Full Text Campaign Buzz 2016 January 17, 2016: NBC News/YouTube Fourth Democratic Debate in Charleston, SC Transcript

ELECTION 2016

CampaignBuzz2016

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2016

Full Text of the Fourth Democratic Debate in Charleston

Source: Time, 1-17-16

Fourth Democratic debate in Charleston, South Carolina, Sunday night.

Participants: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley

Hosted by NBC News and YouTube

Moderated by anchor Lester Holt.

LESTER HOLT: Good evening and welcome to the NBC News/YouTube Democratic candidates debate. After all the campaigning soon Americans will have their say with the first votes of the 2016 campaign just 15 days away in Iowa. And New Hampshire, not far behind. Tonight will be the final opportunity to see these candidates face to face before the voting begins. Our purpose here tonight is to highlight and examine the differences among the three Democratic candidates. So let’s get started. Please welcome Secretary Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Governor Martin O’Malley. Lester Holt: Well welcome to all of you, hope you’re excited, we’re excited. We want to thank our host, the Congressional Black Caucus Institute. I’m joined by my colleague, Andrea Mitchell tonight. The rules are simple. 60 seconds for answers, 30 seconds for follow-ups or rebuttals. I know you’ll all keep exactly the time so our job should be pretty easy here tonight. We’ll also have questions from the YouTube community throughout the debate. This is a critical point in the race. You’ve been defining your differences with each other especially vigorously in the last week on the campaign trail. We’re here to facilitate this conversation on behalf of the voters so that they know exactly where you stand as you face off tonight. Let’s have a great debate. We’ll begin with 45 second opening statements from each candidate starting with Secretary Clinton.

 

HILLARY CLINTON: Well good evening. And I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus institute and the people of Charleston for hosting us here on the eve of Martin Luther King Day tomorrow. You know, I remember well when my youth minister took me to hear Dr. King. I was a teenager and his moral clarity the message that he conveyed that evening really stayed with me and helped to set me on a path to service. I also remember that he spent the last day of his life in Memphis fighting for dignity and higher pay for working people, and that is our fight still. We have to get the economy working and incomes rising for everyone including those who have been left out and left behind. We have to keep our communities and our country safe. We need a president who can do all aspects of the job. I understand that this is the hardest job in the world. I’m prepared and ready to take it on, and I hope to earn your support to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, and the next president of the United States.

 

HOLT: Thank you. Senator Sanders, your opening statement sir.

 

BERNIE SANDERS: As we honor the extraordinary life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it’s important not only that we remember what he stood for, but that we pledge to continue his vision to transform our country. And as we look out at our country today, what the American people understand is we have an economy that’s rigged. That ordinary Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, 47 million people living in poverty, and almost all of the income and wealth going to the top one percent. And then, to make a bad situation worse, we have a corrupt campaign finance system where millionaires and billionaires are spending extraordinary amounts of money to buy elections. This campaign is about a political revolution to not only elect the president, but to transform this country.

 

HOLT: Senator, thank you. And Governor O’Malley, your opening statement tonight.

 

MARTIN O’MALLEY: Thank you. My name is Martin O’Malley and I was born the year Dr. King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech. And I want to thank the people of South Carolina not only for hosting our debate here tonight, but also for what you taught all of us in the aftermath of the tragic shooting at Mother Emmanuel Church. You taught us in fact, in keeping with Dr. King’s teaching, that love would have the final word when you took down the Confederate flag from your state house, let go of the past, and move forward. Eight years ago you brought forward a new leader in Barack Obama to save our country from the second Great Depression, and that’s what he’s done. Our country is doing better, we’re creating jobs again. But in order to make good on the promise of equal opportunity and equal justice under the law we have urgent work to do and the voices of anger and fear and division that we’ve heard coming off the Republican presidential podiums are pretty loud. We need new leadership. We need to come together as a people and build on the good things that President Obama has done. That’s why I’m running for president. I need your help, I ask for your vote, and I look forward to moving our country forward once again. Thank you.

 

HOLT: Governor, thank you. Alright to our first question now. The first question I’ll be addressing to all the candidates. President Obama came to office determined to swing for the fences on health care reform. Voters want to know how you would define your presidency, how you would think big. So complete this sentence: In my first 100 days in office, my top three priorities will be: fill in the blank. Senator Sanders.

 

SANDERS: Well, that’s what our campaign is about. It is thinking big. It is understanding that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we should have health care for every man, woman, and child as a right. That we should raise the minimum wage to at least 15 dollars an hour, that we have got to create millions of decent paying jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. So what my first days are about is bringing American together to end the decline of the middle class, to tell the wealthiest people in this country that yes they are gonna start paying their fair share of taxes, and that we are going to have a government that works for all of us and not just big campaign contributors.

 

HOLT: Secretary Clinton, same question. My first 100 days in office, my top 3 priorities will be:

 

CLINTON: I would work quickly to present to the congress my plans for creating more good jobs and manufacturing infrastructure, clean and renewable energy, raising the minimum wage, and guaranteeing finally equal pay for women’s work. I would also, I would also be presenting my plans to build on the Affordable Care Act and to improve it by decreasing the out of pocket costs by putting a cap on prescription drug costs, by looking for ways that we can put the prescription drug business and the health insurance company business on a more stable platform that doesn’t take too much money out of the pockets of hard working Americans. And third, I would be working in every way that I knew to bring our country together. We do have too much division, too much mean spiritedness. There’s a lot we have to do on immigration reform, on voting rights, on campaign finance reform, but we need to do it together. That’s how we’ll have the kind of country for the 21st century that we know will guarantee our children and grandchildren the kind of future they deserve.

 

LESTER HOLT:

09:08:55:00 Governor O’Malley, same question.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:08:58:00 Thank you. First of all, I would lay out an agenda to make wages go up again for all Americans rather than down. Equal pay for equal work. Making it easier rather than harder for people to join labor unions and bargain collectively for better wages. Getting 11 million of our neighbors out of the underground shadow economy by passing comprehensive immigration reform. Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour however we can, wherever we can.

 

09:09:23:00 Secondly, I believe the greatest business opportunity to come to the United States of America in 100 years is climate change. And I put forward a plan to move us to a 100% clean electric energy grid by 2050 and create five million jobs along the way. (CHEERING) Thank you.

LESTER HOLT:

09:09:42:00 So you’ve all–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:09:43:00 I’m sorry, that was second, Lester. And third and finally, we need a new agenda for America’s cities. We have not had a new agenda for America’s cities since Jimmy Carter. (APPLAUSE) We need a new agenda for America’s cities that will invest in the talents and the skills of our people, that will invest in CBBG, transportation, infrastructure and transit options and make our cities the leading edge in this move to a redesigned built, clean, green energy future that will employ our people.

LESTER HOLT:

09:10:08:00 All right. Governor, thank you. (APPLAUSE) You’ve all laid out large visions and we’re gonna cover a lot of the ground you talked about as we continue in the evening. The last couple of weeks of this campaign have featured some of the sharpest exchanges in the race. Let’s start with one of ’em, the issue of guns. Senator Sanders, last week Secretary Clinton called you, quote, a pretty reliable vote for the gun lobby. Right before the debate you change your position on immunity from lawsuits for gun manufacturers. Can you tell us why?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:10:36:00 Well, I think Secretary Clinton knows that what she says is very disingenuous. I have a D minus voting record from the N.R.A. I was in 1988– there were three candidates running for Congress in the state of Vermont. I stood up to the gun lobby and came out and maintained the position that in this country we should not be selling military style assault weapons.

 

09:11:01:00 I have supported from day one an instant background check to make certain that people who should not have guns do not have guns. And that includes people with criminal backgrounds, people who are mentally unstable. I support what President Obama is doing in terms of trying to close the gun show loopholes.

 

09:11:23:00 And I think it should be a federal crime if people act (UNINTEL). We have seen in this city a horrendous tragedy of a crazed person praying with people and then coming out and shooting nine people. This should not be a political issue. What we should be doing is working together. And, by the way, as a senator from a rural state that has virtually no gun control I believe that I am in an excellent position to bring people together to–

LESTER HOLT:

09:11:53:00 Senator–

09:11:53:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:11:54:00 –provide a sensible–

09:11:56:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:11:57:00 –you didn’t answer the question that you did change your (CHEERING) position on immunity for gun manufacturers–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:12:00:00 What I–

LESTER HOLT:

09:12:01:00 –so can you– can you answer the–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:12:01:00 –what I have said–

09:12:03:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:12:04:00 –is that the m– gun manufacturers liability bill had some good provisions. Among other things we prohibited ammunition that would have killed cops who had protection on. We had child safety protection– on guns in that legislation. And what we also said is a small mom and pop gun shop who sells a gun legally to somebody should not be held libel if somebody does s– something terrible with that gun.

LESTER HOLT:

09:12:35:00 So.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:12:36:00 What I would say is that I would relook at it. We are gonna relook at it. And I will support stronger (?) provisions.

LESTER HOLT:

09:12:41:00 Secretary Clinton, would you like to respond to Senator Sanders?

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:12:43:00 Yes. Look, I– I have made it clear based on Senator Sanders’ own record that he– has voted with the N.R.A., with the gun lobby numerous times. He voted against the Brady bill five times. He voted for what we call the Charleston loophole.

 

09:13:02:00 He voted for immunity from gun makers and sellers which the N.R.A. said was the most important piece of gun legislation in 20 years. He voted to let guns go onto Amtrak, guns go into national parks. He voted against doing research to figure out how we can save lives.

 

09:13:22:00 Let’s not forget what this is about. Ninety people a day die from gun violence in our country. That’s 33,000 people a year. One of the most horrific examples, not a block from here, where we had nine people murdered. Now I am pleased to hear that Senator Sanders has reversed his position on immunity.

 

09:13:48:00 And I look forward to him joining with those members of Congress who have already introduced legislation. There is no other industry in America that was given the total pass that the gun makers and dealers–

LESTER HOLT:

09:14:02:00 And that– and that’s the–

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:14:01:00 –were. And that needs to be reversed.

LESTER HOLT:

09:14:04:00 –all right. Governor O’Malley, (APPLAUSE) you signed tough gun control measures as governor or Maryland. And there are a lot of Democrats in the audience here in South Carolina who own guns. This conversation might be worrying many of them. They may be hearing, “You wanna take my guns.” What would you say to them?

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:14:20:00 This is what I would say, Lester, look, the– I’ve listened to Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders go back and forth on which of them has the most inconsistent record on gun safety legislation. And– (APPLAUSE) and I would have to agree with both of them.

 

09:14:34:00 They’ve both been inconsistent when it comes (LAUGHTER) to this issue. I’m the– I’m the one candidate on this stage that actually brought people together to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation. This is very personal to me being from Baltimore. I will never forget one occasion visiting– little boy in Johns Hopkins hospital. He was gettin’ a birthday haircut at the age of three when drug dealers turned that barber shop into a shooting gallery.

 

09:14:58:00 And that boy’s head was pierced with a bullet. And I remember visiting him. It did not kill him. I remember visiting him and his mother in Johns Hopkins Hospital. And his diapers with tubes running in and out of his head, same age as my little boy.

 

09:15:11:00 So after the slaughter of the kids in Connecticut, Lester, we brought people together. We did pass in our state comprehensive gun safety legislation. It did have a ban on combat assault weapons, (APPLAUSE) universal background checks. And you know what, we did not interrupt a single person’s hunting season. I’ve never met a self-respecting deer hunter that needed an AR15 to down a deer. And so (CHEERING) we’re able to actually do these (UNINTEL).

LESTER HOLT:

09:15:34:00 All right, governor, thank you. Secretary Clinton, this is a community that has suffered a lot of heartache in the last year. Of course as you mentioned, the– the church shootings. We won’t forget the video of Walter Scott being shot in the back while running from police. We understand that a jury will decide whether that police officer was justified. But it played straight to the fears of many African-American men that their lives are cheap. Is that perception or in your view is it reality?

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:16:04:00 Well, sadly it’s reality. And it has been heartbreaking and incredibly outraging to see the constant stories of young men like Walter Scott, as you said, who have been killed– by police officers. There needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system.

 

09:16:35:00 And that requires a very (CHEERING) clear agenda for retraining police officers, looking at ways to end racial profiling, finding more ways to really bring the disparities that stalk our country into high relief. One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison.

 

09:17:02:00 That’s the statistic. I want people here to think what we would be doing if it was one out of three white men. And very often the black (CHEERING) men are arrested, convicted and incarcerated for offenses that do not lead to the same results for white men. So we have a very serious problem that we can no longer ignore.

LESTER HOLT:

09:17:23:00 And your time is up. I– Senator Sanders, my next question is–

09:17:27:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:17:27:00 –actually my next question–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:17:26:00 Let– let me–

LESTER HOLT:

09:17:28:00 –was for you.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:17:27:00 –respond to what the secretary said. We have a criminal justice system which is broken. Who in America is satisfied that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth including China, disproportionately African-American and Latino?

 

09:17:45:00 Who is satisfied (APPLAUSE) that 51% of African-American young people are either unemployed or underemployed? Who is satisfied that millions of people have police records for possessing marijuana when the CEOs of Wall Street companies who destroyed our (CHEERING) country have no police records?

LESTER HOLT:

09:18:09:00 Senator– Senator Sanders–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:18:10:00 We need to take– we need to take a very hard look–

09:18:17:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:18:16:00 Sen– Senator Sanders–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:18:18:00 –at our criminal justice system, investing in jobs and education–

09:18:20:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:18:22:00 –not in jail and–

LESTER HOLT:

09:18:23:00 Just over a week–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:18:22:00 –incarceration.

