’m– I’m a Christian. I’m– I’m unashamed and unapologetic about that. I have a strong faith. I made a proclamation of my faith in Christ when I was 16. And I don’t mind if people ask me those questions or ask me about my husband or our family. I’m happy to talk about that, because after all, people (COUGH) need to take the measure of the man or the measure of the woman when they make that decision.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, what do voters need to know about this issue from your perspective?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, (CLEARS THROAT) first of all, I think it is a real issue. And people have to look at the person whom they’re gonna loan the presidency. And they have the– they have the right to ask every single question. They have to have a feeling that this is a person that they can trust with the level of power we give to the presidency. And I think it’s a very, very important issue. And I think people have to render judgment. In my case, I’ve said up-front openly I’ve made mistakes at times. I’ve had to go to God for forgiveness. I’ve had to seek reconciliation. But I’m also a 68-year-old grandfather. And I think people have to measure who I am now and whether I’m a person they can trust. And all I can tell you is that, you know, I am– delighted at the way people have been willing to look at who I am, to look at what my record has been, and the amount of support we’re getting from the American people and from all across the State of Iowa, the number of people who have supported– the candidacy of real change and a record of real change.

DIANE SAWYER: And I’d like to turn now, if we can, to the issue of immigration. And so many people talk about it in their living room, talk about it around their dinner tables at night– if I can. And can we just do one thing for the interest of time? Can we stipulate that every single person on this stage tonight has said the number one thing to do is secure the borders, secure the borders, secure the borders, secure the borders. You may have slightly different prescriptions to do it. But, we stipulate that, that that’s what you all want to do first.

I’d like to turn, now, the question, the 11 million undocumented people in this country. And Speaker Gingrich, I’m gonna come back to you because you have talked about citizen review boards to review individual cases, that treated them in individual basis. You– you’ve– you mentioned the fact that someone who’s been here 25 years, served the community, should get special consideration under this board. How many years is the threshold for your– is it five years– has served the community under the criteria that you’ve set out before, five years also a candidate?

NEWT GINGRICH: I think, first of all, that anybody you would apply to a– the citizen review board idea came out of a selective service model. It was used as draft boards in World War II. We relied on the local citizens to render judgment about who oughta be deferred, who oughta be drafted. Did they have local knowledge? That’s the starting point.

Second, I started wi– with– with cases that I think are very hard to– to argue about. Someone who’s been here 25 years, somebody who has been a good local citizen, may well belong to your church, has children and grandchildren in the United States, and I will just say flatly, I do not believe the people of the United States are gonna send the police in to rip that kinda person out and ship them outta this country, (COUGH) particularly because those are precisely the people that end up in churches as sanctuaries.

And I think we oughta be honest about that. I think most of the workers who are here who have no ties to us should go home immediately. I think we should make deportation dramatically easier. This is, I think frankly we oughta make English the official language of government. And we oughta have an effective guest worker program with very severe penalties for those employers who hire people illegally.

DIANE SAWYER: But, the Pew Center for Hispanic Center, as you know, has said that maybe 3.5 million people could come under the criteria that you laid out.

NEWT GINGRICH: I– I don’t think there’s 3.5 million people who’ve been here 25 years.

DIANE SAWYER: But they’re talking about people who have been here 15 years. 15 years.

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I wasn’t. They were. You used a number that doesn’t relate to my proposal.

DIANE SAWYER: But, under the criteria that you have set out, do you have a threshold on the number of people you would consider before the review board?

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I– that’s why you have the citizen review panel. The per– the person has to have been here 25 years, have genuine ties to the community, be a good citizen, and have an American family sponsor them. And they still don’t get citizenship. This is not amnesty. They get residency. And they pay a penalty in order to get residency.

DIANE SAWYER: Okay, I’m gonna turn it to k– to Governor Romney because we heard Speaker Gingrich say we’re not gonna round people up and deport them. And I think at one point– you said something similar in a meeting at Bloomberg that– that they’re not going to be tracking everybody down and moving them out. And yet, to our colleague David Muir– wanna try to clarify something. You said, “You seem to indicate that people should go back home to their country.” And in some cases it may mean as much as five years if they get at the back of the line or more. Are you saying– how many people should be sent back home to their countries? Should they be tracked down to establish who they are, sent back home to their country?

MITT ROMNEY: I– I believe that any time that we start talking about a– a form of amnesty, whether it’s technically amnesty or not, when we start talking about how people have been able to come here and stay illegally for some period of time, that they’re gonna be able to stay here permanently and become a permanent resident of the United States with– with rights to our education system, our health care system, and so forth, we will then create another magnet that draws people into our country illegally.

So, the right course for us is to, once again, talk about what you described. Secure the border. Once we do that, we can start talking about the 11 million or whatever number that may be that are in the country illegally. My own view is those 11– 11 million people should register the fact that they’re here in the country. They should be given some transition period of time to allow them to– settle their affairs and then return home and get in the– in line at the back of the line with everybody else that wants to come here.

Don’t forget, when we talk about– about– the difficulty of people going home, there are millions of people who– many of whom have relatives here in this country who are in line, who want to come here. I want to bring people into this country who have skill, experience, family here who want to draw them in. I do not want to do something. (NOISE) I do not want to do something which encourages another wave of illegal immigration. So, from my view– viewpoint, the key– the key measure is this: No favoritism for permanent residency or citizenship for those that have come here illegally.

DIANE SAWYER: So, you’ve said all 11 million. If I could Governor Perry– there is a case or there are a number of these cases of– of people who have signed up for the military, the U.S. military, who have been undocumented but nonetheless go and sign up. What should happen with them?

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: Well, let me– address the issue that you asked from the start, and obviously securing that border is the– is the key. And any of these conversations that we’re having now are nothing more than intellectual– discussions until you secure that border.

But if this country would simply enforce the laws that are already on the book, you think about all of the laws that we have that are already out there, laws that clearly saw– that– that, “Here are punishments,” and, “Here’s what will happen.” If this country would simply enforce the laws that we have on the book– I will tell you one thing: As the president of the United States, you will not see me sending my Justice Department to sue states like Arizona that are havin’ to sovereign rights, I think, put in jeopardy by our Justice Department.

You will not see a catch and release program like this administration has today th– where people who are caught who are illegally in this country, and because they haven’t been (RUSTLING) caught in a violent situation, they’re released. Released into the general population. That’s the problem that we’ve got in this country.

I would suggest to you we spend time with the laws that we’ve got on the book being enforced, we’ll have a substantial smaller number of people of which we’re gonna have to make decisions about at that particular point in time. And then we can have a legitimate conversation about immigration reform.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanna change subjects now because– (APPLAUSE) foreign policy was– Speaker Gingrich caused something of a stir overnight in the Middle East with comments he made in interview with the Jewish channel in which he called the Palestinians an invented people. And– I just wondered– G– Congressman Paul, if I can start with you: Do you agree with that characterization, that the Palestinians are an invented people?

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL: N– no, I don’t agree with that. And that’s just stirrin’ up trouble. And I– I believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy. I don’t think we should get in the middle of these squabbles. But to go out of our way and say that so-and-so is not a real people? Technically and historically, yes– you know, under the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinians didn’t have a state, but neither did Israel have a state then too.

But this is how we get involved in so many messes. And I think it just fails on the side of– practicing a little bit of diplomacy, getting ourselves (LAUGH) into trouble mentioning things that are unnecessary. The people in those regions should be dealing with these problems; we shouldn’t be dealing with these things.

But– historically, it– it– you know, under the Ottoman Empire, that i– that is– technically– correct. But to make these decisions in deciding what the settlement’s going to be should be the people that are involved. This idea that we can be the policemen of the world and settle all these disputes, I mean, soon we’ll have to quit because we’re flat out broke. But we– we cannot continue to get into these issues like this and– and– and– and getting ourselves into more trouble.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, as I’ve said, this has caused quite a reaction in– in the Middle East. The chief Palestinian negotiator, Sa– Saeb Erekat, said, “Mark my words: These statements of Gingrich will be the ammunition and weapons of the bin Ladens and the extremists for a long, long time.”

SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: How would he know the difference? Look from historic, George, simply. Is– is what I said factually correct? Yes. Is it historically true? Yes. Are we in a situation where every day, rockets are fired into Israel while the United States, the current administration, tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process?

Hamas does not admit the– the right of Israel to exist, and says publicly, “Not a single Jew will remain.” The Palestinian Authority ambassador to India said last month, “There is no difference between Fatah and Hamas. We both agree Israel has no right to exist.”

Somebody oughta have the courage to tell the truth: These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in their schools. They have textbooks that say, “If there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?” We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It’s fundamentally– time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, “Enough lying about the Middle East.”

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, (APPLAUSE) you just heard the Speaker say he was just telling the truth. Do you take any issue with that characterization of the Palestinians as an invented people?

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: I– I happen to agree with– with most of what the speaker said, except by going down and saying the Palestinians are an invented people. That I think was a mistake on the speaker’s part. I– I think– you– you– I think the speaker would probably suggest that as well. I– I don’t think we want to–

(SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: UNINTEL)

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: Maybe not. I– (LAUGHTER) I think we’re very wise to stand with our friends, Israel, and not get out ahead of them. This president decided he was gonna try and negotiate for Israel by sayin’, “Let’s go back to the ’67 borders.” That’s not what Israel wanted to h– hear.

They– Israel does not want us to make it more difficult for them to sit down with the Palestinians. Ultimately, the Palestinians and the Israelis are gonna have to agree on how they’re gonna settle the– the differences between them. And the United States–

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: –and the– and the United States of America should not jump ahead of Bibi Netanyahu and say something that makes it more difficult for him to– to do his job. My view is this: We stand with the Israeli people. We link arms with them. If we disagree with them, like this president has time and time again, we don’t do it in public like he’s done it, we do it in private.

And we let the Israeli leadership describe what they believe the right course is going forward. We don’t negotiate for the Israeli people. We stand with the Israeli people, stand with our friends, and make it very clear: We are gonna t– we’re gonna tell the truth, but we’re not gonna throw incendiary words into a– a place which is– a boiling pot when our friends the Israelis would probably say, “What in the world are you doin’?”

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So there you have it, Mr. Speaker. He says this is gonna make life more difficult for the Israelis.

SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: The Israelis are getting rocketed every day. The– we’re not making life more difficult. The Obama administration’s making life more difficult. The fact is, the Palestinian claim to a right of return is based on a historically false story. Somebody oughta have the courage to go all the way back to the 1921 League of Nations mandate for a Jewish homeland, point out the context in which Israel came into existence, and “Palestinian” did not become a common term until after 1977. This is a propaganda war in which our side refuses to engage. And we refuse to tell the truth when the other side lies. And you’re not gonna win the long run if you’re afraid to stand firm and stand for the truth.

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: Of course you s– of course you stand firm, and stand for the truth. But you don’t speak for Israel.

SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: I didn’t.

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: If– if– if– if Bibi Netanyahu wants to say what you said, let him say it. But our ally, b– the– the people of Israel, should be able to take their own positions and not have us negotiate for them.

DIANE SAWYER: I want to turn, if I can, to–

SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: But can– can I just say one last thing? Because I didn’t speak for the people of Israel. I spoke as a historian who’s looked at the world stage for a very long time. I’ve known Bibi since 1984. I feel quite confident an amazing number of Israelis found it nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of and the casualties they’re taking and the people who surround them who say, “You do not have the right to exist, and we want to destroy you.”

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: I– I’ve known– I’ve– (APPLAUSE) I’ve also known Bibi Netanyahu for a long time. We worked together at– at Boston Consulting Group. And the last thing Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is not just a person who’s an historian, but somebody who is also running for president of the United States, stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in– in his neighborhood.

DIANE SAWYER: Congresswoman–

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: And I’m president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability. And make sure that in a setting like this, anything I say that can affect a place with– with rockets going in, with people dying, I don’t do anything that would harm that– that process.

And therefore, before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say, “Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do? Let’s work together, because we’re partners.” I’m not a bomb thrower, rhetorically or literally.

DIANE SAWYER: Under the rules, we need– your response. (APPLAUSE)

SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: I think sometimes it is helpful to have a president of the United States with the courage to tell the truth, just as was Ronald Reagan who went around his entire national security apparatus to call the Soviet Union an evil empire and who overruled his entire State Department in order to say, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Reagan believed the power of truth restated the world and reframed the world. I am a Reaganite, I’m proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth, even if it’s at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid.

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: I think it’s important (APPLAUSE)–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Who’s got the better of this argument, Congresswoman Bachmann? Who’s got the better of this argument?

CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELE BACHMANN: Who has the better of this argument?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah. (LAUGHTER)

CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELE BACHMANN: In 1974, I went to Israel for the first time and I worked on a kibbutz for the summer. And I saw a brand new nation that had begun in 1948 and was making its way into the modernization that we know today. They’re a first world nation. I was able to return as a member of Congress multiple times, and I also met with Fayad in Ramallah in the very room that Arafat used as his conference room. When I was in there, I– I had asked Fayad about the issue that we were very concerned about, and that’s how the Palestinians teach their children to hate the Jews and call them pigs and swine and descendants from Hades.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, but do you think–

CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELE BACHMANN: And I– and let me finish–

(OVERTALK)

CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELE BACHMANN: And I have asked him about this very important issues, because how do you find peace when you continue to teach your children hatred? And asked Fayad about this issue, and he said, “Oh, tha– we don’t do that anymore. Our textbooks aren’t filled with that.”

And I said, “Oh really?” I pulled out a manila envelope that I’d brought with me, and I pulled out the pages that I’d photocopied out of current books that were being used that clearly showed that. And he said, “Oh, but these are old textbooks.” And he said– I said, “Really? Well, then why don’t you send me the new textbooks that no longer say that and compare them with the old?” And I checked my mailbox today; he still hasn’t me those textbooks. That’s what needs to change.

DIANE SAWYER: Senator Santorum, let me put to you George’s question. Who’s got the better of the argument?

SENATOR RICK SANTORUM: Well, I– I think you have to speak the truth– but you have to do so with prudence. I mean, it’s– it’s a combination. Th– and, you know, I– I– I sat there and I listened to both of ’em; I thought they both had– made excellent points.

But we’re in a real-life situation. This isn’t an academic exercise. We’ve got– we have a– we have an ally, and the policy of this country should be to stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally. And– we– we didn’t have an ally in the Soviet Union. The only allies we had were sitting in gulags, and they desperately needed to hear the truth. And Ronald Reagan provided that truth.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So– so do we–

SENATOR RICK SANTORUM: Here, we have–

(OVERTALK)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –with prudence, would that be saying (NOISE) Palestinians are invented or not?

SENATOR RICK SANTORUM: If I can finish my s– comment, I’ll get to that, George. (LAUGHTER) That– that we– we have an ally here that we have to work closely with. And I think Mitt’s point was– was the correct one. We need to be working with the Israelis to find out, you know what? Is this a wise thing for us to do, to step forward and to engage this issue? Maybe it is.

My guess is, at this point in time, it’s not. Not that we shouldn’t tell the truth, but we should be talking to our allies. It’s their fight. We are to be their ally, we’re to be– supporting them. And I’m– I– I’ve been out here very publicly– that the Israelis have the right to determine what happens in their land. And all of Israel, including the quote– you know, West Bank, is Israeli land. And we need to work with them as to the solution that works best for our ally.

DIANE SAWYER: Governor Perry, close this–

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: Let me–

DIANE SAWYER: –please.

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: –just say that I think this is a minor issue– that the media is blowing– way out of proportion. We have a president of the United States who has put the most muddled foreign policy in place that is causing the problems in the Middle East. Whether it goes back to two thousand and– and– nine when we had an opportunity to impact Iran, whether it has been the way that– he stood back in Egypt and did not try to negotiate people who would come in that w– could work with us, and now we have radical Islamists as the head of Egypt, whether it was leading from the rear, if you will, in– in Libya.

The idea that this president now, with Iran getting one of our predator drones in their possession, and he had two opportunities– well, he didn’t have two opportunities, he had two choices– actually, he had three. And he chose the worst.

And those two opportunities he had was to either retrieve that drone, or to destroy it, and he did the worst of the three and he did absolutely nothing. And the Russians and the Chinese will have our highly technical equipment now. This president is the problem, not something that Newt Gingrich said. (APPLAUSE)

DIANE SAWYER: We have to take a break right now, and I just want to say that we have a partner in all of this, which of course is Yahoo. I want to put up a question which we want to address when we come back about the struggles of the middle class in this country. And we have a question on Yahoo about the last time those of you had a personal financial strain that forced you to cut back on a necessity, as so many people in the middle class say they do. What were the consequences you fa– you faced, and will you weigh in on that? And that’s when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) (MUSIC)

(REVIEW CLIPS NOT TRANSCRIBED)

ANNOUNCER: Live from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, once again, Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos.

DIANE SAWYER: And we welcome all of you back and, again, we thank the Republican candidates for president of the United States for debating here tonight. I’m gonna return to the Yahoo question, which brings the struggles of the middle class down to something personal for everyone who is behind a podium up there.

And here’s what it said: “Many of us are forced to make cuts to continue necessities such as mortgage payments, groceries, transportation to work, and health care.” And then the question continues, they want to know, “When is the last time you had a personal financial strain that forced you, not only to give up a luxury, but also to cut back on necessity? And what were the consequences you faced?” This is from Andrew in Texas. And I’d like to start, Governor Perry, with you.

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: Well, obviously– growin’ up where I grew up– there were some people that probably said– as a matter of fact, I was on– radio station here, WHO– yesterday and– and talked about my upbringing. And– growin’ up in a house that didn’t have– running water until I was five or six years old and– and my mother– sewin’ my own clothes for me till I went off to college.

And– the idea that– luxury really wasn’t in my lexicon. But as I grew and as I– went off and flew in the United States Air Force and I came back home, and as a 27-year-old boy– well, I was a m– grown man by then– but I didn’t have anything– I– my social security– has a zero in 1978. So I’m sure I was givin’ up some things that other people would consider to be luxuries.

But the fact is– I’ve never had a time in my life when I felt like that I gave anything up that I didn’t have everything I needed. And– I know there are people that are– that are suffering in America today, and that’s the reason we need to get this country back working and having people so that they can have a job. And the policies that I’ve laid out, and the record that I’ve had in the State of Texas for the last decade, clearly gives that record to the people of this country.

DIANE SAWYER: Again, we just want to remind you that, when the red comes up, you– the rules that were agreed on here. I’ll do the two governors; Governor Romney grew up in very different circumstances. What about this question?

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: I didn’t grow up poor. And if somebody is looking for someone who’s grown up with that background, I’m– I’m not the person. But I– but I grew up with a dad who’d been poor, and my dad wanted to make sure I understood the lessons of hard work. And my mom and dad wanted to make sure that I understood the principles that made America the greatest nation on earth.

And so they made sure we had jobs as we were growing up. They made sure we didn’t spend money foolishly. And they made sure that I had– a care and concern for other people. I was able to serve my church overseas, and to– to meet people there that had very difficult circumstances in their life. I also spent time in this country, serving as a pastor in my– in my church, and again, having the occasion to work with people that were really struggling. I saw marriages under great stress.

You see, when– when people lose jobs, marriages get strained, people’s health gets affected– people become depressed. And– and I’m in this race, not– not because I grew up without means, but because I understand what it takes to get America working again. And I love this country enormously and understand the principles and understand the specifics that it takes to get America creating jobs again. That’s why I’m in the race.

DIANE SAWYER: And Congressman Paul, what does this question evoke? How much does it matter to have personal experience?

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL: Well– I feel very fortunate because– although I was raised in– in a system that– in a family that was rather poor, but we– (LAUGH) I didn’t even know it. You know, it was durin’ the Depression and World War II, and we didn’t have very much, and I worked my way through college, and that was a natural instinct because that’s what you were supposed to do. But– I– I– I finally– did a little bit better in medical school because I had my wife work our way through cool– (LAUGH) medical school. (LAUGHTER) So that worked out a little bit better.

But middle class is suffering, but not only because we bale out the rich and dump on the poor and they lose their jobs and they lose their houses, but there’s a characteristic about monetary policy. When a country destroys its currency, it transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, and this is what you’re seeing today: the elimination of the middle class. And going to get a lot worse unless we address the subject overspending, over-borrowing, and printing too much money, and understanding the business cycle.

DIANE SAWYER: Senator Santorum. (APPLAUSE)

SENATOR RICK SANTORUM: I c– I can say that I grew up in a very modest home and was very blessed to have– all my basic needs met. And one of the most basic needs and the most important one that I’ve learned was that I was blessed to have a mother and a father. That was the most important gift that I was given, that I had two parents who were together, who loved me, who supported me and made me feel safe. And made the– the– the little things that no one would consider luxuries today feel like luxuries because I had that sense of security.

Unfortunately, America, we see the family continuing to break down. And with that, the economic status of those families. Single-parent households in America now have poverty levels approaching 40%. So– you not only have the lack of security and stability in so many cases, because moms are doin’ heroic work tryin’ to hold things together, but it’s hard.