LESTER HOLT:

09:18:25:00 –just over a week ago the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed Secretary Clinton, not you. He said that choosing her over you was not a hard decision. In fact, our polling shows she’s beating you more than two to one among minority voters. How could you be the nominee if you don’t have that support?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:18:39:00 Well, let me talk about polling. The secretary– (LAUGHTER) as Sectary Clinton well knows when this campaign began she was 50 points ahead of me. We were all up 3% points. Guess what? In Iowa, New Hampshire the race is very, very close. Maybe we’re ahead (CHEERING) (UNINTEL). In terms of polling, guess what? We are running ahead of Secretary Clinton in terms of taking on my good friend, Donald Trump, beating her by 19 points in New Hampshire, 13 points in the last national poll that I saw.

 

09:19:18:00 To answer your question, when the African-American community becomes familiar with my Congressional record and with our agenda and with our views on the economy and criminal justice just as the general population has become more supportive so will the African-American community, so will the Latino community. We have the momentum. We’re on a path to a victory.

LESTER HOLT:

09:19:43:00 Let’s gonna–

09:19:43:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:19:44:00 –governor I’m gonna come to you (CHEERING) in a second. But Google searches for the words Black Lives Matter surpass Civil Rights Movement last year. And here in South Carolina Black Lives Matter was the number one trending political issue. Governor O’Malley, your campaign and your record is Governor of Maryland and before that the Mayor of Baltimore.

 

09:19:59:00 Last year of course Baltimore was rocked by violent unrest in the wake of the death of Freddie Gray. And right from the start of your campaign you’ve been dogged by those who blame your tough on crime, so-called zero tolerance policies as mayor for contributing to that unrest. What responsibility do you bear?

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:20:18:00 Well, let’s talk about this, when I ran for mayor in 1999, Lester, it was not because our city was doing well. It was because we were burying over 300 young, poor black men every single year. And that’s why I ran because, yes, black lives matter.

 

09:20:34:00 And we did a number of things. We weren’t able to make our city immune from setbacks as the Freddie Gray– unrest and– and tragic death showed. But we were able to save a lot of lives doing things that actually worked to improve police and community relations.

 

09:20:49:00 The truth of the matter is we create a civilian review board. And all– many of these things are in the new agenda for criminal justice reform that I’ve put forward. We created a– civilian review board, gave them their own detectives. We required the reporting of discourtesy– use of excessive for– force, lethal force. I repealed– the possession of marijuana as a– as a crime in our state. I drove our incarceration rate down to 20-year lows and drove violent crime down to 30-year lows and became the first governor south of the Mason Dixon line to repeal the death penalty. I feel a responsibility every day to find things (APPLAUSE) that work.

LESTER HOLT:

09:21:25:00 All right.

09:21:26:00 (OVERTALK)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:21:26:00 And do more (UNINTEL) criminal justice system.

LESTER HOLT:

09:21:26:00 Let’s talk more– let’s– let’s talk more about policing and the criminal justice system. Senator Sanders, a few times tonight we’re gonna hear from some of the most prominent voices on YouTube starting with Franchesca Ramsey who tackles racial stereotypes through her videos. Let’s watch.

FRANCHESCA RAMSEY (ON VIDEO):

09:21:40:00 Hey, I’m Franchesca Ramsey. I believe there’s a huge conflict of interest when local prosecutors investigate cases of police violence within their own communities. For example, last month the officers involved in the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice weren’t indicted. How would your presidency ensure that incidents of police violence are investigated and prosecuted fairly?

LESTER HOLT:

09:22:01:00 Senator Sanders?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:22:02:00 Apologize for not hearing– all of that– question.

LESTER HOLT:

09:22:06:00 Would you like me to read it back to you?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:22:06:00 Yeah.

LESTER HOLT:

09:22:07:00 Prosecutors– I believe there’s a huge conflict of interest when local prosecutors investigate cases of police violence within their communities. Most recently we saw this with the non-indictment of the officers involved in the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:22:23:00 Right.

LESTER HOLT:

09:22:24:00 How would your presidency–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:22:24:00 So.

LESTER HOLT:

09:22:25:00 –ensure incidents of police violence are investigated and prosecuted fairly?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:22:29:00 Absolutely. This is a responsibility for the U.S. justice department to get involved. Whenever anybody in this country is killed while in police customer they should automatically trigger a U.S. attorney general’s investigation. (CHEERING) Second of all, and I think as a mayor who worked very closely and well with police officers, the vast majority of ’em are honest, hardworking people trying to do a difficult job.

 

09:23:00:00 But let us be clear, if a police officer breaks the law, like any public official, that officer must be held accountable. (CHEERING) And thirdly, we have got to demilitarize our police departments so they don’t look like occupying armies. We’ve gotta move to a community police– police (UNINTEL). And fourthly we have got to make our police departments look like the communities they serve in their (CHEERING) diversity.

LESTER HOLT:

09:23:30:00 Secretary Clinton, this question is for you. Tonight parts of America are in the grip of a deadly heroin epidemic spanning race and class, hitting small towns and cities alike. It’s become a major issue in this race in a lotta places where you’ve been campaigning. Despite an estimated $1 trillion spent, many say the war on drugs has failed. So what would you do?

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:23:52:00 Well, Lester, you’re right. Everywhere I go to campaign I’m meeting families who are affected by– the drug problem that mostly is opioids and heroin now. And lives are being lost and children are being orphaned. And I’ve met a lot of grandparents who are now taking care of grandchildren.

 

09:24:12:00 So I have tried to come out with a comprehensive approach that number one does tell the states we will work with you from the federal government putting more money, about $1 billion a year, to help states have a different approach to dealing with this epidemic.

 

09:24:29:00 The policing needs to change. Police officers must be equipped with the antidote to a heroin overdose or an opioid overdose known as Narcan. They should be able to administer it, so should fire-fighters and others. We have to move away from treating the use of drugs as a crime and instead move it to where it belongs, as a health issue. And we need to divert more people from the criminal justice system into drug courts, into treatment and recovery.

LESTER HOLT:

09:25:01:00 And that’s time.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:25:03:00 So this is the kind of approach that we should take in dealing with what is now–

LESTER HOLT:

09:25:06:00 Senator– Senator–

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:25:07:00 –a growing epidemic.

LESTER HOLT:

09:25:09:00 –Sanders, would you like to respond?

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:25:09:00 You know, (APPLAUSE) I agree– I agree with everything– the secretary– said. But let me just add this, there is a responsibility on the part of the pharmaceutical industry and the drug companies who are producing all of these drugs and not (APPLAUSE) looking at the consequence of it.

 

09:25:27:00 And second of all when we talk about addiction being the disease the secretary is right. What that means is we need a revolution in this country in terms of mental health treatment. People should be able to get the treatment that they need when they need it, not two months from now which is why I believe in universal health–

LESTER HOLT:

09:25:50:00 And that’s–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:25:50:00 –care with a special–

09:25:50:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:25:51:00 –and that’s– I will be getting to all that coming up but we’re gonna–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:25:53:00 –Lester, just ten seconds.

LESTER HOLT:

09:25:54:00 –take a break. We need to take–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:25:55:00 Just ten seconds.

LESTER HOLT:

09:25:55:00 –a break. And when we come back–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:25:56:00 All of the thing–

LESTER HOLT:

09:25:58:00 –anger brewing in America.

09:26:10:00 (MUSIC)

09:26:17:00 (BREAK IN TAPE)

09:30:04:00 (MUSIC)

LESTER HOLT:

09:30:08:00 Welcome back to (UNINTEL) turned into another area where there’s been fierce disagreement, that would be health care. Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton, you both mentioned it in your 100 day priorities. Let’s turn to my colleague, Andrea Mitchell, now to lead that questioning.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

09:30:22:00 Thank you, Lester. Secretary Clinton, Senator Sanders favors what he calls Medicare for all. Now you’ve said that what he is proposing would tear up Obamacare and replace it. Secretary Clinton, is it really fair to say that Bernie Sanders wants to kill Obamacare?

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:30:39:00 Well, Andrea, I am absolutely committed to universal health care. I’ve worked on this for a long time. People may remember that– I took on the health insurance– industry back in the ’90s. And I didn’t quit until we got the children’s health insurance program that insures eight million kids.

 

09:30:57:00 And I certainly respect Senator Sanders’ intentions. But when you’re talking about health care the details really mattel– matter. And therefore we have been raising questions about the nine bills that he introduced over 20 years– as to how they would work and what would be the impact on people’s health care. He didn’t like that. His campaign– didn’t like it either. And tonight he’s come out with a new health care plan. And again we need to get into the details. But here’s what I believe. The Democratic party in the United States worked since Harry Truman to get the Affordable Care Act passed. We finally have a path to universal health care.

 

09:31:37:00 We’ve accomplished so much already. I do not want to see the Republicans repeal it. And I don’t wanna see us start over again with a contentious debate. I want us to defend (APPLAUSE) and build on the Affordable Care Act and improve it.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:31:54:00 Okay.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

09:31:55:00 Senator Sanders?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:31:57:00 Secretary– Secretary Clinton didn’t answer your question. (LAUGHTER) Because what her campaign was saying Bernie Sanders who has fought for universal health care for my entire life– he wants to end Medicare, end Medicaid, end the children’s health insurance program.

 

09:32:15:00 That is nonsense. What a Medicare for all program does is finally provide in this country health care for every man, woman and child as a right. Now the truth is that (APPLAUSE) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, you know what they believed in? They believed that health care should be available to all of our people. I’m on the committee that wrote the Affordable Care Act. I made the Affordable Care Act along with Jim Clyburn a better pr– piece of legislation. I voted for it.

 

09:32:46:00 But right now what we have to deal with is the fact that 29 million people still have no health insurance. We are paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, getting ripped off. And here’s the important point, we are spending far more per person on health care than the people of any other country. My proposal, provide health care to all people, get private insurance out of health insurance, lower the cost of health care for middle class families by 5,000 bucks. That’s the vision we need to take.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:33:19:00 Well, Senator Sanders–

09:33:20:00 (OVERTALK)

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:33:20:00 –if I can– (CHEERING) you know, I– I– I have to say I’m not sure whether we’re talking about the plan you just introduced tonight or we’re talking about the plan you introduced nine times in the Congress. But the fact is (APPLAUSE) we have the Affordable Care Act.

 

09:33:36:00 That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic party (CHEERING) and of our country. And we have already seen 19 million Americans get insurance. We have seen the end of pre-existing conditions keeping people from getting insurance. We have seen women no longer paying more for our insurance than men. And we have seen young people up to the age of 26 being able to stay on their parents’ policy.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:34:05:00 Well, that’s–

09:34:06:00 (OVERTALK)

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:34:04:00 Now there are things we can do to improve it. But to tear it up and start over again, pushing our country back into that kind of a contentious debate I think is the wrong direction.

09:34:18:00 (OVERTALK)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:34:19:00 I have to talk about something that’s absolutely–

09:34:20:00 (OVERTALK)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:34:21:00 I have–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:34:20:00 No one’s tearing this up. We’re gonna go forward. But what the secretary neglected to mention, not just the 29 million still have no health insurance, that even more are under insured with huge copayments and deductibles. Tell me why we are spending over three times more than the British who guarantee health care to all of their people? 50% more than the French, more than the Canadians.

 

09:34:44:00 The vision from FDR and Harry Truman was health care for all people as a right in a cost-effective way. We’re not gonna tear up the Affordable Care Act. I helped write it. But we are going to move on top of that to a Medicare–

09:35:01:00 (OVERTALK)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:35:00:00 Andrea–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:35:00:00 –for all.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:35:01:00 –Andrea– Andrea–

09:35:02:00 (OVERTALK)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:35:02:00 –instead of– (CHEERING) Andrea, I think instead of attacking one another on health care we should be talking about the things that are actually working. In our state we have moved to an all-payer system. With the Affordable Care Act we now have moved all of our acute care hospitals that driver of cost at the center away from fee for service and actually to pay we pay them based on how well they keep patients out of the hospital. How well they keep their patients. That’s the future. We need to build on the Affordable Care Act, do the things that work and reduce costs and increase access.

09:35:36:00 (OVERTALK)

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:35:36:00 And that’s exactly what we are able to do based on the foundation of the Affordable Care Act. What Governor O’Malley just said is one of the models that we will be looking at to make sure we do get costs down. We do limit a lot of the unnecessary cost that we still have in the system.

 

09:35:56:00 But with all due respect, to start over again with a whole new debate is something that I think would set us back. The Republicans just voted last week to repeal the Affordable Care Act and thank goodness President Obama vetoed it and saved Obamacare (CHEERING) for the American people.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:36:17:00 You know–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

09:36:18:00 Senator Sanders let me ask you this though–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:36:20:00 –yeah.

LESTER HOLT:

09:36:20:00 –you talked about Medicare for all. And tonight you’ve released a very detailed plan–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:36:24:00 Not all that detailed–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

09:36:25:00 –just two–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:36:25:00 –just–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

09:36:27:00 –hours before the debate. You did.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:36:28:00 –well–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

09:36:29:00 But let me ask you about Vermont because Vermont– you tried in the state of Vermont. And Vermont walked away from this kind of idea of– of Medicare for all, single payer, because they concluded it require major tax increases–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:36:40:00 –well, that– you– you might want–

09:36:41:00 (OVERTALK)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

09:36:42:00 –and by some estimates it would double the budget. If you couldn’t–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:36:44:00 –Andrea, let me just say this–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

09:36:44:00 –sell it in Vermont, Senator–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:36:46:00 –let me just say that you might–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

09:36:47:00 –how can you sell it to the country?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:36:48:00 –ask the governor of the state of Vermont why he could not do it. I’m not the governor. I’m the senator from the state of Vermont. But second of all– (APPLAUSE) second of all here is what the real point is. In terms of all of the issues you’ve raised, the good questions you’ve raised, you know what it all comes down to? Do you know why we can’t do what every other country– major country on earth is doing? It’s because we have a campaign finance system that is corrupt.

 

09:37:15:00 We have super packs. We have the pharmaceutical industry pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into campaign contributions and lobbying and the private (NOISE) insurance companies as well. What this is really about is not the rational way to go forward. It’s Medicare for all. It is whether we have the guts to stand up to the private insurance companies and all of their money and the pharmaceutical industry. That’s what this debate should be about. (CHEERING)

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:37:42:00 Well, a– as someone who– as someone who has a– a little bit of experience standing up to the health insurance industry that (CHEERING) spent, you know, many, many millions of dollars attacking me and probably will so again because of what I believe we can do, building on the Affordable Care Act, I think it’s important to point out that there are a lot of reasons we have the health care system we have today.

 

09:38:09:00 I know how much money influences the political decision making. That’s why I’m for huge campaign finance reform. However, we started a system that had private health insurance. And even during the Affordable Care Act debate there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option.

 

09:38:27:00 In other words, people could buy into Medicare. And even when the Democrats were in care of the Congress we couldn’t get the votes for that. So what I’m saying is really simple, this has been the fight of the Democratic party for decades. We have the Affordable Care Act. Let’s make it work. Let’s take the models that states are doing. We now have driven costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years. Now we’ve gotta get individual costs down. That’s what I’m planning to do.

LESTER HOLT:

09:38:59:00 And that’s time. We’re gonna take a turn now. Secretary Clinton, in his final State of the Union address President Obama said his biggest– regret was his inability to bring the country together. If President Obama couldn’t do it, how will you?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:39:11:00 Great question.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:39:12:00 Well, I think it’s an important– point the president made in his State of the Union. And here’s what I would say. I will go anywhere to meet with anyone at any time to find common ground. That’s what I did as a first lady when I worked with both Democrats and Republicans to get the children’s health insurance program.

 

09:39:27:00 When I worked with (UNINTEL) one of the most– partisan of Republicans to reform the adoption and foster care system, what I did working in the Senate where I crossed the aisle often. Working even with the senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, to get tri-care for national guardsmen and women. And it’s what I did as secretary of state on numerous compassions. And most particularly rounding up 2/3 votes in order to pass a treaty that lowered the nuclear weapons in both Russia and the United States. So I know it’s hard. But I also know you’ve gotta work at it every single day.

 

09:40:07:00 I look out here I see a lot of my friends from the Congress. And I know that they work at it every single day because maybe you can only find a little sliver of common ground to cooperate with somebody from the other party. But who knows? If you’re successful there maybe you can build even more–

LESTER HOLT:

09:40:24:00 And that’s time.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:40:25:00 –that’s what I will do.

LESTER HOLT:

09:40:25:00 Senator Sanders response? (CHEERING)

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:40:32:00 A couple of years ago when we understood that veterans were not getting the quality care they needed in a timely manner I worked with folks like John McCain and others to pass the most comprehensive veterans’ health care legislation in modern history.

 

09:40:47:00 But let me rephrase your question because I think if– in all due respect, your question, in all due respect, (LAUGHTER) you’re missing the main point. And the main point in the Congress, it’s not that Republicans and Democrats hate each other. That’s a mythology from the media. The real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do. (CHEERING) The real issue is that on– the real issue is that in area after area, raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour, the American people want it. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, creating le– 13 million jobs, the American people want it. Pay equity for women, the American people want it. Demanding that the wealthy start paying their fair share of taxes, the American people–

LESTER HOLT:

09:41:39:00 That’s–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:41:40:00 –want it.

LESTER HOLT:

09:41:41:00 –that’s time. But let me–

09:41:41:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:41:42:00 We have gotta make Congress respond to the needs of the people, not to–

09:41:47:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:41:45:00 Senator Sanders, let me continue. You call yourself a (CHEERING) Democratic socialist.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:41:51:00 I do.

LESTER HOLT:

09:41:51:00 And throughout your career in politics you’ve been (LAUGHTER) critical of the Democratic party. Even saying in a book you wrote, quote “There wasn’t a hell of a big difference between the two major parties.” How will you when a general–

09:42:00:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:42:01:00 –how will you win a general election labeling yourself a Democratic socialist?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:42:05:00 –because when I believe– what I was just saying. The Democratic party needs major reform. To those of you in South Carolina, you know what, in Mississippi, we need a 50 state strategy so that people (APPLAUSE) in South Carolina and Mississippi can get the resources that they need instead of being dependent on super packs. What we need is to be dependent on small, individual campaign contributors. We need an agenda that speaks to the needs of working families and low-income people, not wealthy campaign contributors.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:42:42:00 Yeah, but senator, you can–

09:42:43:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:42:44:00 –we need to expand– we need to expand what the input into the Democratic party. I am very proud that in this campaign we have seen an enormous amount of excitement from young people, from working people. We have received more individual contributions than any candidate in the history of this country up to this point. (CHEERING)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:43:02:00 Yeah, but senator, you never came–

09:43:05:00 (OVERTALK)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:43:06:00 –to campaign for Vincent Sheheen when he was running for governor. In fact, neither of you came to campaign for Vincent Sheheen when he was running for governor. We can talk all we want about wanting (CLAPPING) to build a stronger Democratic party.

 

09:43:14:00 But, Lester, the question you answered, there’s no laughing matter. The most recurring question I get when I stand on the chair all across (UNINTEL) and talk with my neighbors is, “How are you going to heal the divisions and the wounds in our country?”

 

09:43:29:00 This is the biggest challenge we face as a people. All my life I brought people together over– over deep divides and– and very old wounds. And that’s what we need now in a new leader. We cannot keep s– talking past each other, declaring all Republicans our enemies or the war is all about being against millionaires or billionaires or it’s all against American Muslims or all against immigrants. Look, it’s Frederick Douglas said, “We are one. Our cause is one. And we must help each other if we’re going to succeed–”

LESTER HOLT:

09:43:53:00 And that is– that is–

09:43:55:00 (OVERTALK)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:43:56:00 –and that– (CHEERING)

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:43:56:00 And I respectfully disagree–

LESTER HOLT:

09:43:57:00 –Secretary Clinton, my next question is for you.

09:44:00:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:43:59:00 I respectfully disagree with– with my c– my friend over here. And that is you are right. All of us have denounced Trump, attempt to divide this country, the anti-Latino rhetoric, the racist rhetoric, the anti-Muslim rhetoric. But where I disagree with you, Governor O’Malley is I do believe we have to deal with the fundamental issues of a handful of billionaires–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:44:23:00 I agree with that.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:44:25:00 –who control the economic and political life of this country.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:44:27:00 I agree.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:44:28:00 Nothing real will– get– happen unless we have a political revolution–

LESTER HOLT:

09:44:31:00 And– and–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:44:32:00 –where millions of people–

LESTER HOLT:

09:44:33:00 –and we’re gonna–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:44:33:00 –finally stand up.

LESTER HOLT:

09:44:36:00 –we’re gonna get into that coming up. But Secretary Clinton, (APPLAUSE) here’s another question from YouTube. It’s from a young video blogger who has over five million subscribers. He has a question about the importance of younger voters.

CONNOR FRANTA:

09:44:45:00 Hi, I’m Connor Franta. I’m 23 and my audience is around the same age. Getting my generation’s vote should be a priority for any presidential candidate. Now I know Senator Sanders is pretty popular among my peers. But what I wanna know is how are all of you planning on engaging us further in this election?

LESTER HOLT:

09:45:03:00 Secretary Clinton.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:45:03:00 Well, thanks for the question. And– congratulations on five million viewers on YouTube. That’s quite an accomplishment. Look, this election is mostly about the future. And therefore it is of greatest urgency for young people.

 

09:45:21:00 I’ve laid out my ideas about what we can do to make college affordable, how we can help people pay off their student debts and save thousands of dollars, how we can create more good jobs. Because a lot of the young people that I talk with are pretty disappointed about the economic prospects they feel they’re facing. So making community college free, making it possible to attend a public college or university with debt-free tuition.

 

09:45:49:00 Looking for ways to protect our rights, especially from the concerted Republican assault on voting rights, on women’s rights, on gay rights, on civil rights, on workers’ rights. And I know how much young people value their independence, their autonomy and their rights. So I think this is an election where we have to pull young people and older people together to have a strategy about how we’re going to encourage even more Americans to vote. Because it is absolutely clear–

LESTER HOLT:

09:46:22:00 That– that–

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:46:24:00 –to me that turning–

LESTER HOLT:

09:46:24:00 –that’s time but–

09:46:26:00 (OVERTALK)

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:46:25:00 –over our White House to the Republicans–

LESTER HOLT:

09:46:27:00 Secretary–

09:46:26:00 (OVERTALK)

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:46:27:00 –would be bad for everybody, especially young people.

LESTER HOLT:

09:46:31:00 –a quick follow-up, a 30-second follow-up, (APPLAUSE) why is Senator Sanders beating you two to one among younger voters?

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:46:36:00 I– I– look, I have the greatest respect for Senator Sanders and– for his supporters. And I’m gonna keep working as hard as I can– to reach as many people of all ages– about what I will do, what the experience and the ideas that I have that I will bring to the White House. And I hope to have their support when I’m the Democratic nominee.

LESTER HOLT:

09:46:56:00 All right, we’re gonna–

09:46:55:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:46:56:00 –we’re gonna take a break. When we come back, (CHEERING) big bank, big business and big differences among the three candidates on the American economy. We’ll be right back.

09:47:08:00 (MUSIC)

LESTER HOLT:

09:51:18:00 Welcome back from Charleston. Let’s turn now to the economy. Senator Sanders, you released a tough new ad last week in which without mentioning Secretary Clinton by name, you talk about two Democratic vision for regulating Wall Street. Quote, “One says it’s okay to take millions from big banks and tell them what to do. My plan, break up the big banks, close the tax loopholes, and make them pay their fair share.” What do you see as the difference between what you would do about the banks and what Secretary Clinton would do?

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:51:47:00 Well, the first difference is, I don’t take money from big banks. I don’t get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. What I would do– (APPLAUSE) what I would do is understand that when you have three out of the four largest banks today bigger than they were when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, when you have the six largest financial institutions having assets of 60% of the G.D.P. of America, it is very clear to me what you have to do.

 

09:52:22:00 You gotta bring back the 21st century Glass-Steagall legislation and you gotta break up these huge financial institutions. They have too much economic power and they have too much financial power over our entire economy. If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, the old Republican trust buster, what he would say is, “These guys are too powerful. Break them up.” I believe that’s what the American people want to see. That’s my view. (APPLAUSE)

LESTER HOLT:

09:52:52:00 Secretary Clinton, help the voter understand the daylight between the two of you here.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:52:57:00 Well, there’s no daylight on the basic– premise that there should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too powerful to jail. We agree on that. But where we disagree is the comments that Senator Sanders has made that don’t just affect me. I can take that. But he’s criticized President Obama for taking donations from Wall Street.

 

09:53:24:00 And President Obama has led our country out of the great recession. Senator Sanders called him weak, disappointing. He even, in 2011, publicly sought someone to run in a primary against President Obama. Now, I personally believe that President Obama’s work to push through the Dodd-Frank– (AUDIENCE REACTION) the Dodd-Frank bill and then to sign it was one of the most important regulatory schemes we’ve had since the 1930s. So I’m gonna defend (APPLAUSE) Dodd-Frank and I’m gonna defend President Obama for taking on Wall Street, (CHEERING) taking on the financial industry, and getting results.

LESTER HOLT:

09:54:09:00 Senator Sanders, your response–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:54:09:00 Okay, first of all, set the record right. In 2006 when I ran for the Senate, Senator Barack Obama was kids enough to campaign for me. 2008, I did my best to see that he was elected. And in 2012, I worked as hard as I could to see that he was reelected. You know, I– our friends, we work together on many issues, we have some differences of opinion.

 

09:54:32:00 But here is the issue. Secretary touched on it. Can you really reform Wall Street when they are spending millions and millions of dollars on campaign contributions and when they are providing speaker fees to individuals? So it’s easy to say, “Well, I’m gonna do this and do that.” But I have doubts when people receive huge amounts of money from Wall Street. I am very proud. I do not have a super PAC. I do not want Wall Street’s money. I’ll rely on the middle class and working families for my campaign contributions–

09:55:09:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:55:10:00 –that’s time. Governor O’Malley, I– I have a question for you– (APPLAUSE)

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:55:11:00 Well, you know, I think that– I think then, if Senator Sanders followed up on this–

LESTER HOLT:

09:55:15:00 First, 30-second response.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:55:17:00 Your– your profusion of comments about your feelings towards President Obama– are a little strange, given what you said about him in 2011. But look, I have a plan that most commentators have said is tougher more effective, and more comprehensive.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:55:35:00 That’s not true.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:55:36:00 It builds on the Dodd-Frank– (AUDIENCE REACTION) yes it is. It builds on the Dodd-Frank regulatory–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:55:41:00 It’s just not true.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:55:42:00 –schemes. But it goes much further.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:55:44:00 Oh come on.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:55:45:00 Because both the governor and the senator have focused only on the big banks. Lehman Brothers, AIG, the shadow banking sector, were as big a problem in what caused the Great Recession. I go after them, and I can tell you that the hedge fund billionaires who are running ads against me right now, and Karl Rove, who started running an ad against me right now, funded by money from the financial services sector, sure think I’m the one they don’t want to be up against–

LESTER HOLT:

09:56:14:00 Governor– Governor O’Malley.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:56:15:00 Yeah, thank you. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) Yeah, Le– Lester, what Secretary Clinton just said is actually not true. What– (APPLAUSE) I have put forward a plan that would actually put cops back on the beat of Wall Street. I have put forward a plan that was heralded as very comprehensive and realistic.