And so what we can do as a federal government, we can do more importantly as the leader of this country, to try to promote this institution of marriage. Try to promote the family and try to nurture this environment that we have to– to make sure that families are elevated and supported and fathers and mothers are there to take care of their families and– and– and– and be there for their children. That’s the most important luxury, is a mom and a dad.

DIANE SAWYER: And Congresswoman Bachmann, someone said recently that troubled banks got a bailout, troubled homeowners got evicted. Your response on this question and the struggle for the middle class.

CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, I opposed the $700 bailout for Wall Street because Wall Street rolled the dice and they made some very foolish decisions. They were only too happy to pocket profits when times were good, but when times went south and things got sour then they decided to socialize their losses. And the– American taxpayer was only too good to bail them out.

There’s people on this stage that– supported that bailout; I didn’t. Behind closed doors, I took on the Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson; I took on my own president because I knew this was going to be a very bad deal.

You’d asked the question about luxuries and where we come from. I was born here in Iowa to a middle-class family, but my family went through a tragedy that millions of families go through: My folks got divorced. And when it happened, my mom found herself a single mom who’d been a full-time homemaker, she had four kids. We went to below poverty overnight. And when I was 13, I had to start getting a job to help out the family.

I know what the– it’s like for single moms to struggle. And throughout most of our marriage, we’re still coupon clippers today. We still go to consignment stores today. We get what that feels like. And I think it’s important for the next president of the United States to be in touch with what real people struggle with across the country, and I have.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich? (APPLAUSE)

SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: Well, let me say first of all, the– that– when I was young, we lived– in an apartment above a gas station on the square in Holmestown (PH), Pennsylvania. I had relatives who were steel workers, others who were delivery men, some who worked in department stores. My dad was in the Army and we’d moved around, and he lived on the pay of a junior officer. By the time– it was fairly frugal, but you– you didn’t feel desperate.

Today, I’ve had several relatives in the last three years who’ve been out of work, who’ve had to go through very difficult times. My wife Callista runs Gingrich Productions as a company. It’s a very small company, does basically movies and books and things like that. We have to meet a payroll. We have to find markets. We have to find– you know– d– well, do– do everything that small businesses go through. And I know how difficult this economy is at a practical level if you’re a small business.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanna stick with Yahoo because as you– we said at the start, we’re getting real-time feedback from our Yahoo audience. Over 12,000 people have already weighed in on Yahoo and ABCNews.com. An– and this is directed at– at Speaker Gingrich and– and– and Governor Romney, because more than 72% say right now they want to hear more from you about your past support for health care mandates.

That’s something that they’re still not fully satisfied with what they’ve heard– (NOISE) from you. And– and Speaker Gingrich– I mean, Governor Romney, let me begin with you because– you were clear. You’ve said you’ve always been against a federal mandate; you supported it in the State of Massachusetts. Where there has been some ambiguity, at least in the past, is whether you think that other states should try the mandate. Back in 2007, you said that you thought it would be good for most states to try it; now you say you wouldn’t encourage other states to try. Can you explain that?

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: States can do whatever the heck they want to do; that’s the great thing about– (APPLAUSE) about our system. I– I think there’s a good deal that we did that people can look at and find as a model, that could–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The mandate?

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: –help other state– if some– if they want to, sure. They could try what they think is best. I– that’s– it’s up to other states to try what works for them. Some will like that; some will think it’s a terrible idea. We had this idea of exchanges where people could buy insurance– from companies, private companies– we have no government insurance, by the way, in our state. It’s all– other than the federal Medicare/Medic– Medicaid programs. It’s all private pay. So people can learn from one another.

But– but my– (LAUGH) my plan– was designed for our state, and other states should have the right to create plans that work for them. And if they come up with something better than we did, then we can learn from them. But the idea of a federal government or a federal mandate, as you see with Obamacare, flies in the face of the Constitution, violates the tenth amendment. I think the Supreme Court will strike it down. If they don’t, I will.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich– Congresswoman Bachmann pointed out that as– as late as May of this year, you supported some form of the mandate when everyone else had– had come out against it. What finally tipped you over and convinced you that it was unconstitutional?

SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I think first of all for the federal government to do it is unconstitutional because it means the Congress– the Congress, which could compel you to purchase this item, could compel you to purchase any item. And so the question of freedom would be d– would be missed. And any (MIC NOISE) majority could then decide to make you do virtually anything. I think that’s part of why you’re seeing a dramatic shift back towards limiting the federal government and towards imposing the tenth amendment as a very serious barrier.

I– I’ve been working on health issues since 1974. And I’ve been t– and– and I tried to find a way to break out of where we are, because the fact is the whole third-party payment model, whether public or private, has grown more and more expensive, more and more difficult to sustain. And helped found the Center for Health Transformation that– for that reason, wrote a book called Saving Lives and Saving Money back in 2002.

We need to fundamentally rethink the entire health system to move back towards a doctor-patient relationship, and back toward something like what Rick Santorum talked about with health savings accounts where people are directly engaged in their own health and in taking care of themselves to a much greater degree than they are in the current insurance system.

DIANE SAWYER: If I can switch to this question, and– and it is about health care, because a number of people– in fact, I was just at a pharmacy here– I– have a cough. But I was (LAUGH) at the pharmacy here in Iowa, and the pharmacists were talking about a big– driver of health care costs. And they specifically mentioned habits, unhealthy habits that we all need to learn to be better on at a young age. They talked about obesity, they talked about exercise. If I can ask you, Congressman Paul: Anything government should do on these fronts?

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL: On– on medical? Or?

DIANE SAWYER: On these fronts, specifically, of healthy behavior at very young– ages for– it’s–

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL: No, essentially not, but they have to be– a referee. If people are doing things that hurt other people, yes. But if you embark on instituting a society where government protects you from yourself, you’re in big trouble, and that’s what they’re doing. (APPLAUSE)

I think– I think what we’ve had here is a demonstration of– why should we have a candidate that’s gonna have to explain themselves? 70% of the people want further explanations on what your positions are. So I think that it is endless. But you talk about the– the Obamacare using force, but that’s all government is, is force.

I mean, do you have a choice about paying Medicare taxes? So there’s not a whole of different– you’re forced to buy insurance. That’s one step further. But you have to stop with force. Once government uses force to mold behavior or mold the economy, they’ve overstepped the bounds and they’ve violated the whole concept of our revolution and our Constitution. (APPLAUSE)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We– we are running short on time. I just want to ask quickly, does anyone disagree with the first part of Congressman Paul’s answer there, where he said the government really shouldn’t be getting involved in these broader issues of behavior?

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: Listen, I happen to think that the states– that’s their call, not the federal government. The states should be able to make decisions on whether they– Terry, you probably have some programs here– in Iowa to get–

(MALE VOICE: UNINTEL)

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: There you go. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) So– it– it– it should be their call. But listen, this goes back, and– and– and Congressman Paul and I, you know, we disagree from time to time. But the real issues that we have in this country are that people are sick of Washington, D.C. They’re sick of the money that they’re seeing spent, they’re sick of the fraud and the corruption that they’re seeing.

They’re sick of seeing their– their kids’ futures mortgaged because we’ve got a Washington, D.C., that is out of touch with the country. It’s the reason, when I talk about my overhauling Washington plan, and I’ve gotten a pretty good response across the country when I talk about goin’ to a part-time Congress. Cut their pay in half, let ’em spend half the time in Washington, D.C. Send ’em back home to have a regular job like the rest of the people in their districts, and work under the laws that they pass. That I will suggest to you, along with a balanced budget amendment to the United States Congress, will go a long way toward stoppin’ a lot of the nonsense that we’re seeing comin’ out of Washington–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, it was Governor–

GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: –D.C.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –Branstad who said this is the– healthiest–

CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELE BACHMANN: Healthiest–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –state in the nation, and we will return to the healthiest state in the nation in just a minute.

ANNOUNCER: (MUSIC) You’re watching live ABC News coverage of the Iowa Republican Party debate.

ANNOUNCER: Live from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. Once again, Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopoulos.

DIANE SAWYER: And George and I were just talking about the fact, the question we get so often is, why can’t people who disagree show respect for each other, and can we all work together, even people who disagree, to move the country forward? And so–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So we’re– in form of closing, still we just want each of you, you’re running against each other. But in these last few minutes, and just think of a minute where we will not run over to commercial, (LAUGH) tell us the one thing you’ve learned from someone else, one of your challengers, on stage. Senator Santorum?

RICK SANTORUM: Well, I’ll– I’ll go back to– you know, the comment I made earlier. I mean, I– when I was first running for office– you know, Newt Gingrich was the guy that– who’s– who’s tapes I’ve listened to as a young man– and tryin’ to– at 30 years old, deciding to run for Congress. He laid out– a vision for conservative governance that– that I– adopted and– and ran with in a very, very tough Congressional district outside of suburban Pittsburgh, so tough that no one gave me a chance of winnin’ it.

Fact, election night the Wall Street Journal called the Republican National Committee to find out the name of the guy that won. And they didn’t even know my name at the RNC. (LAUGHTER) That’s a true story. And– and you don’t get a lotta true stories. But that’s a true story. And– and so, you know– I– I came out of the blue as a conservative.

Think that’s, again, the– the thing that distinguishes me. I– I’ve run as a conservative in a 60% Democratic district and won in a 70% Democratic district and won in the State of Pennsylvania with almost a million more Republicans than Democrats and won. I defeated an incumbent and– and won again. And– in a year that George Bush lost the election by five, I won by six. And– and I stuck by the conservative principles that Newt outlined in the– in the late ’80s. And– and it’s always served me well. I’ve been a consistent conservative.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry?

RICK PERRY: I’d say– Congressman Paul got me really intrigued with the whole– the federal reserve. And I’ve spent a substantial amount of time reading about and Currency Wars, the book by James Rickards that– but Congressman Paul is– is– is the individual in the stage that got me most interested in– in a subject that I found to be quite interesting and at the root of a lotta the problems that we have. And I thank you for that. But the one thing that I found– outside of– of these fine– individuals on this stage is that the people of this country, the people of this country really want to get America back on track.

And Ri– Congressman Keane, whether it’s somebody like you and– and your Idea Act that– that we talked about the other day– there are really good men and women in this country that wanna get this country back headed down a track. And they understand, Michele, just as you’ve said, that this election is about the future of this country. One of the most important elections, if not the most important election, and we gotta get it right.