 

09:56:36:00 Look, if– if a bank robber robs a bank, and all you do is slap ’em on the wrist, he’s just gonna keep robbing banks again. The same thing is true with people in suits. Secretary Clinton, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. But for you to say there’s no daylight on this between the three of us, is also not true. I support reinstituting a modern version of Glass-Steagall that would include going after the shadow banks, requiring capital requirements that would force them to– no longer put us on the hook for these sorts of things.

 

09:57:05:00 In prior debates, I’ve heard you even bring up– I mean, fir– now you p– bring up President Obama here in South Carolina, in defense of the fact of your cozy relationship with Wall Street. In an earlier debate, I heard you bring up even the 911, 9/11 victims to defend it. The truth of the matter is, Secretary Clinton, you did not go as far in reining in Wall Street as I would. And the fact of the matter is, the people of America deserve to have a president that’s on their side, protecting the main street economy from excesses on Wall Street and–

09:57:33:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

09:57:34:00 Secretary Clinton, your 30-second response.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:57:35:00 Yes, well– (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) first of all– first of all, Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, others, have all endorsed my plan. Secondly, we have Dodd-Frank. It gives us the authority already to break up big banks that pose–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:57:52:00 And we’ve never used it.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:57:53:00 –that pose a risk to the financial sector. I wanna go further and add to that. And, you know, Governor, you have raised money on Wall Street. You raised a lotta money on Wall Street when you were the head of the Democrat Governor’s Association. And you were–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:58:09:00 Yeah, but I haven’t gotten a penny this year. Would somebody please go up–

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:58:11:00 Well–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:58:12:00 –to MartinOMalley.com– (CHEERING) go into MartinOMalley.com, send me your checks. They’re not getting– zero.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:58:19:00 Well, the– yeah, well–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:58:20:00 So what do you–

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:58:20:00 So– but the point is that if– if we’re going to be–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:58:22:00 The point being–

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:58:22:00 –serious about this, and not just try to score political points–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:58:26:00 Right.

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:58:27:00 –we should know what’s in Dodd-Frank.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:58:28:00 Right, let’s ta–

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:58:29:00 And what’s in Dodd-Frank already gives the president–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:58:30:00 Oh, let’s not score political points–

09:58:30:00 (OVERTALK)

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:58:32:00 –the authority to give regulators–

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:58:32:00 Let me give you an example of how–

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:58:34:00 –to make those decisions.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:58:35:00 –corrupt– (CHEERING) how corrupt the system is. (APPLAUSE) Goldman Sachs recently fined $5 billion. Goldman Sachs has given this country two secretaries of Treasury, one on the Republicans, one on the Democrats.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:58:53:00 Yeah.

BERNIE SANDERS:

09:58:54:00 The leader of Goldman Sachs is a billionaire who comes to congress and tells us we should cut social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Secretary Clinton, and you’re not the only one, so I don’t mean to just point the finger at you. You’ve received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year. I find it very strange that a major financial institution that pays $5 billion in fines for breaking the law, not one of their executives is prosecuted while kids who smoke marijuana (CHEERING) get a jail sentence.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

09:59:32:00 Andrea–

HILLARY CLINTON:

09:59:33:00 Well, it’s– l– the last point on this is Senator Sanders, you’re the only one on this stage that voted to deregulate the financial market in 2000, to take the cops off the street, to use Governor O’Malley’s phrase, to make the S.E.C. and the communities– the Commodities– Futures Trading Commission, no longer able to regulate swaps and derivatives, which were one of the main cause of the collapse in ’08. So there’s plenty–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:00:05:00 If you want to– (APPLAUSE)

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:00:06:00 –there’s plenty of problems that we all have to face together. And I– the final thing I would say, we’re at least having a feverish debate about reining in Wall Street–

LESTER HOLT:

10:00:15:00 Senator Sanders–

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:00:15:00 –the Republicans wanna give them–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:00:16:00 Okay.

10:00:17:00 (OVERTALK)

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:00:17:00 –more power and repeal–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:00:18:00 Any–

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:00:19:00 –Dodd-Frank. That’s what we need to stop–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:00:21:00 Anyone who wants to check (APPLAUSE) my record– (CHEERING) anyone who wants to check my record in taking on Wall Street, in fighting against the deregulation of Wall Street, when Wall Street put billions of dollars in lobbying, in campaign contributions, to get the government off their backs, they got the government off their backs. Turns out that they were crooks, and they destroyed our economy. I think it’s time to put the government back on their backs.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:00:56:00 Senator Sanders– (APPLAUSE) Senator Sanders, we’ve talked a lot about things you want to do. You want free education for everyone, you want the federal minimum wage–

10:01:05:00 (OVERTALK)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:01:06:00 –raised to $15 an hour, (LAUGHTER) you want to expand social security benefits–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:01:09:00 Yeah, right.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:01:11:00 You’re very specific about what you want. But let’s talk about how to pay for all this–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:01:14:00 Good.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:01:15:00 You have now said that you would raise taxes today, two hours or so ago, you said you would raise taxes to pay for your healthcare plan. You haven’t been specific about how to pay for the other things.

10:01:25:00 (OVERTALK)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:01:25:00 Would you tell us tonight?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:01:26:00 Good. You’re right. I want to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, create 13 million jobs. We do that by doing away with the absurd loopholes that now allows major profitable corporations to stash their money in the Cayman Islands and not in some years pay a nickel in taxes. Yes, I do. I plead guilty. I want every kid in this c– country, who has the ability, to be able to go to a public college or university tuition-free.

 

10:01:55:00 And by the way, I want to substantially lower student debt interest rates in this country as well. How do I pay for it? (APPLAUSE) I pay for it through a (UNINTEL) tax on Wall Street speculation. This country and the middle class bailed out Wall Street. Now it is Wall Street’s time to help the middle class. In fact–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:02:15:00 Andrea–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:02:15:00 –we have documented, (APPLAUSE) unlike Secretary Clinton, I have documented exactly how I would pay for our ambitious agenda.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:02:24:00 Andrea, I’m the only person on this stage–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:02:24:00 Secretary– secretary Clinton, he mentioned–

10:02:26:00 (OVERTALK)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:02:26:00 –so Secretary Clinton, you want to respond?

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:02:28:00 Well, I have– actually documented– every way that I’m going to pay for what I’m doing– because I think the American public deserves to know. And you can go to my website and actually see that. But there are serious questions about how we’re going to pay for what we want to see our country do.

 

10:02:48:00 And I’m the only candidate standing here tonight who has said I will not raise taxes on the middle class. I want to raise incomes, not taxes. And I’m gonna do everything I can to make sure that the wealthy pay for debt-free tuition, for childcare, for paid family leave, to help us bring down student debt, we’re going to refinance that student debt, saving kids thousands of dollars. Yeah, and that will also come out of some of the pockets of–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:03:19:00 Okay–

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:03:19:00 –people in the financial services industry–

10:03:20:00 (OVERTALK)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:03:21:00 –but Senator Sanders, let me–

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:03:22:00 But I will tell you exactly how I pay for everything I propose–

10:03:24:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:03:27:00 Here is the major point–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:03:27:00 Senator Sanders, let me ask you a question about taxes–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:03:29:00 Yeah.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:03:29:00 –because the most (UNINTEL) political (LAUGHTER) issue in–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:03:32:00 I got you.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:03:33:00 –in the last month was taxes. Now, in your healthcare plan, the plan you released tonight, you would not only raise taxes on the wealthy, the details you released indicate you would raise taxes on the middle class also. Is that correct?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:03:45:00 What is correct, and I am disappointed that Secretary Clinton’s campaign has made this criticism. It’s a Republican criticism. Secretary Clinton does know a lot about healthcare. And she understands, I believe, that a Medicaid-for-all-single-payer program, will substantially lower the cost of healthcare for middle class families.

 

10:04:08:00 So what we have got to acknowledge, and I hope the secretary does, is we are doing away with private health insurance premiums. So instead of paying $10,000 to Blue Cross or Blue Shield, yes, some middle class families would be paying slightly more in taxes. But the result would be that that middle class family would be saving some $5,000 in healthcare costs. A little bit more in taxes, do away with private health insurance premiums. It’s a pretty good deal. (APPLAUSE)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:04:39:00 Senator–

10:04:39:00 (OVERTALK)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:04:40:00 –Senator, let me just follow up on that, because–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:04:41:00 Yeah.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:04:42:00 –on Meet the Press, on December 20th, you said that you would only raise taxes on the middle class to pay for family leave. And having said that, now you say you’re gonna raise middle class taxes to pay for healthcare as well. Is that breaking your word?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:04:55:00 No. It is not breaking my word. When you are– it’s one thing to say, “I’m raising taxes.” It’s another thing to say that we are doing away with private health insurance premiums. So if I save you $10,000 in private health insurance, and you pay a little bit more in taxes in total, there are huge savings in what your family is spending.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:05:17:00 Senator, I’m the only person on this stage that’s actually balanced a budget every year for 15 years.

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:05:22:00 I was mayor for eight years, I did that as well–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:05:24:00 Okay, so that was eight years. (LAUGHTER) Yeah. And Senator, but I actually did it during a budget downtime, during a recession. And– and Andrea– I had to make more cuts than any governor in the state of Maryland. But we invested more in infrastructure, more in transportation. We made our public schools number one in America five years in a w– row. And went four years in a row without a penny’s increase to college tuition.

 

10:05:46:00 The things that we need to do in our country, like debt-free college in the next five years, like making univer– like making national service a universal operation in order to cut youth employment in half in the next three years, all of these things can be done if we eliminate one entitlement we can no longer afford as a nation.

 

10:06:04:00 And that is the entitlement that the super wealthy among us, those making more than a million dollars, feel that they are entitled to paying a much, much lower marginal tax rate than what’s usual for the better part of these 80 years. And if we tax– earnings from investments on money, namely capital gains at the same rate that we tax earnings from sweat and hard work and toil, we can make the investments we need to make to make our country better. (CHEERING)

LESTER HOLT:

10:06:28:00 We’ve got a lot of ground to cover here. Many Democratic voters are passionate about the need to do something to combat the threat of climate change, including the theme of scientists from YouTube’s Minute Earth channel, here’s their take.

LESTER HOLT:

10:06:42:00 Hello from Minute Earth. Fossil fuels have long kept our cars moving and our light bulbs lit. But we now know that burning these fuels are really just heat-trapping gasses that are warming the planet, causing seas to rise and contributing to extreme weather events, like South Carolina’s devastating flooding last year.

10:06:57:00 Fighting human-caused climate change means giving up our global addiction to fossil fuels and (UNINTEL) the bulk of the world’s energy supply to alternative sources. Some countries have acted decisively to make this transition. But here at home, we still get a whopping 82% of our energy from coal, oil, and natural gas. In the U.S., political gridlock, pressure from industry lobbyists, and insufficient R&D have made an already tough battle against climate change even tougher.

LESTER HOLT:

10:07:21:00 Senator Sanders, Americans love their SUVs, which spiked in sales last year as gas prices plummeted. How do you convince Americans that the problem of climate change is so urgent that they need to change their behavior?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:07:33:00 I think we already are. Younger generation understands it instinctively. I was home in Burlington, Vermont on Christmas Eve. The temperature was 65°. People in Vermont know what’s goin’ on. People who did ice fishing, where their ice is no longer there on the lake understand what’s going on. I’m on both the Environmental and Energy Committees.

10:07:53:00 The debate is over. Climate change is real. It is already causing major problems. And if we do not act boldly and decisively, a bad situation will become worse. It is amazing to me, and I think we’ll have agreement on this up here, that we have a major party called the Republican Party that is so owned by the fossil fuel industry, and their campaign contributions, that they don’t even have the courage, the decency to listen to the scientists.

10:08:25:00 It is beyond my comprehension (APPLAUSE) how we can elect the president of the United States, somebody like Trump, who believes that climate change is a hoax, invented by the Chinese. (LAUGHTER) Bottom line is, we need to be bold and decisive, we can create millions of jobs. We must, for the sake of our kids and grandchildren, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy–

10:08:53:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:08:54:00 I’ve got the most comprehensive legislation in the Senate to do that. And as president, I will fight to make that happen–

LESTER HOLT:

10:09:00:00 Governor O’Malley, 30 seconds–

10:09:01:00 (OVERTALK)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:09:02:00 Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Lester, on this stage tonight, this Democratic stage, where we actually believe in science, (LAUGHTER) I would like to challenge and invite my colleagues here on this stage to join me in putting forward a plan to move us to a 100% clean, electric energy grid by 2050. It can be done with solar, with wind, (APPLAUSE) with new technologies, with green buildings.

10:09:27:00 This can happen. But in all– President Obama made us more energy independent. But– but in all of the above strategy didn’t land us on the moon. We need American ingenuity and we need to reach this goal by 2050 for the sake of our kids–

LESTER HOLT:

10:09:40:00 That’s time. We’re gonna take a break–

10:09:42:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

10:09:42:00 When we return, (APPLAUSE) the late-breaking development regarding Iran. (MUSIC) The threat of ISIS now more real than ever on U.S. soil. Americans in fear, and hearing few good answers. We’ll be right back. (LONG PAUSE) (MUSIC) Charleston, Andrea Mitchell has questions now for the candidates, starting with Iran.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:16:12:00 Thank you, Lester. Senator Sanders, the nuclear deal is now in force. Iran is getting us billions of dollars. Several Americans who have been held are now gonna be heading home. The president said today is a good day. It’s a good day for diplomacy. Is it time now to restore diplomatic relations for the first time since 1979, and actually reopen a U.S. embassy in Tehran?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:16:36:00 I think what we have got to do is move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations– with Iran, understanding that Iran’s behavior in so many ways is something that we disagree with. Their support for terrorism– the anti-American rhetoric that we’re hearing from some of their leadership is something that is not acceptable.

10:17:00:00 On the other hand, the fact that we managed to reach an agreement, something that I very strongly supported, that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and that we did that without going to war, and that I believe we’re seeing a thaw in our relationships with Iran is a very positive step. So if your question is, do I want to see that relationship become more positive in the future? Yes.

10:17:27:00 Can I tell you that we should open an embassy in Tehran tomorrow? No, I don’t think we should. But I think the goal has got to be, as we have done with Cuba, to move in warm relations with a very powerful and important country in this world.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:17:41:00 Your response, Secretary Clinton? (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:17:44:00 Well, I’m very proud– of the– Iran nuclear agreement. I was– very pleased to be part of– what the president put into action when he took office. I was responsibility for getting those sanctions imposed, which put the pressure on Iran that brought them to the negotiating table, which resulted in this agreement.

10:18:06:00 And so they have been, so far, following their requirements under the agreement. But I think we still have to carefully watch them. We’ve had one good day over 36 years, and I think we need more good days before we move more rapidly– toward any know normalization. And we have to be sure that they are truly going to implement the agreements. And then we have to go after them on a lot of their other bad behavior in the region, which is causing enormous problems in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and elsewhere.

10:18:39:00 (OVERTALK)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:18:39:00 You– you mentioned Syria, let me ask you about Syria, all of you. Let’s turn to Syria, the civil war that has been raging there. Are there any circumstances in which you could see deploying significant numbers of ground forces in Syria? Not just special forces, special operators, but significant ground forces to combat ISIS in a direct combat role? Let me start with you, Secretary Clinton (UNINTEL).

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:19:00:00 Absolutely not. I have a three-point plan that does not include American ground forces. It includes the United States leading an air coalition, which is what we are doing. Supporting fighters on the ground, the Iraqi Army, which is beginning to show more ability, the Sunni fighters– that we are now helping to reconstitute, and Kurdish fighters on both sides of the border.

10:19:25:00 I think we also have to try to disrupt their supply chain of foreign fighters and foreign money. And we do have to contest them in online space. So I’m very committed to both going after ISIS, but also supporting what Secretary Kerry is doing to try to move on a political, diplomatic course to try to begin to slow down and hopefully end the carnage in Syria, which is the root of so many of the problems that we see in the region and beyond.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:19:57:00 Senator Sanders– (APPLAUSE)

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:19:58:00 This is–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:19:58:00 –ground forces? Yes or no?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:20:00:00 As everybody here knows, this is an incredibly complicated and difficult issue. And I applaud, I know President Obama’s been gettin’ a lotta criticism on this. I think he is doing the right thing. What the nightmare is, which many of my Republican colleagues appear to want, is to not have learned the lesson of Iraq. To get American young men and women involved in perpetual warfare, in the quagmire of Syria and the Middle East would be an unmitigated disaster that as president, I will do everything in my power to avoid.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:20:38:00 Andrea–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:20:39:00 We should– (APPLAUSE)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:20:39:00 Governor O’Malley?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:20:40:00 We should learn– we should learn from King Abdullah of Jordan, one of the few heroes in a very unheroic place. And what Abdullah said, is this is a war for the soul of Islam. And that Muslim troops should be on the ground with our support and the support of other major countries. That is how we destroy ISIS, not with American troops in perpetual warfare.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:21:09:00 Governor O’Malley?

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:21:09:00 Thank you. (APPLAUSE) Andrea, governors have led us to victory in two world wars by doing what America does best. And that is by joining forces with others, by acting in coalitions. And I believe that President Obama’s doing the right thing in this case. We need to learn the lessons from the past.

10:21:28:00 We do need to provide the special– special ops advisors. We n– do need to provide the technical support that over the long term, we need to develop new alliances. We need a much more proactive national security strategy that reduces these threats before they rise to the level where it feels like we need to pull for a division of marines.

10:21:45:00 And I also want to add– one other thing here. I appreciate the fact that in our debate, we don’t use the term you hear Republicans throwin’ around, tryin’ to look all bravado and macho, sending other kids tr– kids into– combat. They keep using the term “boots on the ground.” A woman in Burlington, Iowa said to me, “Governor, when you’re with your colleagues, please don’t refer to my son, who has served two du– du– tours of duty in Iraq as a pair of ‘boots on the ground.’” We need to be mindful (APPLAUSE) of the– (UNINTEL PHRASE).

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:22:15:00 I have a question– I have a question for Senator Sanders. Did the policies of the Obama administration, in which Secretary Clinton of course was a part, create a vacuum in Iraq and Syria that helped ISIS grow?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:22:29:00 No. I think the vacuum was created– by the disastrous war in Iraq. Which I vigorously opposed. Not only did I vote against it, I helped lead the opposition. And what happened there is yeah, it’s easy to get rid of a two-bit dictator like Saddam Hussein, but there wasn’t the kind of thought as to what happens the day after you get him, and what kind of political vacuum occurs, and who rises up?

10:22:59:00 Ca– groups like ISIS. So I think that President Obama made a promise to the American people when he ran. And he said, “You know what, I’m gonna do my best to bring American troops home.” And I supported what he did. Our job is to train and provide military support for Muslim countries in the area who are prepared to take on ISIS.

10:23:23:00 And one point that I wanna make here that is not made very often. You have incredibly wealthy countries in that region. Countries like Saudi Arabia, countries like Qatar. Qatar happens to be the largest– wealthiest country per capita in the world. They have got to start putting in some skin in the game and not just ask the United States (APPLAUSE) to do it.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:23:46:00 Senator– Secretary Clinton, I wanna talk to you about red lines. Because former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a recent interview that President Obama’s decisions to stand down on planned missile strikes against Damascus, after Assad had used chemical weapons, hurt the president’s credibility. Should the president have stuck to his red line once he drew it?

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:24:09:00 Look, I– I think that the president’s decision– to go after the chemical weapons, once there was a potential opportunity to build on when the Russians– opened that door, resulted in a very positive outcome. We were able to get the chemical weapons out. I know from my own experience– as secretary of State– that we were deeply worried about Assad’s forces using chemical weapons, because it would have had not only an horrific effect on people in Syria, but it could very well have affected the surrounding states– Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey. So getting those chemical weapons out was a big–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:24:54:00 But should he–

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:24:54:00 –big deal. But–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:24:54:00 Should he have stuck to his guns–

10:24:56:00 (OVERTALK)

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:24:57:00 Well, but– but look–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:24:57:00 –or did it hurt U.S. credibility?

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:24:58:00 I– I think as commander in chief, you’ve got to constantly be evaluating the decisions you have to make. I know a little bit about this, having spent many hours in the situation room, advising President Obama. And I wanna just add to something that Senator Sanders said. The United States had a very big interest in trying to help stabilize the region.

10:25:23:00 If there is any blame to be spread around, it starts with the prime minister of Iraq, who sectarianized his military, se– setting Shia against Sunni. It is amplified by Assad, who has waged one of the bloodiest, most terrible attacks on his own people, 250,000 plus dead, millions fleeing, causing this vacuum that has been filled, unfortunately, by terrorist groups– including ISIS.

10:25:54:00 So I think we are in the midst of great turmoil in this region. We have a proxy conflict going on between Saudi Arabia and Iran. You know, one of the– criticisms I’ve had of– Senator Sanders is his suggestion that, you know, Iranian troops be used to try to end the war in Syria and go after ISIS–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:26:14:00 Your– your ti– your time is up, Secretary–

10:26:15:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:26:16:00 –let me just–

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:26:16:00 Which I don’t think would be a good idea–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:26:17:00 Okay, but let me–

10:26:18:00 (OVERTALK)

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:26:18:00 –but overall, a lot of the forces at work in the region–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:26:21:00 All right.

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:26:22:00 –are ones that we cannot–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:26:23:00 Okay.

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:26:24:00 –directly influence, but we can–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:26:27:00 All right, let me suggest–

10:26:27:00 (OVERTALK)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:26:31:00 Senator Sanders? (APPLAUSE)

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:26:33:00 Where– where Secretary Clinton and I think– I– I agree with most of– of– of what she said. But where I think we do have an honest– disagreement is that in the incredible quagmire of Syria, where it’s hard to know who’s fighting who, and if you give arms to this guy, it may end up in ISIS’s hands the next day. We all know that.

10:26:53:00 And we all know, no argument, the secretary is absolutely right. Assad is a butcher of his own people, a man using chemical weapons against his own people. This is beyond disgusting. But I think in terms of pr– our priorities in the region, our first priority– priority must be the destruction of ISIS.

10:27:14:00 Our second priority must be getting rid of Assad through some political settlement, working with Iran, working with Russia. But the immediate task is to bring all interests together, who want to destroy ISIS, including Russia, including Iran, including our Muslim allies, to make that the major priority.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:27:36:00 But in all of that, Senator and Secretary, I think we’re leaving out something very important here. And that is that we still don’t have the human intelligence, overt, in terms of diplomatic intelligence, or covert, to understand even what the heck happens as the secondary and tertiary effects of some of these things. (COUGH)

10:27:55:00 We are walking through this– this region, Andrea, without the human intelligence that we need. And we need to make a renewed investment as a country into bringing up a new generation of foreign service officers and bringing up a new generation of business people, and then actually understanding and having relationships in these places so we have a better sense of what the heck happens after a dictator topples and can take action to prevent another safe haven and another iteration of terror.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:28:23:00 Your time is up.

LESTER HOLT:

10:28:24:00 Yes–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:28:25:00 Lester?

LESTER HOLT:

10:28:25:00 –as (APPLAUSE) Senator Sanders mentioned– Russia a moment ago. Secretary Clinton, you famously handed Russia’s foreign minister a reset button in 2009. Since then, Russia has annexed Crimea– fomented a war in Ukraine, provided weapons that downed an airliner, and launched operations, as we just d– discussed, to support Assad in Syria. As president, would you hand Vladimir Putin a reset button?

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:28:48:00 Well, I’d depend for what I got for it. And I can tell you what we got– in the first term. We got a new start treaty to reduce nuclear weapons– between the United States and Russia. We got permission to resupply our troops in Afghanistan by traveling across– Russia. We got Russia to sign on– to our sanctions against Iran, and other– very important– commitments.

10:29:15:00 So look, in diplomacy, you are always trying to see how you can figure out the interests of the other, to see if there isn’t some way you can advance your security and your values. When Putin came back in the fall of 2011– it was very clear he came back with a mission. And I began speaking out as soon as that happened, because there were some fraudulent elections held, and Russians poured out into the streets to demand their freedom. And he cracked down, and in fact, accused me of fomenting it. So we now know that he has a mixed– record, to say the least, and we have to figure out how to deal with him. We–

LESTER HOLT:

10:29:59:00 What’s your relationship with him?

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:30:01:00 Well, my relationship with him– (LAUGH) it’s– it’s– it’s interesting. It’s– (LAUGHTER) it’s one I think of– respect. We’ve had some very tough dealings with one another. And– I know that he’s someone that you have to continually stand up to. Because like many bullies, he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can, unless you do.

10:30:32:00 And we need to get the Europeans to be more willing to stand up. I was pleased they put sanctions on after Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and the downing of the airliner. But we’ve got to be more united in preventing Putin from taking a more aggressive stance in Europe and the Middle East.

LESTER HOLT:

10:30:49:00 We wanna turn right now (APPLAUSE) to the issue of balancing national security concerns with the privacy rights of Americans. That bring us to YouTube and this question.

MARQUES BROWNLEE:

10:31:00:00 Hi, my name is Marques Brownlee, and I’ve been making YouTube videos about electronics and gadgets for the past seven years. I think America’s future success is tied to getting all kinds of tech right. Tech companies are responsible for the encryption technology to protect personal data. But the government wants a back door into that information. So do you think it’s possible to find common ground? And where do you stand on privacy versus security?

LESTER HOLT:

10:31:20:00 So Governor O’Malley?

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:31:21:00 Thank you. I believe whether it’s a back door or front door, that the– that the American principle of law should still hold. That our federal government should have to get a warrant whether they wanna come through your back door or your front door. (APPLAUSE) And I also agree, Lester, with– with Benjamin Franklin, who said, “No people should ever give up their privacy or their freedoms in a promise for security.”

10:31:42:00 So– well, we’re a collaborative people. We need collaborative leadership here, with Silicon Valley, and other bright people in my own state of– of Maryland, around M.S.A. that can actually figure this out. But there are certain immutable principles that– will not become– antique things in our country so long as we defend our country and its values and its freedoms.

10:32:02:00 And one of the things is our– our right to be secure in our homes and our right to expect that our federal government should have to get a warrant. I also wanna say that while we’ve made some progress on the– patriot act, I do believe that we need an adversarial port system there. We need a public advocate, we need to develop jurisprudence so that we can develop a body of law that protects the privacy of Americans in the information and digital age.