DIANE SAWYER: Over to you, Governor Romney. (APPLAUSE)

MITT ROMNEY: I– I always find– the principle of leadership to be most interesting. And– and as I look at the people on this stage, each exhibits different qualities of leadership. And they’ve each exercised leadership in different ways. Wha– one of the about Ron Paul that always– amazes me is when I come to a debate like this, the only signs I see are the Ron Paul people out there– (LAUGHTER) in freezing. (APPLAUSE)

In freezing temperatures, they’re always there. He ignites an enthusiasm with a number of people. That’s very exciting to watch. In choosing a president, it– it’s the qualities of leadership that are gonna make the difference. Because our positions on issues are– are– are important, of course.

And I happen to think I’ve got the right positions on issues, of course. Or I wouldn’t have ’em. But– but fundamentally– we know that down the road what’s gonna de– determine who is a great president or not is– is their qualities of leadership in getting America back on track. And– and– and I believe– right now– and just as– as Governor Perry just said, this is the time for real leadership because this country is going in a very dangerous direction. This is a time where America has got to return to principles that will keep us the hope of the earth and– and the shining city on the hill. That light from that shining city has dimmed over the last three years. And I will help restore it. (APPLAUSE)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Mister speaker.

NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I– I wanna say two people, one on the stage and one not. Governor Terry Branstad is my role model. Get outta politics for a while doin’ something else, be involved in health care, (LAUGHTER) come back when you’re clearly too old, too experienced, too tied to the past, win the governorship decisively, do a great job. (CHEERS) (APPLAUSE)

And the– the other– I just wanna say two other people very briefly. Rick Perry got me engaged about three years ago on this whole tenth amendment in a big, serious way. And I think that he is– he h– he has helped ignite a fire that is gonna change America. And Rick Santorum’s consistency and courage on Iran has been a hallmark of why, if we do survive, it will be in part because of people like Rick who’ve had the courage to te– tell the truth about the Iranians for a long time. (APPLAUSE)

RON PAUL: Well, I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition. Because if you’re persistent, (LAUGH) and you present your case, they will come your way. So Rick, I appreciate it. (LAUGHTER) Rick, I appreciate it. (UNINTEL) appreciate it. You’re open to the federal reserve. That’s wonderful. But I– I work from the assumption that freedom brings people together.

And if you understand freedom, it’s based on tolerance and nonviolence. So if it’s tolerance, it should be bringing all kinds of people together and that’s following our Constitution. And we shouldn’t be fighting among ourselves. Because we shouldn’t be fighting in Washington if we all take the same oath of office. Where does the fight come from? Somebody is messin’ up somewhere. (LAUGHTER) So– so I say that with persistence, I think that we can all prevail and come up with the right answers. (APPLAUSE)

(OFF-MIC CONVERSATION)

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, I would agree with everything that’s been said here tonight. But I would also add again, someone that I mentioned a little bit earlier and that was Herman Cain. Herman Cain, I think when he brought up the 999 plan, and that you can’t have a debate without saying “999” in the debate, I think one thing that he showed us is the power of being very plain spoken.

And also reducing something to a very simple level so people get it. And people were very excited about that plan. Because they could understand what that meant. And I think that’s a challenge for every one of us; ’cause a lotta times, you can end up sounding and talking like a big bureaucrat in Washington. People don’t want that. They don’t want Washington. They want outside of Washington. And rightfully so. That’s why I think in this race, I’m– I’m the proven consistent conservative and I’m gonna go with win-win-win rather than 999.

DIANE SAWYER: Well again, we are at the end of the (APPLAUSE) time agreed upon by all of you, the candidates. And we thank you so much and we thank the people of Iowa, 24 days the voting begins.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s the time for us. We’re gonna be back with our political team for their independent analysis. We’re hearing lots of opinions on Yahoo and Twitter and Facebook. We’ll get to that in just a minute. (MUSIC)

ANNOUNCER: Much more to come as ABC’s live coverage of the Iowa Republican Party Debate continues. (APPLAUSE)

History Buzz September 15, 2011: Michael Beschloss: Jacqueline Kennedy Recordings Offer Rare Glimpse of Life With President John F. Kennedy Transcript Excerpts

HISTORY BUZZ: HISTORY NEWS RECAP

History Buzz

HISTORY BUZZ: HISTORY NEWS RECAP

IN FOCUS: JACQUELINE KENNEDY: HISTORIC CONVERSATION WITH JOHN F. KENNEDY & IN HER OWN WORDS

Jacqueline Kennedy

HISTORY INTERVIEWS: Recordings of Jacqueline Kennedy Offer Rare Glimpse of Life With JFK — Transcript & Excerpts

Source: PBS Newshour, 9-15-11

SUMMARY

The new book, “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life With John F. Kennedy,” includes never before heard audio recordings of interviews conducted with the former first lady in 1964. Ray Suarez discusses the rare and intimate glimpse with presidential historian Michael Beschloss, who edited and annotated the book.

RAY SUAREZ: And to a rare and intimate glimpse into history.

The new book “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life With John F. Kennedy,” includes never-before-heard audio recordings of interviews conducted with the former first lady in 1964, shortly after her husband’s assassination.

The tapes were released by daughter Caroline Kennedy in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy administration.

Presidential historian and regular NewsHour guest Michael Beschloss edited and annotated the book, and he joins us now.

And, Michael, it was a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at life with JFK, life in the White House, and the life and times of the Kennedy administration.

What do you know now? What’s the most important thing you know now that you didn’t know before?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, presidential historian: Well, the biggest thing, if we had talked a year ago, before I read this thing, I would have said Jacqueline Kennedy was a major figure obviously in JFK’s life and Kennedy’s Washington, did a lot for historic preservation, restored the White House, substituted the taste, perhaps, of Dwight Eisenhower, who had people like Fred Waring and the Pennsylvanians play in the White House, for people like Pablo Casals.

But I wouldn’t have said that she was a major political figure in Kennedy administration. Now I would. One example of this is the number of times in this book where she runs down, say, someone like Dean Rusk, the secretary of state, says, “Jack, you should fire him.” And he says, “Well, maybe you’re right, but I can’t do it until 1964.”

She goes to Pakistan and there’s an ambassador of the United States she meets there, comes back, writes a letter at her husband’s behest that he sends on to the secretary of state. She had a lot more to do particularly with the personnel of this administration than think I would have thought.

RAY SUAREZ: We are taken into the back, private areas of the White House during some of the most tense times in the 1960s, for instance, the Cuban Missile Crisis, when Jacqueline Kennedy tells historian and Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger about what those tense days were like for her and the family.

Let’s listen.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Right.

JACQUELINE KENNEDY, former first lady: But I said: “Please, don’t send me away to Camp David, you know, me and the children. Please don’t send me anywhere. If anything happens, we’re all going to say right here with you.”

And, you know — and I said, “Even if there’s not room in the bomb shelter in the White House,” which I had seen, I said, “Please, then I just want to be on the lawn when it happens, you know, but I just want to be with you and I want to die with you. And the children do, too, than live without you.”

RAY SUAREZ: It’s a reminder that this wasn’t kidding around. The world felt like it was right on the precipice. When the first lady says to the president, “I and the children want to die with you,” it was striking.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And be out on the lawn, not in a bomb shelter.

And the other thing is, it tells something about their marriage. In my experience studying presidents, the president doesn’t have a great marriage with the first lady and there’s a big political crisis, the president usually doesn’t want to spend very much time with his wife, would rather be around cronies or something.

John Kennedy’s first instinct when he knows about the Cuban Missile Crisis — it is in the book — he calls up Jackie, who is in Virginia. There’s something funny in his voice, she says. He says, “Please bring the children right now back to the White House,” even though they were taking naps.

And the next 13 days, they spent very much together, went strolling out on the lawn together. He had a very — she had a very large part in his life, obviously, but particularly at this moment he looked to her for security.

RAY SUAREZ: Two things shone out again and again, how much she admired Kennedy’s personality, his intellect, the way he related to people on the campaign trail and at times how unsure of her own value to him she really was. Take a listen to this.

JACQUELINE KENNEDY: I was always a liability to him until we got to the White House. And he never asked me to change or said anything about it. Everyone thought I was a snob from Newport who had bouffant hair and had French clothes and hated politics.

And then because I was off and having these babies, I wasn’t able to campaign, be around him as much as I could have. And he’d get so upset for me when something like that came out. And, sometimes, I would say, “Oh, Jack, I wish — I’m so sorry for you that I’m just such a dud.”

RAY SUAREZ: Sure, she was a little unsure campaigning at the beginning, but she was anything but a liability, right?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: As it turned out.

But the Kennedy operatives in 1960 thought that she would be, that people would be put off, that she would seem too effete. Some of them wished that she would be more like Pat Nixon. One once said, we will run Mrs. Kennedy through subliminally, worried about her politically.

The biggest surprise to both of them is, she becomes first lady and she’s the most enormous celebrity in the country. Everyone wants to wear their hair like Jackie, the women do, and do their houses and imitate her in other ways. And the poignant thing is that, when they went to Texas at the end of the Kennedy presidency, he had pleaded with her to go with him because she was such a political asset.

RAY SUAREZ: The interesting thing about the times is that right behind her is Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: The model political wife of the time.

RAY SUAREZ: Waiting out just a little ways down the road are Lady Bird Johnson in her way, but also Betty Ford and Rosalynn Carter. She seems on the edge of those two worlds, a helpmeet, a supporter, but also someone who is educated, quite sophisticated in her own right, and worried very much about how the burdens of the presidency were affecting her husband when she couldn’t help him.

Listen to this.

JACQUELINE KENNEDY: And he cared so much. He didn’t care about his 100 days, but all those poor men who you would send off with all their hopes high and promises that we would back them. And there they were, shot down like dogs or going to die in jail.

And Bobby came over to see me and said, “Please stay very close to Jack. I mean, just be around all afternoon.” If I was going to take children out — in other words, don’t leave anywhere, just to sort of comfort him.

RAY SUAREZ: The Bay of Pigs had been a disaster for the very young Kennedy administration, and she was watching it weigh on her husband.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Yes, just three months in.

And he came in with very grandiose expectations, and, suddenly, three months later, he’s accused of being an incompetent, can’t get this done, the invasion of Cuba. He weeps with her in a bedroom in the weekend house they had in Virginia.

And, also, you look at Kennedy’s medical records. His doctors felt that he had gone into a depression. So she felt very much part of her job throughout this presidency was buoying him up when he needed it, and he often did.

RAY SUAREZ: Also, she was incredibly young, raising young children, and pregnant several times during that both campaign and early White House phase, but, at the same time, a woman energized by the life that she was living emerges from the texts of the Schlesinger interviews.

By 1964, when this interview was done, she seems to be pretty much at peace with her role in White House. Take a listen:

JACQUELINE KENNEDY: I always thought there was one thing merciful about the White House, which made up for the goldfish bowl and the Secret Service and all that, was that it was kind of — you were hermetically sealed or there was something protective against the outside world, I mean, as far as your private life went.

And I decided that was the best thing to do. Everyone should be trying to help Jack in whatever way they could. And that was the way I could do it the best, by making it always a climate of affection and comfort and detente when he came home.

RAY SUAREZ: Interesting that she was able to create privacy, when so many other first ladies more keenly feel that intrusion.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Yes, that’s right.

And she didn’t want to go to the White House. She got very morose when he won, oddly enough, because she thought that life would wreck her family. And she was a woman of hugely strong will. And she basically said: I’m not going to be Mamie Eisenhower, campaigning and going to all these political and other kinds of banquets. My job is to support my husband, to raise my children well.

And she also took on for herself this huge project of restoring the White House, which she rightly felt when she encountered it looked like sort of a bad convention hotel which was full of B. Altman reproductions. She had to raise the money for it, huge project, so, all of that done at the same time. This was a woman who was very young, 31 when she became first lady, but of enormous accomplishment and talent.

RAY SUAREZ: A lot of the coverage over the last week has gone to her sharp and sometimes even a little snarky observations on the…

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: One or two.

RAY SUAREZ: Yes, the great and the good of her age. But that just shows that she was paying attention, doesn’t it?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: She was paying very close attention.

And if you looked at the oral history, if there was one, of a first lady that was more traditional, perhaps a Mamie Eisenhower, I doubt if she would have had independent opinions about a secretary of state or an ambassador, and fulfilled that role for her husband.

RAY SUAREZ: So what do we see in Jackie, a sort of hybrid?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: I think a hybrid, and I think you’re right in saying that she was a transitional figure.

She knew that she had to function in a period where people didn’t want to see her attending Cabinet meetings, which she had no interest in doing and didn’t. But, at the same time, she knew that that generation of woman could not any longer be content to be a Mamie Eisenhower or one of the earlier first ladies, who basically poured tea.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Beschloss, thanks for joining us.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Pleasure, Ray.

History Buzz Michael Beschloss & Caroline Kennedy: Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy & ABC’s In Her Own Words

HISTORY BUZZ: HISTORY NEWS RECAP

History Buzz

HISTORY BUZZ: HISTORY NEWS RECAP

BOOK NEWS: JACQUELINE KENNEDY: HISTORIC CONVERSATION WITH JOHN F. KENNEDY & IN HER OWN WORDS

Jacqueline Kennedy

 INTRODUCTION

Caroline Kennedy, Michael Beschloss. Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy. Hyperion; Har/Com edition, September 14, 2011

Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words: Online Video ABC

Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words: Jacqueline Kennedy’s style, elegance and courage helped to define an era, but she never spoke publicly about her White House years. Four months after her husband’s death, she recorded a series of interviews for history, specifying the tapes not be released until the appropriate time. Now, nearly 50 years later, Kennedy’s tapes have been released to the public in a new book and audio set…. ABC News

In 1964, Jacqueline Kennedy recorded seven historic interviews about her life with John F. Kennedy. Now, for the first time, they can be heard and read in this deluxe, illustrated book and 8-CD set.
Shortly after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, with a nation deep in mourning and the world looking on in stunned disbelief, Jacqueline Kennedy found the strength to set aside her own personal grief for the sake of posterity and begin the task of documenting and preserving her husband’s legacy. In January of 1964, she and Robert F. Kennedy approved a planned oral-history project that would capture their first-hand accounts of the late President as well as the recollections of those closest to him throughout his extraordinary political career. For the rest of her life, the famously private Jacqueline Kennedy steadfastly refused to discuss her memories of those years, but beginning that March, she fulfilled her obligation to future generations of Americans by sitting down with historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and recording an astonishingly detailed and unvarnished account of her experiences and impressions as the wife and confidante of John F. Kennedy. The tapes of those sessions were then sealed and later deposited in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum upon its completion, in accordance with Mrs. Kennedy’s wishes.
The resulting eight and a half hours of material comprises a unique and compelling record of a tumultuous era, providing fresh insights on the many significant people and events that shaped JFK’s presidency but also shedding new light on the man behind the momentous decisions. Here are JFK’s unscripted opinions on a host of revealing subjects, including his thoughts and feelings about his brothers Robert and Ted, and his take on world leaders past and present, giving us perhaps the most informed, genuine, and immediate portrait of John Fitzgerald Kennedy we shall ever have. Mrs. Kennedy’s urbane perspective, her candor, and her flashes of wit also give us our clearest glimpse into the active mind of a remarkable First Lady.
In conjunction with the fiftieth anniversary of President Kennedy’s Inauguration, Caroline Kennedy and the Kennedy family are now releasing these beautifully restored recordings on CDs with accompanying transcripts. Introduced and annotated by renowned presidential historian Michael Beschloss, these interviews will add an exciting new dimension to our understanding and appreciation of President Kennedy and his time and make the past come alive through the words and voice of an eloquent eyewitness to history.

“My mother willingly recalled the span of her married life and shared her insights into my father’s private and public political personality.” — Caroline Kennedy wrote

JACKIE KENNEDY TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS

“Suddenly, everything that’d been a liability before — your hair, that you spoke French, that you didn’t just adore to campaign, and you didn’t bake bread with flour up to your arms — you know, everybody thought I was a snob and hated politics. I was so happy for Jack, especially now that it was only three years together that he could be proud of me then. Because it made him so happy — it made me so happy. So those were our happiest years.”

“Renewals of love after brief separations”… “He loved having those children tumbling around him”… He never asked me to change”

Martin Luther King, Jr.: “tricky” and a “phony”; “I said, ‘Oh, but Jack, that’s so terrible. I mean that man is a, you know, such a phony.’… He would never judge anyone in any sort of way. He never said anything against Martin Luther King, Jr.”
“He made fun of Cardinal Cushing and said that he was drunk at it. And things about they almost dropped the coffin. I just can’t see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, that man’s terrible.”

France’s Charles de Gaulle: “egomaniac” and a “spiteful man” “He was so full of spite … I loathe the French, they’re really not very nice, they’re all for themselves.”

Indira Gandhi, the future prime minister of India: “prune — bitter, kind of pushy, horrible woman.”

Sukarno, the former Indonesian president: a lecher, he left “a bad taste in your mouth.”

André Malraux, the French novelist: “The most fascinating man I’ve ever talked to.”

Colombian president, Alberto Lleras Camargo: “Nordic in his sadness.”

Mr. Kennedy on Franklin D. Roosevelt: “Charlatan is an unfair word,” but “he did an awful lot for effect.”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower: “Really, he kept us [as a nation] standing still.”

First Lady Mamie Eisenhower: “There was venom or something there.”

Pat Nixon: Kennedy said she worried that the public wanted her to get a “frizzy perm and be like Pat Nixon.”

Lady Bird Johnson: “trained hunting dog.”

On Lyndon Johnson as President: “Jack said it to me sometimes. He said, ‘Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon were president?’ And Bobby told me that he’d had some discussions with him … do something to name someone else in 1968”

On Lyndon B. Johnson, as a Vice President: “[He had] an enormous ego … [He] just didn’t do anything.”

On Johnson, after he took office as President: “People will think I’m bitter, but I just want it to be put in context the kind of president Jack was and Lyndon is.”

On her husband becoming President in 1961: “Once he was in control … all the best things would happen.”

On the Bay of Pigs invasion: “He started to cry … just with me. Just put his head in his hands and sort of wept. And, it was so sad. He cared so much … all those poor men.”

On the Cuban Missile Crisis in Octpber 1962 to JFK: “From then on, it seemed there was no waking or sleeping…. If anything happens, we’re all going to stay right here with you. “[I told John] please don’t send me away to Camp David … Even if there’s not room in the bomb shelter in the White House, which I’d seen…. I just want to be with you, and I want to die with you, and the children do, too — than live without you….
That was the time I was closest to him, I never left the house or saw the children. I stayed by his side.”

Eunice Kennedy Shriver: “She wanted to be a cabinet wife.”

On Joseph Jr. as President: “He would have been so unimaginative, compared to Jack.”

On Democratic governor of Texas, John Connally: “Jack was so sweet. He sort of rubbed my back … and said, ‘You mustn’t say that, you mustn’t say that.’ If you start to say or think that you hate someone, then the next day you’ll act as if you hated him.”

White House speechwriter Theodore Sorensen had a “big inferiority complex” and was “the last person you would invite at night.”…
“You know, Jack forgave so quickly, but I never forgave Ted Sorensen.” (On Sorenson encouraging the perception that he had ghostwritten her husband’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “Profiles in Courage.’)

On being asked if Mr. Kennedy was religious: “Oh, yes. Well, I mean, he never missed church one Sunday that we were married or all that, but you could see partly — I often used to think whether it was superstition or not — I mean, he wasn’t quite sure, but if it was that way, he wanted to have that on his side.
It was just like a little childish mannerism, I suppose like brushing your teeth or something. But I thought that was so sweet. It used to amuse me so, standing there.”

“I think he probably did it … rather thinking it might be such a brilliant thing to do because Vietnam was rather hopeless anyway, and put a Republican there.” — Jackie said JFK, a Democrat, had named Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican he had defeated for a Massachusetts Senate seat in 1952, as U.S. ambassador to Vietnam because JFK was so doubtful of military success there.

“All these twisted poor little women whose lives hadn’t worked out … [They had] this queer thing for power…. resented getting their power through men
I get all my opinions from my husband, which is true. How could I have any political opinions? His were going to be the best…. Women should never be in politics, we’re just not suited for it.”

Schlesinger asks young John if he knows what happened to his father.
“He’s gone to heaven,” the boy replies.
Schlesinger asks what he remembers.
“I don’t remember ANY-thing,” John says playfully.

Jacqueline Kennedy recalled a 1962 White House conversation between Kennedy and historian David Donald about Abraham Lincoln’s presidency:
“‘Do you think’ – it’s the one thing that was on his mind — ‘would Lincoln have been as great a President if he’d lived?’ And Donald, really by going round and round, had agreed with him that Lincoln, you know, it was better — was better for Lincoln that he died when he did.”

HEADLINES & REVIEWS

“I think people really need to understand the purpose of an oral history. And it really – the value of it is it is immediate, it is honest. I think that was very brave of her to do that and to be honest. But it’s got limitations. It’s just – it’s a primary source document. It’s like a diary or something like that, it’s really a snapshot.

This was something where she felt the obligation to be honest and she had always told us that she was going to put it away for 50 years.