LESTER HOLT:

10:32:26:00 That’s time. You have all talked about– what you would do fighting ISIS over there. But we’ve been hit in this country by home-grown terrorists, from Chattanooga, to San Bernardino– the recent shooting of a police officer in Philadelphia. How are you gonna fight lone wolves here, Senator Sanders–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:32:42:00 Okay, Lester, year in and year out, I was the leader of the U.S.–

10:32:44:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

10:32:45:00 –Senator Sanders, I wasn’t clear. I apologize.

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:32:47:00 Okay. I just wanted to add– in the previous question– I voted against the USA Patriot Act for many of the reasons that Governor O’Malley mentioned. But it is not only the government that we have to worry about, it is private corporations. You would all be amazed, or maybe not, about the amount of information private companies and the government have in terms of the websites that you access, the products that you buy, where you are this very moment. And it is very clear to me that public policy has not caught up with the explosion of technology. So yes, we have to work with Silicon Valley to make sure that we do not allow ISIS to translate information–

LESTER HOLT:

10:33:32:00 But in terms of lone wolves– the threat, how do you deal with it–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:33:36:00 Right, what we have got to do there is, among other things, as I was just saying, have Silicon Valley help us to make sure that information being transmitted through the internet, or in other ways– by ISIS, is in fact, discovered. But I do believe we can do that without violating the constitutional and privacy rights of the American people.

LESTER HOLT:

10:34:00:00 We have to go to–

10:34:00:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

10:34:01:00 We have to go to a break, but when we come back, let me get to some of the burning questions these candidates have yet to answer–

10:34:06:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

10:34:07:00 –to talk about.

10:38:08:00 (MUSIC)

LESTER HOLT:

10:38:15:00 And welcome back to Charleston. As we were going to a break S– Secretary Clinton I– I cut you off. I– I’ll give you 30 seconds to respond on the issue of– lone wolves.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:38:22:00 Can I get 30 seconds too? (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING)

LESTER HOLT:

10:38:33:00 Secretary Clinton.

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:38:36:00 Well, I– I wanted to– say– and I’ll do it quickly, I was very pleased that– leaders of President Obama’s– administration went out to Silicon Valley last week and began exactly this conversation about what we can do consistent with privacy and security.

10:38:52:00 We need better intelligence cooperation. We need to be sure that we’re getting the best intelligence that we can from friends and allies around the world. And then we’ve gotta recognize our first line of defense against lone wolf attacks is among Muslim Americans. And it is not only shameful, it is dangerous for the kinds of comments you’re hearing from the Republican side. We need to be reaching out and unifying our country against (CHEERING) terrorist attacks and lone wolves and working with Muslim Americans.

10:39:23:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

10:39:23:00 Andrea has a follow-up.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:39:25:00 Just– just a quick follow-up–

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:39:26:00 Andrea– Andrea–

10:39:28:00 (OVERTALK)

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:39:27:00 –for Secretary Clinton, just– just a moment, governor.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:39:29:00 –my 30 seconds?

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:39:30:00 But– but– Secretary Clinton you said that the leaders from the intelligence community went to Silicon Valley. They were flatly turned down. They got nowhere.

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:39:38:00 That is not what I’ve heard. Let me leave it at that.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:39:40:00 Andrea, I need to talk about homeland security and preparedness. Ever since the attacks of September 11th, 30 seconds, ever since the attacks of September 11th my colleagues, Democratic and Republican mayors, Democratic and Republican governors made me their leader on homeland scrutiny and preparedness.

10:39:53:00 Here in the homeland unlike combating ISIL abroad we’re almost like it’s– your body’s immune system. It’s able to protect your body against bad bugs not necessarily ’cause it outnumbers ’em but it’s better connected. The fusion centers, the– bio-surveillance systems, better prepared first responders.

10:40:11:00 But there’s another front in this battle and it is this. That’s the political front. And if Donald Trump wants to start a registry in our country of people by faith he can start with me. And I will sign up as one who is totally opposed to his fascist appeals that wants to vilify American Muslims. That can do more damage to our democracy than any s– thing–

10:40:33:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

10:40:34:00 All right, that’s time. And we do– we (CHEERING) do have to move on. Secretary Clinton, this is the first time–

10:40:38:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

10:40:39:00 –that–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:40:40:00 Can I just get a very brief response. Very brief.

LESTER HOLT:

10:40:41:00 –thir– third seconds, Senator.

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:40:44:00 Okay. One– and– and I agree with what the secretary said and– and what Governor O’Malley said. But here’s an issue that we also should talk about. We have $600 billion military budget. It is a budget larger than the next eight countries.

10:40:59:00 Unfortunately much of that budget continues to fight the old Cold War with the Soviet Union. Very little of that budget– less than 10% actually goes into fighting ISIS and international terrorism. We need to be thinkin’ hard about making fundamental changes in the priorities of the defense department.

LESTER HOLT:

10:41:25:00 All right, Secretary Clinton, (APPLAUSE) this is the first time that a spouse of a former president could be elected president. You have said that President Clinton would advise you on economic issues. But be specific if you can. Are you talking about– a kitchen table role on economics or will he have a real policy role?

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:41:43:00 Well, I– it’ll start at the kitchen table. We’ll see how it goes from there. (LAUGHTER) And I– (CHEERING) I’m gonna have the very best advisors that I can possibly have. And when it comes to the economy– and what was accomplished under my husband’s leadership in the 90s, especially when it came to raising income for everybody and lifting more people out of poverty than any time in recent history you bet I’m gonna ask for his ideas, I’m gonna ask for his advice.

10:42:18:00 And I’m gonna use him as– a good will– emissary to go around the country to find the best ideas we’ve got. Because I do believe, as he said, everything that’s wrong with America has been solved somewhere in America. We just have to do more of it and we have to reach out, especially in the poor communities and communities of color to give more people their own chance to get ahead.

LESTER HOLT:

10:42:41:00 Senator Sanders, a 30 second response (CHEERING) here.

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:42:49:00 Great ideas. Governor O’Malley, Secretary Clinton. But here’s the truth, if you have an administration stacked with Wall Street appointees it ain’t gonna accomplish very much. So here’s a promise that I make, I mentioned a moment ago how corrupt the system is. Goldman Sachs paying a $5 billion fine gives this country in recent history a Republican secretary of treasury, a Democratic secretary of treasury. Here’s a promise, if elected president Goldman Sachs is not gonna have– bring forth a secretary of treasury for a Sanders’ administration.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:43:29:00 (CHEERING) Senator Sanders, let me ask you a question, you called Bill Clinton’s past transgressions, quote, totally, totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable. Senator, do you regret saying that?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:43:43:00 I was asked a question, you know, one of the things, Andrea, and I– that– that question annoys me. I cannot (LAUGHTER) walk down the street– Secretary Clinton knows this– without being told how much I have to attack Secretary Clinton. Wanna get me on the front pages of the paper, I make some vicious attack. I have avoided doing that, trying to run an issue oriented campaign. (CHEERING) I was–

10:44:11:00 (OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:44:12:00 –asked a question.

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:44:14:00 You didn’t have to answer it that way though. Why–

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:44:13:00 Well–

ANDREA MITCHELL:

10:44:14:00 –did you?

BERNIE SANDERS:

10:44:15:00 –then if I don’t answer it then there’s another front page. So yes. (LAUGHTER) And I mean this seriously. You know that. We’ve been through this. Yes, his behavior was deplorable. Have I ever once said a word about that issue? No I have not. I’m gonna debate Secretary Clinton, Governor O’Malley on the issues facing the American people. Not Bill Clinton’s personal (CHEERING) views (?).

LESTER HOLT:

10:44:38:00 We will take a break. We’ll continue from Charleston right after this. (LAUGHTER)

10:44:43:00 (MUSIC)

10:44:52:00 (BREAK IN TAPE)

10:48:54:00 (MUSIC)

LESTER HOLT:

10:49:00:00 Welcome back, everybody. Finally before we go tonight we set up here to understand points of differences between you. We believe we– we’ve learned a lot here. But before we leave, is there anything that you really wanted to say tonight that you haven’t gotten a chance to say? And we’ll start with Governor O’Malley. (LAUGHTER) (CHEERING) Didn’t see that coming–

10:49:29:00 (OVERTALK)

LESTER HOLT:

10:49:30:00 –did you?

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:49:30:00 You know what, we’re gonna have to get 20 minutes to do it. So (LAUGHTER) look I believe there–

10:49:34:00 (OVERTALK)

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:49:35:00 –are many issues, so what– 60 seconds for this?

LESTER HOLT:

10:49:35:00 Sixty seconds. We’d appreciate it.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:49:38:00 There are so many issues that– that we haven’t been able to discuss here. We have not fully discussed immigration reform and the deplorable number of immigrant detention camps that our nation’s now maintaining. We haven’t discussed the shameful treatment that the people of Puerto Rico, our fellow Americans, are being treated with by these hedge funds that are working (UNINTEL). (APPLAUSE)

10:50:00:00 We haven’t discussed the fact that in our own hemisphere we have the danger of nation state failures because of drug traffickers in– in Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador. I guess the bottom line is this, look, we are– a great people when we act at home and abroad.

10:50:15:00 Based on the beliefs that unite us, our belief in the dignity of every person, our belief in our own common good. There is no challenge that is too great for us to overcome provided we bring forward in these divided times new leadership that can heal our divides here at home and bring our principles into alignment abroad. We’re on the threshold of a new era of American progress. And I believe we have only need to join forces together and cross that threshold into a new era of American prosperity.

LESTER HOLT:

10:50:40:00 And that’s time.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:50:42:00 Thanks a lot. (CHEERING)

LESTER HOLT:

10:50:44:00 Secretary Clinton.

HILLARY CLINTON:

10:50:50:00 Well, Lester, I– I spent a lot of time last week being outraged by what’s happening in Flint, Michigan. And I think every (CHEERING) single American should be outraged. We’ve had a city in the United States of America where the population which is poor in many ways and majority African-American has been drinking and bathing in lead contaminated water.

10:51:15:00 And the governor of that state acted as though he didn’t really care. He had request for help but he basically stonewalled. I’ll tell you what, if the kids in a rich suburb of Detroit had been drinking contaminated water and being bathed in it there would’ve been action. So I sent my top campaign aide down there to talk to the– mayor of Flint to see what I could do to help.

10:51:39:00 And I issued a statement about what we needed to do. And then I went on a TV show and said it was outrageous that the governor hadn’t acted. And within two hours he had. I wanna be a president takes care of the big (CHEERING) problems and the problems that are affecting the people of our country every day.

LESTER HOLT:

10:51:58:00 Thank you. Senator Sanders.

MARTIN O’MALLEY:

10:52:04:00 Well, Secretary Clinton was right. And what I did which I think is also right is demanded the resignation of the governor. A man who acts that irresponsibly (APPLAUSE) should not stay in power. Now we are a great nation. And we’ve heard a lotta great ideas here tonight.

10:52:22:00 But let’s be honest and let’s be truthful. Very little is going to be done to transform our economy and to create the kind of middle class we need unless we end a corrupt campaign finance system which is undermining American democracy. (CHEERING) We have gotta get rid of super pack. We have got to get rid of citizens united.

10:52:55:00 And what we have got to do is create a political revolution which revitalizes American democracy, which brings millions of young people and working people into the political process. To say loudly and clearly that the government of the United States of America belongs to all of us and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors.

LESTER HOLT:

10:53:20:00 All right, well, thank you. (CHEERING) And thanks to all of you for being here tonight, shedding light on some of the differences– as Americans get ready to vote. I also wanna thank the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and certainly my friend and colleague, Andrea Mitchell. This has been great. It’s been a great, spirited conversation a new– American people appreciate it. Let me turn it over to my friend, Chuck Todd, now.

Advertisements

News Headlines February 4, 2015: Brian Williams apologizes admits he lied was not shot down during the Iraq War

NEWS HEADLINES

NewsHeadlines_Banner

THE HEADLINES….

Brian Williams apologizes admits he lied was not shot down during the Iraq War

By Bonnie K. Goodman

NBC News anchor Brian Williams has finally admitted he lied about being aboard a helicopter that had been shot down during the Iraq War invasion in 2003. On Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2015, Williams apologized and recanted his often-told story…READ MORE

Political Headlines September 7, 2014: Full Meet the Press Interview With President Obama — Video

POLITICAL HEADLINES

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Full Meet the Press Interview With President Obama

Source: NBC News, 9-7-14

Obama_Meet_the_Press_9-7-14

 

Political Musings February 17, 2014: Romney talks Bill and Hillary Clinton, 2016, Olympics on NBC’s Meet the Press

POLITICAL MUSINGS

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/pol_musings.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

OP-EDS & ARTICLES

Romney talks Bill and Hillary Clinton, 2016, Olympics on NBC’s Meet the Press

By Bonnie K. Goodman

As part of former 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s recent increase in public appearances, he sat down for a short interview that lasted 11 minutes and recorded from a studio in Salt Lake City, Utah on Sunday…READ MORE

Political Headlines March 10, 2013: Jeb Bush Calls Media ‘Crack Addicts’ for 2016 Presidential Campaign Questions

POLITICAL HEADLINES

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Jeb Bush Calls Media ‘Crack Addicts’ for Politics

Source: ABC News Radio, 3-10-13

Paul Morigi/WireImage

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the media “crack addicts” Sunday after he was asked who is more likely to end up in the White House one day — him or Sen. Marco Rubio, his fellow Floridian for whom Bush served as political mentor.