There are flashes throughout where I hear her and there are parts to me where it sounds like it was a very long time ago, just the way she speaks and the things she said.

It was funny because my daughters listened to it too and they were just absolutely horrified… ‘Did she really think that?’ And of course time has moved on and it shows you both there are many timeless things in here but it really is a snapshot of a world that we barely recognize.” — Caroline Kennedy on ABC’s Good Morning America

  • Caroline Kennedy on Jacqueline Kennedy’s ‘Brave’ Tapes: My Daughters Were ‘Absolutely Horrified’ at Some OpinionsABC News, 9-14-11
  • In Tapes, Candid Talk by Young Kennedy Widow: The seven-part interview conducted in early 1964 — one of only three that Mrs. Kennedy gave after Mr. Kennedy’s assassination — is being published as a book and an audio recording. In it, the young widow speaks with Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., the historian and Kennedy aide, about her husband’s presidency, their marriage and her role in his political life. They do not discuss his death. The eight and a half hours of interviews had been kept private at the request of Mrs. Kennedy, who never spoke publicly about those years again before she died in 1994. The transcript and recording, obtained by The New York Times, offer an extraordinary immersion in the thoughts and feelings of one of the most enigmatic figures of the second half of the 20th century — the woman who, as much as anyone, helped shape a heroic narrative of the Kennedy years. Though the interviews seem unlikely to redraw the contours of Mr. Kennedy or his presidency, they are packed with intimate observations and insights of the sort that historians treasure…. – NYT, 9-12-11
  • Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words, Historic Conversations on Life with JFK: Hundreds of books have been written about the presidency of John F. Kennedy. Countless documentaries have been made, thousands of testimonials and oral histories given.
    But for almost 50 years, one voice was silent: Jacqueline Kennedy’s.
    Now, in an ABC News exclusive, Diane Sawyer will anchor a two-hour 20/20 special in September in which America will hear Jacqueline Kennedy’s conversations for the first time, put in context by historians and by the woman who knew her best: her own daughter…. – ABC News, 5-25-11
  • ABC News Kennedy Special Most Watched Program at 10pm: ABC News Special “Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words” averaged 8.4 million Total Viewers and a 2.1 rating/5 share among Adults 25-54 and 1.5 rating/4 share among Adults 18-49 for its two-hour broadcast, according to Nielsen Media Research. … – ABC News, 9-14-11
  • Did NBC spoil ratings for ABC’s Jackie Kennedy special?: Seventeen years after her death, Jacqueline Kennedy remains a big draw, especially with newly released recordings that find her dishing dirt on everyone from President Lyndon Johnson to Indian leader Indira Ghandi. But a rival network may have spoiled the big party ABC planned for the event.
    ABC’s two-hour special “Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words” delivered 8.4 million total viewers Tuesday night, according to Nielsen. Host Diane Sawyer picked her way through hours of tapes the former first lady made with historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in early 1964, just months after President Kennedy was assassinated. In the recordings, Jacqueline Kennedy glowingly recounts life with her husband but bashes leaders such as LBJ, Martin Luther King Jr. and Charles de Gaulle…. – LAT, 9-14-11
  • Jackie Kennedy Book Shoots to No. 1 on Amazon, Barnes & Noble: Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy, debuted at #1 on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble bestseller lists today, its first official release day. Early leaks of the book, which contains the transcript and CDs of the audio recordings of 8.5 hours of interviews Jackie Kennedy did with noted historian Arthur Schlesinger in March 1964, less than four months after the assassination of President John Kennedy, had been the subject of intense media jockeying over the last week. The book also contains introductory essays from Caroline Kennedy and presidential writer Michael Beschloss.
    The book was under a strict sales embargo to protect the exclusive for ABC News’ Diane Sawyer-hosted special, Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words, that aired last night. Some bookstores broke the embargo and The New York Times, the AP, and NBC News acquired early copies last week. Much to the dismay of executives at Disney and ABC, NBC aired audio excerpts on Friday night’s NBC Nightly News with Brian Williamsand followed with additional reports on MSNBC over the next few days. The publicity surrounding the ABC-NBC squabble and the early leaks certainly helped book sales. Eleven days ago, the book was not on Amazon’s Top 100 sellers list but as the publicity grew it steadily rose through the rankings to land at No. 1 today…. – Hollywood Reporter, 9-14-11
  • Audio tapes reveal Jackie Kennedy’s catty side: It wasn’t for her iconic stature as former first lady and wife to a Greek a shipping magnate. And it wasn’t for her doe-eyed beauty and fabulous haute couture wardrobe.
    As in the French salons she tried to bring to the White House, it was because of the conversation – the gossip, mainly, and the way she could skewer an acquaintance with just a few words.
    In the just-released book and audiotapes, made from interviews she gave almost 50 years ago, we get these examples…. – CBS News, 9-14-11
  • Audio tapes reveal Jackie Kennedy’s catty side: Now we know why Jackie Kennedy was such a sought-after dinner guest. It wasn’t for her iconic stature as former first lady and wife to a Greek a shipping magnate. And it wasn’t for her doe-eyed beauty and fabulous haute couture wardrobe.
    As in the French salons she tried to bring to the White House, it was because of the conversation – the gossip, mainly, and the way she could skewer an acquaintance with just a few words…. – CBS News, 9-14-11
  • In Her Own Words: Audio Tapes Reveal New Details of Jacqueline Kennedy’s Life: Jaqueline Kennedy is forever enduring in the national memory for her poise, grace, and impeccable style. But little is known about how she really felt about her years in the White House and of her relationship with President John F. Kennedy. Now, the world is privy to rare details of the presidency and private life thanks to an oral history of the president, conducted with the widowed First Lady in early 1964, just months after his assassination.
    The 8.5-hour-long series of audio interviews, as well as transcripts, are being released this week as a book entitled “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy.” The interviews were conducted by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., a historian and Kennedy aide who was close to the family. Previously locked up in the Kennedy Library, the tapes are being released 47 years after they were first conducted. They’re chock-full of juicy gossip and surprising details of the iconic couple’s life…. – Time, 9-12-11
  • New book and audiotapes show new and more personal side to Jackie Kennedy: It’s a side of Jacqueline Kennedy only friends and family knew. Funny and inquisitive, canny and cutting.
    In “Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life With John F. Kennedy,” the former first lady was not yet the jet-setting celebrity of the late 1960s or the literary editor of the 1970s and 1980s. But she was also nothing like the soft-spoken fashion icon of the three previous years. She was in her mid-30s, recently widowed, but dry-eyed and determined to set down her thoughts for history.
    Kennedy met with historian and former White House aide Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in her 18th-century Washington house in the spring and early summer of 1964. At home and at ease, as if receiving a guest for afternoon tea, she chatted about her husband and their time in the White House. The young Kennedy children, Caroline and John Jr., occasionally popped in. On the accompanying audio discs, you can hear the shake of ice inside a drinking glass. The tapes were to be sealed for decades and were among the last documents of her private thoughts. She never wrote a memoir and became a legend in part because of what we didn’t know.
    The book comes out Wednesday as part of an ongoing celebration of the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s first year in office. Jacqueline Kennedy died in 1994, and Schlesinger in 2007…. – AP, 9-13-11
  • Remembering Jacqueline Kennedy: Tomorrow Hyperion will release a set of Jacqueline Kennedy oral histories in book and audio format. The Times yesterday published excerpts from the tapes and tonight ABC will air a two-hour special on them. Mrs. Kennedy’s candid remarks about members of her husband’s Administration and other public figures, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., have already generated much controversy and discussion…. – New Yorker, 9-13-11
  • Jacqueline Kennedy’s candid look at life with JFK: In the conversations, Kennedy, then 34 years old, also recalls her time in the White House with her husband, John F. Kennedy, as “our happiest years.” The tapes, which have been kept under seal at the Kennedy Library, were released by Caroline Kennedy, 53, who was editor of the book Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy, being published this week by Hyperion. Conducted by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the historian and Kennedy friend and aide, the interviews capture both the intimacy and Cold War tensions at the Kennedy White House…. – USA Today, 9-14-11
  • Will the Jackie Kennedy Tapes Change the Way You Think of Camelot? Audio tapes and book reveal a seven-part interview with Jackie Kennedy conducted in 1964: A 1964 seven-part interview between Jackie Kennedy and Kennedy historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was published as a book and audio tapes Wednesday. The interview was conducted soon after John F. Kennedy’s assassination as part of an oral history of the Kennedy presidency. The tapes were kept under wraps at the first lady’s request, but were finally released by her daughter Caroline to mark the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy administration.
    The tapes provide an intimate look of the marriage between Jackie and the president, as well as her perspective on the people and events that made up the “Camelot” era. In excerpts released in advance, she warmly recalls the 45 minute naps President Kennedy would take—in his pajamas—in the middle of each day. She also recounts the anxiety of the Cuban Missile Crisis, during which she says she told her husband, “If anything happens, we’re all going to stay right here with you. I just want to be with you, and I want to die with you, and the children do, too—than live without you.”
    Some of her remarks in the interview are much more controversial. She calls French President Charles de Gaulle an “egomaniac,” civil rights leader Martin Luther King a “phony,” and Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi “a real prune—bitter, kind of pushy, horrible woman.” She also remembers the president saying of his vice president Lyndon B. Johnson, “Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon were president?”
    Some who have already heard the tapes describe them as “explosive.”… – US News, 9-12-11
  • ‘Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words’: Did Diane Sawyer’s special change your opinions about Jackie O?: On the eve of the release of historian Michael Beschloss’ new book, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy, Diane Sawyer hosted a two-hour long special chronicling the previously unheard eight-and-a-half hours worth of audio of the former First Lady.
    The ABC special — watch it here — featured the revealing interviews that historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. conducted with Mrs. Kennedy just four months after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, as well Sawyer’s interview with Caroline Kennedy, who revealed why she opted to release the tapes to the public now…. – EW, 9-14-11
  • Listening to the other voice in the Jackie Kennedy interviews: The voice of Jackie Kennedy’s interviewer belongs to the late historian and former JFK aide Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., whose writings are again timely in this tea-party era. He noted that the Founding Fathers embraced government as a vital help, not an obstacle, to progress…. — CS Monitor, 9-15-11
  • Jackie: JFK mused on own assassination: John F. Kennedy joked about his own possible assassination in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, according to recently released tapes of former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy.
    The tapes, which were the product of conversations with historian and former White House aide Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in the spring and early summer of 1964, have been released in book form as part of an ongoing celebration of the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s first year in office…. – CBS News, 9-14-11

    HISTORIANS’ COMMENTS

    “It’s certainly not the Jackie that we knew later on. By then, she’s a different woman.” — Doris Kearns Goodwin, the historian and wife of Richard Goodwin, a Kennedy aide, said in an interview

    The Jackie Kennedy tapes: Catty, but won’t change history: “If people are looking for revelations about her, they will not find them. What I think they reveal is an unerring, all-observing eye…. She did not want to be implored and lobbied by people who wanted her to influence policy, so she assumed a public persona of the ‘anti-Eleanor Roosevelt.’ She was very tactical — almost like a spy.” — Carl Anthony, one of the country’s leading experts on first ladies — WaPo, 9-12-11

    “This book shows Jackie Kennedy unplugged. A lot of the rawness of her feelings, I think, as a young woman — she’s is only in her 30s when she is doing these tapes in 1964 — is very different from the more poised and discreet Jackie Kennedy we got to know in the 1980s and 1990s….
    I “was close to Arthur Schlesinger, the professor. He died a few years ago. Ted Sorensen, one of the other keepers of the flame, died, and I think Caroline Kennedy thought, it’s the 50th anniversary right now of the Kennedy presidency, and this is sitting there, and it was time to let her mother have her say, and decided to come public with this.” — Historian and CBS News analyst Douglas Brinkley on the “Early Show”

    Michael Beschloss: I was surprised that she seemed to have so much influence on JFK’s attitudes toward the people who worked for him. For instance, she she says she disliked Secretary of State Dean Rusk and wished JFK would fire him. He told her he intended to do so in 1964. Others she admired, like Robert McNamara, the Defense Secretary, did extremely well in the Kennedy government. She may not have been the only reason, but what she privately told JFK didn’t hurt. There are many other instances of this in the book.

    Her voice has been virtually missing from the thousands of books written about the Kennedys in the past half-century. After all that’s been written about her, it’s illuminating to listen to her speak for herself without that kind of filter.

    She occasionally would stop the recorder and ask Schlesinger if she should discuss such-and-such. As he later recalled, he almost always told her, “Say everything — you control the tape.” — EW, 9-14-11

    Catherine Allgor: Historian Offers Insight on Jacqueline Kennedy: Catherine Allgor, UC Riverside expert on American first ladies, calls Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis a “woman of her time and place.”
    Jackie Kennedy, Allgor says, “was a woman of her time and place.” “Her articulateness, her insight, her apparent education juxtaposes uneasily with her little-girl wistfulness and her aching insecurity. The Jacqueline we see in photographs and waving at crowds gives an impression of confident command, but the woman so happy that she has made her husband proud has more in common with her infamous relative, ‘Little Edie’ of Grey Gardens (the rundown mansion where Jackie Kennedy’s aunt and first cousin, Edith ‘Big Edie’ Bouvier Beale and Edith ‘Little Edie’ Bouvier Beale lived). Both were women of refinement and intelligence trapped in privileged worlds ruled by men. Both tug at the heart strings.”
    Popular consensus is that the Jacqueline Kennedy tapes won’t add much to our understanding of that period of U.S. history, Allgor says. She disagrees: “That depends on whose history. Her remarks about her marriage and how she felt about herself, about men and women, show Americans how much feminism changed our lives, and how far we have to go.” — UCR Newsroom, 9-14-11

History Buzz Michael Beschloss & Caroline Kennedy: Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy Book & Transcript Excerpts

HISTORY BUZZ: HISTORY NEWS RECAP

History Buzz

HISTORY BUZZ: HISTORY NEWS RECAP

IN FOCUS: JACQUELINE KENNEDY: HISTORIC CONVERSATION WITH JOHN F. KENNEDY & IN HER OWN WORDS

Jacqueline Kennedy

INTRODUCTION

Caroline Kennedy, Michael Beschloss. Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy. Hyperion; Har/Com edition, September 14, 2011

Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words: Online Video ABC

Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words: Jacqueline Kennedy’s style, elegance and courage helped to define an era, but she never spoke publicly about her White House years. Four months after her husband’s death, she recorded a series of interviews for history, specifying the tapes not be released until the appropriate time. Now, nearly 50 years later, Kennedy’s tapes have been released to the public in a new book and audio set…. ABC News

In 1964, Jacqueline Kennedy recorded seven historic interviews about her life with John F. Kennedy. Now, for the first time, they can be heard and read in this deluxe, illustrated book and 8-CD set.
Shortly after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, with a nation deep in mourning and the world looking on in stunned disbelief, Jacqueline Kennedy found the strength to set aside her own personal grief for the sake of posterity and begin the task of documenting and preserving her husband’s legacy. In January of 1964, she and Robert F. Kennedy approved a planned oral-history project that would capture their first-hand accounts of the late President as well as the recollections of those closest to him throughout his extraordinary political career. For the rest of her life, the famously private Jacqueline Kennedy steadfastly refused to discuss her memories of those years, but beginning that March, she fulfilled her obligation to future generations of Americans by sitting down with historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and recording an astonishingly detailed and unvarnished account of her experiences and impressions as the wife and confidante of John F. Kennedy. The tapes of those sessions were then sealed and later deposited in the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum upon its completion, in accordance with Mrs. Kennedy’s wishes.
The resulting eight and a half hours of material comprises a unique and compelling record of a tumultuous era, providing fresh insights on the many significant people and events that shaped JFK’s presidency but also shedding new light on the man behind the momentous decisions. Here are JFK’s unscripted opinions on a host of revealing subjects, including his thoughts and feelings about his brothers Robert and Ted, and his take on world leaders past and present, giving us perhaps the most informed, genuine, and immediate portrait of John Fitzgerald Kennedy we shall ever have. Mrs. Kennedy’s urbane perspective, her candor, and her flashes of wit also give us our clearest glimpse into the active mind of a remarkable First Lady.
In conjunction with the fiftieth anniversary of President Kennedy’s Inauguration, Caroline Kennedy and the Kennedy family are now releasing these beautifully restored recordings on CDs with accompanying transcripts. Introduced and annotated by renowned presidential historian Michael Beschloss, these interviews will add an exciting new dimension to our understanding and appreciation of President Kennedy and his time and make the past come alive through the words and voice of an eloquent eyewitness to history.

JACKIE KENNEDY TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS

On her husband’s opinion of Lyndon Johnson:

“Jack said it to me sometimes. He said, ‘Oh, God can you ever imagine what would happen if Lyndon was president?’

“Jack would say you could never get an opinion out of Lyndon at any cabinet or national security meeting. He’d just say, you know, that he agreed with them – with everyone – or just keep really quiet.

“So Lyndon, as vice-president, didn’t just do anything.”

On Charles de Gaulle and France

“De Gaulle was my hero when I married Jack,” she says.

But after meeting the French leader during a May 1961 visit, she says she found him “so full of spite”.

She also says: “I loathe the French… They are not very nice, they are all for themselves.”

On fears during the Cuban Missile Crisis

“I went up and listened and eavesdropped [to a debate on the issue]. I could hear [Former Secretary of Defence Robert] McNamara saying something and then I thought I must not listen and went away. But from then on it seemed there was no waking or sleeping.

“And I just don’t know which day was which. And I never left the house or saw the children and when he came home if it was for sleep or for a nap I would sleep with him.

“Please don’t send me away to Camp David. Please don’t send me anywhere, if anything happens we’re all going to stay right here with you. Even if there’s not room in the bomb shelter in the White House, which I’d seen I said then I just want to be on the lawn when it happens, well I just want to be with you and I just want to die with you and the children do too.”

On JFK joking about the threat of assassination

“And then I remember Jack saying after the Cuban missile crisis, when it all turned [out] so fantastically, he said, ‘Well, if anyone’s ever going to shoot me, this would be the day they should do it.'”

On her husband

“I just wish he could have seen some more good things come in, that he worked so hard for. The tax bill, the civil rights bill, the economy up so high.

“He really did so much. There wasn’t that much more to do, except it would have gelled.”

“Once I asked him – I think this is rather touching – if he could have one wish, what would it be? In other words, you know, looking back on his life, and he said, ‘I wish I had more good times.'”

On JFK’s reaction to the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba

“He came back over to the White House to his bedroom and he started to cry, just with me. You know, just for one – just put his head in his hands and sort of wept.

“It was so sad, because all his first 100 days and all his dreams, and then this awful thing to happen. And he cared so much.”

On Martin Luther King

“I just can’t see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, that man’s terrible.”

On entering the White House

“I was always a liability to him [John F Kennedy], everyone thought I was a snob from Newport who had bouffant hair and had French clothes and hated politics.”

“When we got in the White House all the things that I’d always done suddenly became wonderful. And I was so happy for Jack. He could be proud of me then because it made him so happy. Made me so happy. So those were our happiest years.”

On JFK meeting Winston Churchill in the 1950s

“Jack had always wanted to meet Churchill. Well, the poor man was really quite ga-ga then.

“I felt so sorry for Jack that evening because he was meeting his hero, only he met him too late.”

On future Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi

She calls Ms Gandhi a “bitter, kind of pushy, horrible woman.”

FOREWARD BY CAROLINE KENNEDY

In 1964, as part of an oral history project on the life and career of John F. Kennedy, my mother sat down with Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., to share her memories and insights. Recorded less than four months after the death of her husband, they represent a gift to history and a labor of love on her part. In order to treat them with the appropriate respect, my children and I took very seriously the decision to publish them now, in connection with the fiftieth anniversary of my father’s presidency. The moment seems right—enough time has passed so that they can be appreciated for their unique insight, yet the Kennedy presidency is still within living memory for many who will find her observations illuminating. I hope too that younger generations who are just learning about the 1960s will find these reminiscences a useful introduction to how history is made, and will be inspired to give back to this country that has given us all so much.

When I was growing up, my mother spent much of her time meeting behind closed doors with members of my father’s administration, planning his gravesite at Arlington National Cemetery, making sure that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would reflect his commitment to our country’s cultural heritage, executing his wishes for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and the Institute of Politics, and making countless decisions on the disposition of my father’s official papers, personal effects, mementos, and memorabilia. She was determined that the Kennedy Library would be a living memorial, a place where students would be inspired to pursue careers in public service, where scholars would have access to the historical record, and where families could learn about the ideals that animated my father’s career and his vision for America. These meetings were somewhat mysterious, but my brother and I had a sense that nothing was more important than the “oral history” that we heard about from time to time.

My parents shared a love of history. To them, the past was not an academic concern, but a gathering of the most fascinating people you could ever hope to meet. My father’s interests were political—I still have his books on the Civil War and English parliamentary history, as well as his annotated copy of The Federalist Papers. My mother thought there weren’t enough women in American history to make it as interesting as reading novels and diaries from the courts of Europe. She read War and Peace during the Wisconsin primary, and maintained that reading the Memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon about life at Versailles was the most valuable preparation she received for life in the White House.