“Man, you guys are crack addicts. You really are obsessed with all this politics. Marco Rubio’s a great guy,” Bush said on NBC’s Meet the Press….READ MORE

Full Text Campaign Buzz January 23, 2012:  NBC News Florida Republican Presidential Candidates Debate Transcript — 18th GOP Debate — Romney Offensive Attacks on Gingrich Alone

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

https://i2.wp.com/graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/24/us/politics/20120124_337_DEBATE-slide-J0JX/20120124_337_DEBATE-slide-J0JX-hpMedium.jpg

Republican Debate Transcript, Tampa, Florida, January 2012

Speakers: Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum

https://i1.wp.com/graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/01/24/us/politics/20120124_337_DEBATE-slide-62HV/20120124_337_DEBATE-slide-62HV-hpMedium-v2.jpg

This debate between Republican candidates was held in Tampa, Florida on January 23, 2012. It was sponsored by NBC News, the National Journal, and the Tampa Bay Times, and was moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams. Participants were Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. This transcript was provided by the Chicago Tribune.

MODERATOR BRIAN WILLIAMS:

Republican primary debate January 23, 2012 / Tampa, Florida

Source: WaPo, 1-23-12

Moderator

As for topics, it’s a wide-open evening, so let’s begin.

First of all, since we last gathered, three of you on stage have enjoyed victories, an unprecedented moment in the modern era, three separate candidates, three separate victories. Congratulations to you. In all three contests, the voters made it clear to pollsters and elsewhere that electability was a crucial element to them, a crucial argument this year.

And so, speaker Gingrich, on electability to begin with, your rival, your opponent on this stage, Governor Romney, was out today calling you erratic, a failed leader, and warning that your nomination for this party could perhaps result in what he called an “October surprise a day.” So given the fact that he went after you today on this topic of electability, your response tonight, Mr. Speaker?

Newt Gingrich

Well, in 1980, when Ronald Reagan started the year about 30 points behind Jimmy Carter and when the Republican establishment described his economic ideas as “voodoo economics,” Reagan just cheerfully went out and won the debate, won the nomination, and won the general election carrying more states than Herbert Hoover carried — than Roosevelt carried against Herbert Hoover.

I would suggest that a solid conservative who believes in economic growth through lower taxes and less regulation, who believes in an American energy program, who believes in a strong national defense, and who has the courage to stand up to the Washington establishment, may make the Washington establishment uncomfortable, but is also exactly the kind of bold, tough leader the American people want, they’re not sending somebody to Washington to manage the decay. They’re sending somebody to Washington to change it, and that requires somebody who’s prepared to be controversial when necessary.

Moderator

And about your problems, your departure from the speakership in the ’90s, what’s the case you make to the American people and voters in Republican primary contests about how you’ve changed, Mr. Speaker?

Newt Gingrich

Well, first of all, the case I make is that, when I was speaker, we had four consecutive balanced budgets, the only time in your lifetime, Brian, that we’ve had four consecutive balanced budgets. Most people think that’s good.

We were down to 4.2 percent unemployment; 11 million new jobs were created. Most people think that’s good. We reformed welfare. And two out of three people went to work or went to school. People think that’s good.

I left the speakership after the 1998 election because I took responsibility for the fact that our results weren’t as good as they should be. I think that’s what a leader should do. I took responsibility, and I didn’t want to stay around, as Nancy Pelosi has. I wanted to get out and do other things. I founded four small businesses. And I’m very comfortable that my four years as speaker, working with a Democratic president, achieved the kind of conservative values that most Republicans want to have in a president.

Moderator

Governor Romney, for his part, the speaker said about you that were dancing on eggs during this campaign, a good salesman with a weak product. And even Chris Christie, one of the most popular politicians in this country, speaking on your behalf, said this weekend your challenge is “going to be how to connect with people.”

Same question to you about electability.

Mitt Romney

Well, I think this is going to come down to a question of leadership. I think as you choose the president of the United States, you’re looking for a person who can lead this country in a very critical time, lead the free world, and the free world has to lead the entire world.

I think it’s about leadership, and the Speaker was given an opportunity to be the leader of our party in 1994. And at the end of four years, he had to resign in disgrace.

Now, in the 1970s, he came to Washington. I went to work in my first job in the 1970s at the bottom level of a consulting firm. In the 1990s, he had to resign in disgrace from this job as Speaker.

I had the opportunity to go off and run the Olympic winter games. In the 15 years after he left the speakership, the Speaker has been working as an influence peddler in Washington. And during those 15 years, I helped turn around the Olympics, helped begin a very successful turnaround in the state of Massachusetts.

The Speaker — when I was fighting against cap and trade, the Speaker was sitting down with Nancy Pelosi on a sofa encouraging it. When I was fighting to say that the Paul Ryan plan to solve Medicare was bold and right, he was saying that it was right wing social engineering.

So we have very different perspectives on leadership, and the kind of leadership that our conservative movement needs not just to get elected, but to get the country right.

Moderator

Mr. Speaker?

Newt Gingrich

Well, look, I’m not going to spend the evening trying to chase Governor Romney’s misinformation. We’ll have a site at Newt.org by tomorrow morning. We’ll list everything — he just said at least four things that are false. I don’t want to waste the time on them. I think the American public deserve a discussion about how to beat Barack Obama, the American public deserves a discussion of what we would do about the economy. And I just think this is the worst kind of trivial politics.

I mean, he said at least four things that were false. We have an ad in which both John McCain and Mike Huckabee in 2007 and 2008 explain how much they think Governor Romney can’t tell the truth.

I just suggest people look at them. Don’t listen to me, don’t believe me. Just look at the ad with Mike Huckabee and Senator McCain and you will understand exactly what you just saw.

Moderator

Governor Romney, to your electability, let’s talk about the southern base of the GOP. Among those who describe themselves as very conservative, only one in five have gone your way.

How is that going to bode well for the longer campaign?

Mitt Romney

Had a great record, as you know, in New Hampshire. The New Hampshire voters overwhelmingly supported me. Actually, among Republicans in New Hampshire, I got the biggest support that we have seen among Republicans, even including Ronald Reagan, that far back. So I’m pleased I will be able to connect well with our Republican base.

But let’s go back to what the Speaker mentioned with regards to leadership, and that is — I mean, we don’t have to take my word for the facts. They’re accurate. I will point out that they are accurate. But the truth is that the members of his own team, his congressional team, after his four years of leadership, they moved to replace him. They also took a vote, and 88 percent of Republicans voted to reprimand the Speaker, and he did resign in disgrace after that.

This was the first time in American history that a Speaker of the House has resigned from the House. And so that was the judgment rendered by his own people as to his leadership.

Look, don’t forget at the end of the Speaker’s term as Speaker, his approval rating was down to 18 percent. We suffered historic losses after his four years in office.

And I’ll make this other point, which is we just learned today that his contract with Freddie Mac was provided by the lobbyists at Freddie Mac. I don’t think we can possibly retake the White House if the person who’s leading our party is the person who was working for the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was paying Speaker Gingrich $1,600,000 at the same time Freddie Mac was costing the people of Florida millions upon millions of dollars.

Moderator

Do you realize last week, Governor, you said that — you complained that too much of your time on stage lately has been spent on negativity vis-a-vis the other candidates? You pledged to spend your time going after the incumbent president, yet here we are again.

Mitt Romney

I’ll tell you why, which is I learned something from that last contest in South Carolina, and that was I had incoming from all directions, was overwhelmed with a lot of attacks. And I’m not going to sit back and get attacked day in and day out without returning fire.

I would like not to have the kind of attacks that came against me. There were two ads run by Speaker Gingrich. Outside fact- checking groups said these ads were false, and yet they continue to run them, and one by his campaign, and one by a PAC, in his benefit. And I know he can’t control that, but those ads were pretty heavy on me. So I’m going to point out things I think people need to know.

It was Republicans who replaced him in the House, voted to reprimand him. And it was the head lobbyist of Freddie Mac with whom he had a contract at a time when Floridians were suffering as a result in part of Freddie Mac.

Moderator

Mr. Speaker, 30 seconds before I move on.

Newt Gingrich

Now, wait a second. I mean, he just went on and on and on, making a whole series of allegations. First of all, he may have been a good financier; he’s a terrible historian.

The fact is, the vote on the Ethics Committee was in January of 1997. I asked the Republicans to vote yes because we had to get it behind us. The Democrats had filed 84 ethics charges for a simple reason: We had taken control of the House after 40 years, and they were very bitter.

And the fact is, on every single ethics charge of substance that was dismissed in the end, the only thing we did wrong is we had one lawyer written by letters — I mean, written one letter, and the one letter was in error. I didn’t pay a fine. I paid the cost of going through the process of determining it was wrong.

I left two years later, and, frankly, we were right to get it behind us because the tax cut that led to economic growth, the four balanced budgets all came after that vote. So you have all this stuff just jumbled up. Apparently your consultants aren’t very good historians. What you ought to do is stop and look at the facts.

And the fact is, we won the House for the third time in 1998, but the margin wasn’t big enough. So I am the only speaker up to that point since the 1920s who had led the Republican Party to three consecutive victories. By the way, in 2006 when you chaired the Governors Association, we lost governorships. And in the four years that you were governor, we lost seats in the Massachusetts legislature. So I think as a party builder, the 20 years I spent building the House Republican Party stands pretty good as an example of leadership.

Moderator

Senator Santorum, you have labeled this choice as being between an erratic and a moderate. You come in here tonight with one victory in Iowa. Where is your path to the top here?

Rick Santorum

Well, I think if you’ve learned anything about this election, that any type of prediction is going to be wrong. The idea that this was a two-person race has been an idea that has been in fashion now for eight months, and it’s been wrong about eight times.

And so we’re looking at this race trying to paint a positive vision for our country. You ask my path to victory. My path to victory is to tell the people of Florida and tell the people of this country of someone who’s here that presents a very clear contrast with the president of the United States, someone that will make him the issue in this race, not the Republican candidate, someone who has a track record of being a strong conservative, someone who has a vision, a bold vision to reach out to the voters that I reached out and was successful in getting when I ran for the Senate in Pennsylvania twice, a state we haven’t won for the presidency since 1988. I won it twice, once in a year where George Bush lost the state by five and I won it by six.

How did I do it? I had plans out there that included everybody, plans like I have today, talking about manufacturing, talking about things that — that are touchstones with the Reagan Democrats that provided that 49-state win.

We talked about faith. We talked about family. We talked about jobs. We talked about limited government. And that message was one that connected in a state — well, just like Florida, that’s one of those key states that we’re going to win. And that sets me apart, really, from anybody else on this stage as someone who’s been victorious with a strong, principled conservative message.

Moderator

And yet, Senator, you are former Senator Santorum, having lost your home state by 18 points.

Rick Santorum

Yeah, well, if I was the only guy that lost an election that year in Pennsylvania, that would be maybe a big statement, but our gubernatorial candidate lost by more than I did. We lost five congressional seats. And it was an historic loss in our statehouse. It was a meltdown year. We lost 23 out of 33 senators.

And probably unlike a lot of other candidates, when you’re running in an election year that you know you’re running against a headwind, a lot of folks crouch down, they get out of the way of the wind and try to sneak in. I stood tall, stood for what I believed in, talked about issues like the threat of Iran on the horizon, talked about the need to reform Social Security and Medicare, talked about the issues that, well, now we’re all talking about today, as I did at a time when nobody wanted to hear that message.

I also was running with a president who was sitting at about 35 percent favorable, and I was standing by him and trying to reform Social Security, and trying to fight the war and win the war in Iraq, and I stand by that.

And one of the things I figured out when I was running in that tough election year, there’s one thing worse than losing an election, and that’s not standing for the principles that you hold.

Moderator

Congressman Paul, there is no denying you have an enthusiastic base support — base of support. We could hear them outside tonight. Yet there was that recent interview, you were asked if while campaigning you envision yourself in the Oval Office, and you said, “Not really, but I think it’s a possibility.”

So that begs the question about your path and when you will give an honest answer about perhaps your third-party plans going forward. Are you in this regardless of the outcome to your right (ph) here on this stage?

Ron Paul

Well, unlike others, maybe they sit around and daydream about being in the White House. I just don’t sit around daydreaming about it, but I’m in a race, I’m in a good race.

You talk about electability. Why don’t we take on the first three states and take everybody 30 years and under? I’m doing pretty darned well. I’m winning that vote.

But what about if you compare my name to Obama? I do quite well, if not better, than the rest.

So, to say that there has only been three races, and talk about not being electable, I think is a bit of a stretch. As a matter of fact, the delegates haven’t even been appointed in Iowa yet. I mean, quite frankly, we have a pretty good chance of getting a good sum of those because of the organization.

We only had a straw vote. I mean, this argument on who won, it was a straw vote. I mean, the delegates is what counts.

But I do want to address the earlier discussion that you had about 1997. I had been out of Congress for 12 years, and I went back in ’96 and arrived there in ’97. It was chaotic, let me tell you.

It was a mess, and it was a mess for 12 years. And Newt had a big job on his hands, but he really had to attack the conservatives. He did it boldly.

And quite frankly, I think the reason — he didn’t not run for Speaker, you know, two years later. He didn’t have the votes. That was what the problem was. So this idea that he voluntarily reneged and he was going to punish himself because we didn’t do well in the election, that’s just not the way it was.

Moderator

Let me come at it this way. If Newt Gingrich emerges from the GOP primary process as the nominee of the party, do you go your own way?

Ron Paul

Well, I have done a lot of that in my lifetime.

Moderator

I should be more specific. Will you run as a third- party candidate?

Ron Paul

I have no plans to do that, no intention. And when I have been pressed on it, and they asked me why, and I said, I don’t want to. But I haven’t been an absolutist. When I left Congress, I didn’t have plans on going back, but I did after 12 years. I went back to medicine. So, no, I don’t have any plans to do that. No.

Moderator

Would you support a Newt Gingrich as nominee of the GOP?

Ron Paul

Well, he keeps hinting about attacking the Fed, and he talks about gold. Now if I could just change him on foreign policy, we might be able to talk business.

(LAUGHTER)

Moderator

Speaker Gingrich, are you willing to adjust to pick up an endorsement from Texas?

Newt Gingrich

Well, I got one on Friday from Governor Perry, which I liked a lot as a starting point. So I like endorsements from Texas.

And Congressman Paul is right. There’s an area — I think what he has said about the Federal Reserve and what he has said about the importance of monetary policy, the proposal I’ve issued for a gold commission, which hearkens back to something that he and Jesse Helms helped develop, on which he served on in 1981, and the fact that we have people of the caliber of Lew Lehrman and Jim Grant, who have agreed they would chair such a commission, I think they’re areas we can work on.

There are places we disagree very deeply. Iran is a good example. But there are places — you know, you build a coalition by trying to find ways you can work together, and frankly we could work together a lot more than either one of us could work with Barack Obama.

Moderator

Governor Romney, a question you know is coming because of what you have set in motion for tomorrow when you release one year’s tax returns and your estimates for 2011. We know it’s not a matter of producing them. You said during the McCain vetting process you turned over 23 years which you had at the ready because, to quote you, you’re something of a packrat.

So, prior to tomorrow, can you tell us tonight what’s in there that’s going to get people talking? What’s in there that’s going to be controversial? What’s in there that you may find yourself defending?

Mitt Romney

No surprises, Brian. The most extensive disclosure that I made was the financial disclosure requirements under the law. We each had to do that, and I laid out what my assets are and where they are, and people have been looking at that. It’s very similar to what it was four years ago. And so my income tax will show that that’s where the profits and rewards came.

The real question is not so much my taxes, but the taxes of the American people. The real question people are going to ask is, who’s going to help the American people at a time when folks are having real tough times?

And that’s why I put forward a plan to eliminate the tax on savings for middle income Americans. Anyone making under $200,000 a year, I would eliminate the tax on interest, dividends and capital gains. People need help to be able to save their money.

I’ll also bring the corporate tax rate down to 25 percent as quickly as possible and then begin a process of reshaping the entire tax code. It’s far too complex, it’s far too intrusive, it’s far too great.

Mitt Romney

I would like to lower the rates, broaden the base, akin to what we saw in the Bowles-Simpson plan, which, by the way, the president commissioned and then simply brushed aside. We need to go back to that, get our rates down, and get a pro-growth tax policy in this country.

Moderator

So, across this country tomorrow, when people learn the details of the tax return you release — and, of course, you’ll be under pressure to release more years after that — nothing will stick out, nothing will emerge that will be talked about by this time tomorrow night?

Mitt Romney

Oh, I’m sure people will talk about it. I mean, you’ll see my income, how much taxes I’ve paid, how much I’ve paid to charity. You’ll see how complicated taxes can be. But — but I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more.

I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes. So I’ll — I’ll point out that that’s the case.

And will there will discussion? Sure. Will it be an article? Yeah. But is it entirely legal and fair? Absolutely. I’m proud of the fact that I pay a lot of taxes.

And the fact is, there are a lot of people in this country that pay a lot of taxes. I’d like to see our tax rate come down and focus on growing the country, getting people back to work. That’s our problem in this country right now. We’ve got a lot of people out of work. Let’s let them start paying taxes because they got jobs again.

Moderator

Speaker Gingrich, what will satisfy you?

Newt Gingrich

Well, first of all, he said the other day when he indicated he was going to release it, that was the right thing to do. It’s actually a tradition his father started in 1967. I think it’s the right thing to do.

The biggest thing I think will be — and I think you indicated the other day that you pay something like a 15 percent marginal rate. My position is not to attack him for paying a 15 percent marginal rate. I have in my tax proposal an alternative flat tax on the Hong Kong model, where you get to choose what you want, and our rate’s 15 percent. So I’m prepared to describe my 15 percent flat tax as the Mitt Romney flat tax. I’d like to bring everybody else down to Mitt’s rate, not try to bring him up to some other rate.

Moderator

And — yes, Governor?

(CROSSTALK)

Mitt Romney

Mr. Speaker, is the tax on capital gains also 15 percent or is it zero?

Newt Gingrich

Zero.

Mitt Romney

Well, under that — under that plan, I’d have paid no taxes in the last two years.

Newt Gingrich

Well, if that — and if you created enough jobs doing that — it was Alan Greenspan who first said the best rate, if you want to create jobs for capital gains, is zero. My number-one goal is to create a maximum number of jobs to put the American people back to work. It’s a straightforward argument.

Moderator

And, Governor, how about your father’s model of 12 years’ worth of returns?

Mitt Romney

You know, I agree with my dad on a lot of things, but we also disagree. And — and going out with 12 years of returns is not something I’m going to do. I’m putting out two years, which is more than anyone else on this stage. I think it’ll satisfy the interests of the American people to see that I pay my taxes, where I give my charitable contributions to, and I think that’s the right number.

Moderator

More broadly, Governor, just an aside, have you been surprised at the degree to which your wealth has become an issue? You spoke rather forcefully in South Carolina over the weekend on Saturday night about this, about the degree to which you’ve had to defend, as you put it, your success in business.

Mitt Romney

Yeah, I knew that was going to come from the Obama team. I understood that. We see that on the left. I was surprised to see people in the Republican Party pick up the weapons of the left and start using them to attack free enterprise. I think those weapons will be used against us. I think it’s very unfortunate.

I will not apologize for having been successful. I did not inherit what my wife and I have, nor did she. What we have — what — what I was able to build, I built the old-fashioned way, by earning it, by working hard. And I was proud of the fact that we helped create businesses that grew, that employed people.

And these are not just high-end financial jobs. We helped start Staples, for instance. It employs 90,000 people. These are middle- income people. There are entry-level jobs, too. I’m proud of the fact that we helped people around the country, Bright Horizons children centers, the Sports Authority, Steel Dynamics, a new steel company. These employ people, middle-income people.

And the nature of America is individuals pursuing their dreams don’t make everyone else poorer; they help make us all better off. And so I’m not going to apologize for success or apologize for free enterprise. I believe free enterprise is one of the things that — that we have to reinvigorate in this country if we want to get people working again.

Moderator

Senator Santorum, Governor Romney has said — and he said again tonight — he expected these attacks from the other side. He’s been taking fire as he would from the Democrats from the group on this stage. That means you. That includes you.

Mitt Romney

I didn’t mean to include…

Rick Santorum

No, I have — I have not. I have not fired at Governor Romney on — on — on his — his work at Bain Capital. In fact, I’ve been maybe unique in that regard that I haven’t.

I believe in capitalism. I believe in free markets. I believe Governor Romney can go out and — and earn whatever he can. And hopefully he creates jobs by earning that money and investing in companies.

My only question with Governor Romney is that, you know, to be a great defender of capitalism and talk about the importance of — of capitalism and free markets, and in the case of Bain, constructive capitalism and destructive capitalism.

Rick Santorum

My question to Governor Romney and to Speaker Gingrich, if you believe in capitalism that much, then why did you support the bailout of Wall Street, where you had an opportunity to allow destructive capitalism to work, to allow a failure of a — of a system that needed to fail because people did things that in capitalism pay — you pay a price?

And we should have allowed those financial institutions to go through the bankruptcy process, and we would have had resulted not what we are seeing here in Florida with this lengthy recession/depression of the housing market. You would have seen the effects of what Governor Romney advocated for and advocates today at Bain Capital, which is allowing companies that do not do their job, cannot be competitive, make mistakes, to fail and pay the price, instead of having government come in and prop them up.

Moderator

And Speaker Gingrich, just tonight, two hours ago, in fact, you released your ’06 contract with Freddie Mac. We alluded to this earlier.

Your company was paid $25,000 a month, $300,000 for the year. But it didn’t provide a further explanation of services for Freddie Mac.

Why one year’s worth? Governor Romney today used the expression “work product.” He wants to see your work product, and the word “lobbying” has been thrown around, and you strongly disagree with that.

Newt Gingrich

Well, first of all, if you read the contract — and we can go back and check the other years. We had to work through the process of getting an approval because it was a confidentiality agreement.

But if you read the contract which we have posted, and the Center for Health Transformation had to get permission to post, it says very clearly supposed to do consulting work. The governor did consulting work for years. I have never suggested his consulting work was lobbying.

So let me start right there. There is no place in the contract that provides for lobbying. I have never done any lobbying.

Congressman J.C. Watts, who for seven years was the head of the Freddie Mac Watch Committee, said flatly he has never been approached by me. The fact is that Congressman Rick Lazio, who is chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, said he has never been approached by me. And the only report in the newspaper was “The New York Times” in July of 2008, which said I told the House Republicans they should vote no, not give Freddie Mac any money, because it needed to be reformed. So there’s no —

(CROSSTALK)

Moderator

So you never peddled influence, as he described tonight?

Newt Gingrich

What?

Moderator

You never peddled influence, as Governor Romney accused you of tonight?

Newt Gingrich

You know, there is a point in the process where it gets unnecessarily personal and nasty. And that’s sad.

The fact is I have had a very long career of trying to represent the people of Georgia and, as Speaker, the people of the United States. I think it’s pretty clear to say that I have never, ever gone and done any lobbying.

In fact, we brought in an expert on lobbying law and trained all of our staff. And that expert is prepared to testify that he was brought in to say here is the bright line between what you can do as a citizen and what you do as a lobbyist. And we consistently, for 12 years, running four small businesses, stayed away from lobbying, precisely because I thought this kind of defamatory and factually false charge would be made.

Mitt Romney

Well, Mr. Speaker, you were — on this stage, at a prior debate, you said you were paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac for an historian — as an historian. They don’t pay people $25,000 a month for six years as historians. That adds up to about $1.6 million.

They weren’t hiring you as an historian. And this contract proves that you were not an historian. You were a consultant.

Newt Gingrich

I was a consultant.

Mitt Romney

It doesn’t say that you provided historical experience, it said that you were as a consultant. And you were hired by the chief lobbyist of Freddie Mac, not the CEO, not the head of public affairs. By the chief lobbyist at Freddie Mac.

You also spoke publicly in favor of these GSEs, these government- sponsored entities, at a very time when Freddie Mac was getting America in a position where we would have had a massive housing collapse. You could have spoken out aggressively. You could have spoken out in a way to say these guys are wrong, this needs to end. But instead, you were being paid by them. You were making over $1 million at the same time people in Florida were being hurt by millions of dollars.

Newt Gingrich

Well, this is a good example. As a businessman, you know that the gross revenue of Bain wasn’t your personal income.

We had a company. The company had three offices. The company was being paid. My share annually was about $35,000 a year. And the fact is I offered strategic advice, largely based on my knowledge of history, including the history of Washington.

Government-sponsored enterprises include, for example, telephone cooperatives, rural electric cooperatives, federal credit unions. There are many different kinds of government-sponsored enterprises, and many of them have done very good things. And in the early years, before some people, particularly Jim Johnson and other Democrats, began to change the model you could make a pretty good argument that in the early years, those housing institutions were responsible for a lot of people getting a lot of good housing.

Mitt Romney

There’s no question about that, but we’re talking about one. We’re talking about Freddie Mac.

Newt Gingrich

Right.

Mitt Romney

And that one did a lot of bad for a lot of people. And you were working there making over $1 million for your entities —

(CROSSTALK)

Newt Gingrich

For the entities. As long as we agree, for the entities.

Mitt Romney

Owned by you. I don’t know whether 100 percent owned by you, but I presume. Owned by you, over $1.6 million. And you said it was $300,000. It was $1.6 million. That’s a difference.

Newt Gingrich

So, Mitt, what — Mitt, what’s the gross revenue of Bain in the years you were associated with it? What’s the gross revenue?

Mitt Romney

Very — very substantial. But I think it’s irrelevant compared to the fact…

Newt Gingrich

No.

Mitt Romney

… that you were working for Freddie Mac.

Newt Gingrich

Wait a second. Wait a second. Very substantial.

Mitt Romney

You were working for Freddie…

(CROSSTALK)

Newt Gingrich

Did Bain ever do any work with any company which did any work with the government, like Medicare…

Mitt Romney

We didn’t — we didn’t do — we didn’t…

Newt Gingrich

… Medicaid?

Mitt Romney

We didn’t do any work with the government. I didn’t have an office on K Street. I wasn’t a lobbyist. I didn’t — had never worked — I’ve never worked in Washington. You were working…

Newt Gingrich

So — so…

Mitt Romney

We have congressmen who also say that you came and lobbied them in favor…

Newt Gingrich

I didn’t lobby them.

Mitt Romney

You have congressmen who say…

(CROSSTALK)

Mitt Romney

… that you came and lobbied them with regards to Medicare Part D, at the same time…

Newt Gingrich

Now, wait. Whoa, whoa.

Mitt Romney

… your center was taking in contributions…

Newt Gingrich

You just jumped a long way over here, friend.

Mitt Romney

Well, another — another area of influence-peddling.

Newt Gingrich

No, not — now, let me be very clear, because I understand your technique, which you used on McCain, you used on Huckabee, you’ve used consistently, OK? It’s unfortunate, and it’s not going to work very well, because the American people see through it.

I have always publicly favored a stronger Medicare program. I wrote a book in 2002 called “Saving Lives and Saving Money.” I publicly favored Medicare Part D for