After my father’s death, my mother resolved to do everything she could to make sure that the record of his administration was preserved. She had confidence that his decisions would stand the test of time and wanted future generations to learn what an extraordinary man he was. She helped set in motion one of the most extensive oral history projects ever conducted up to that time, in which more than one thousand people were interviewed about their life and work with John F. Kennedy. Although it was painful for my mother to relive the life since shattered, she knew it was important that she participate. She always told us that she chose to be interviewed by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., the Pulitzer Prize–winning historian, former Harvard professor, and special assistant to President Kennedy, because she was doing this for future generations, and that was why she put the tapes in a vault to be sealed for fifty years.

I first read transcripts of these conversations a few weeks after my mother’s death in 1994 when the vault was opened and her lawyer gave me a copy. Everything about that time was overwhelming for me as I found myself faced with the same sorts of decisions about her possessions that she had made thirty years earlier. Knowing her wishes for the oral history made it easy—I knew I was reading something that wasn’t supposed to be seen yet—and although I found it fascinating, I put it back in the vault to await its time.

A few years ago, my family began thinking about how to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of my father’s presidency. We decided to concentrate our efforts on projects that would make his legacy accessible worldwide. Working with the staff of the John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation and generous private partners, my husband led the effort to create the largest existing digital archive of a presidency, as well as online curricula, downloadable exhibits, and a Web site—www.jfk50.org—intended to renew my father’s call to service for today’s generation.

The publication of these interviews is an important contribution to this commemorative effort, and one with its own story. When the director of the Kennedy Library first approached me with the idea, I asked him to search the archives to confirm my mother’s wishes regarding the date of publication. Surprisingly, given the importance of the material, there was no deed of gift or transfer, nor a letter of intent regarding the date at which the interviews were to be opened. There was only a brief notation by a former government archivist that these interviews were “subject to the same restrictions as the Manchester interviews.” By way of background, there are three significant interviews that my mother gave after my father’s death. The first was to Theodore H. White in Hyannis Port on November 29, 1963, only a few days after my father’s funeral. In that interview, my mother famously told White that she and my father used to listen to the record of the Broadway musical Camelot in the evening before they went to bed, and looking back, “that one brief shining moment” reminded her of his presidency. White’s article was published a week later in Life magazine, but the notes of his interview were sealed until one year after my mother’s death. They are now open to researchers at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

The second set of conversations was with William Manchester, who was writing a book called The Death of a President. During the sessions my mother said more about my father’s assassination than she had intended. Subsequently, she became so upset at the thought of her personal memories becoming public that she sued the author and publisher to keep them out of the book. A settlement was reached, and although much of the content made its way into the public sphere, the notes of the interviews were sealed for 100 years—that is, until 2067.

By far the most important were these oral history conversations with Arthur Schlesinger in which my mother willingly recalled the span of her married life, and shared her insights into my father’s private and public political personality. The archivist’s notation regarding the date of publication was not consistent with my memory, nor did it seem to reflect my mother’s wishes. I checked with former members of her staff in the White House and afterward, as well as other friends and attorneys. No one had a recollection that differed from mine, and they were enthusiastic about the idea of publication.

So I was faced with a dilemma that I have confronted numerous times in connection with my mother’s personal papers and correspondence. On one hand, she was a famously private person who gave no on-the-record interviews (other than these three) about life in the White House, and requested in her will that my brother and I make every effort to prevent publication of her personal papers, letters, and writings.

However, she also saved every scrap of paper that came her way—every birthday card or telegram, every letter from her parents, every date book and diary, every draft letter or memo she ever wrote. She knew that living in the White House was an enormous privilege and she was proud of the part she had played. Early on, when she discovered that one of her secretaries was throwing out notes and internal correspondence that chronicled both daily life and the official workings of the mansion, she wrote a steaming rebuke—directing everyone on her staff to save even the smallest scribbles. Her deep immersion in memoirs of the past informed her belief that she had an obligation to preserve everything that happened during her time in the White House. In the years since her death, I have asked myself the question, When does someone no longer belong to you, but belong to history? Few people have been written about more than my mother, and I grew up feeling I needed to protect her—just as she had protected us. So at first I thought it best to leave these interviews sealed for another fifty years, rather than to expose her memory to one more round of gossip and speculation. But I also understand that the continuing interest in her life is a tribute to the immense admiration and goodwill she still commands, and I believe that open access to government is an important American value.

Over the years, I have received multiple requests to publish my mother’s memos and correspondence. At times, it has been difficult to balance her wish for privacy against her public role and pay proper respect to both. Although I agonize over each request, I know that my mother trusted my judgment and felt that I understood her outlook on life. As the years pass, it has become less painful to share her with the world, and in fact, it is a privilege. As her child, it has sometimes been hard for me to reconcile that most people can identify my mother instantly, but they really don’t know her at all. They may have a sense of her style and her dignified persona, but they don’t always appreciate her intellectual curiosity, her sense of the ridiculous, her sense of adventure, or her unerring sense of what was right. Over time, I have tried to draw the line between her public and private life much as I think she did—I try to accommodate requests that pertain to my father’s career, life in the White House, historic events and historic preservation, while denying permission for publication of her writings as a private citizen—whether as a young woman or a working editor.

These conversations are not in the same category as her personal writings, because they were recorded with the intention that they would be made accessible one day. So it was not a question of whether to publish but a question of when, and the decision was up to me. My experience with other requests informed my decision that the time was right.

In reaching this conclusion, I found it helpful to remember the context in which the interviews were conducted, and the timing of when they occurred. The goal was to create a record of my father’s life and career from the memories of those who knew and worked with him. Accordingly, the questions follow a loosely chronological sequence beginning with my father’s early political battles in Massachusetts, his 1956 fight for the vice-presidential nomination, the 1960 campaign, the transition to the presidency, the Inauguration, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, official and family life in the White House, and plans for the 1964 campaign and a second term. Along the way, there are discussions that reveal much about the central characters and events of the time in both domestic politics and international affairs.

The decision was complicated by my conviction that if my mother had reviewed the transcripts, I have no doubt she would have made revisions. She was a young widow in the extreme stages of grief. The interviews were conducted only four months after she had lost her husband, her home, and her sense of purpose. She had two young children to raise alone. It isn’t surprising that there are some statements she would later have considered too personal, and others too harsh. There are things I am sure she would have added, and her views certainly evolved over time. I struggled with the question of whether to delete remarks that might be taken out of context. I was aware that my intentions might be misinterpreted, even if the edited version was a more “accurate” reflection of how she really felt. After much deliberation, I decided to maintain the integrity of the audio interviews as a primary source while editing the text slightly for readability, not content, as has been done with other presidential transcripts and oral history interviews.

My reservations were mitigated by the remarkable immediacy and the informality of the conversations. Knowing my mother so well, I can hear her voice in my mind when I read her words on a page. I can tell when she is emotional, when she is enjoying herself, or is getting annoyed—though she is unfailingly polite. Even though most of her answers are about my father, by listening to the audio, people will learn a great deal about the person that she was. Much is revealed by her tone, and by her pauses as well as by her statements. I trust that readers and listeners will place her views in context to build an accurate and composite portrait of a person and a moment in time, and that her devotion to her husband will come through to others as it does to me.

In addition to their passion for history, my parents shared a conviction that American civilization had come of age. Today this seems an unremarkable proposition, but at the time the United States was just emerging as a global power, and people still looked to Europe for direction and leadership. My parents believed America should lead with her ideals, not just with economic or military power, and they wanted to share our artistic and cultural achievements with the world. My mother played a critical role in the development of what is now called “soft diplomacy.” She traveled with my father and on her own, often speaking the language of the countries she visited. She was an international sensation.

She also understood that the White House itself was a powerful symbol of our democracy, and wanted to make sure it projected the best of America to students and families who visited, as well as to foreign heads of state who were entertained there. She worked hard—not to “redecorate,” a word she hated—but to “restore” the White House so that the legacy of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Abraham Lincoln would be visible. She recast the White House Library to showcase classic works of American history and literature. She established the Fine Arts Committee and White House Historical Association to assemble a permanent collection of American paintings and decorative arts that would become one of the nation’s finest. She made the White House the world’s greatest stage and invited the world’s foremost artists to perform there. She welcomed young musicians, emerging African-American opera singers, jazz musicians, and modern dancers—all to awaken and expand appreciation for American arts and culture.

She felt strongly that as our capital city, Washington, D.C., should reflect America’s newly prominent place in the world. She fought to preserve Lafayette Square, and launched the effort to rehabilitate Pennsylvania Avenue—an effort that has been sustained ever since. My mother understood that the past was a source of pride for people around the world, just as it is in America, and convinced my father that the United States could build goodwill among countries like Egypt, with which we had political differences, by assisting in their historic preservation efforts. Her persistence resulted in a generous U.S. contribution to the UNESCO rescue of the temples of Abu Simbel, which were threatened by the construction of the Aswan Dam, and favorably impressed the Nasser regime. In another example of cultural diplomacy, my mother was responsible for the Mona Lisa’s visit to the United States, the only time the painting has ever left the Louvre.

Most important, she believed her responsibility was to help my father in every way she could. Although she became a diplomatic and even a political asset, she never thought she deserved the title “First Lady,” which she disliked anyway, claiming it sounded like the name of a racehorse. But she was deeply patriotic and proud of what she accomplished, and my father was proud of her too. Their time in the White House was the happiest of her life.

Given the important role Jacqueline Kennedy played in the presidency of John F. Kennedy and its aftermath, it seemed a disservice to let her perspective remain absent from the public and scholarly debate that would accompany the fiftieth anniversary of the Kennedy administration. Fifty years seems a sufficient time for passions to have cooled, yet recent enough that the world described still has much to teach us. The sense of time passing was made more acute by the loss of my uncle Teddy and my aunt Eunice in 2009, by Ted Sorensen in 2010, and my uncle Sarge in January 2011.

But, before making the final decision, I asked my children to read the transcripts and tell me what they thought. Their reactions were not so different from my own. They found the conversations dated in many ways—but fascinating in many more. They loved the stories about their grandfather, and how insightful yet irreverent their grandmother was. They were puzzled by some of Arthur Schlesinger’s questions—personal rivalries he pursued and particular issues that have not stood the test of time. They wished that he had asked more questions about her.

But they came away with the same conclusions that I had reached—there was no significant reason to put off publication and no one speaks better for my mother than she does herself.

—NEW YORK, 2011

%d bloggers like this: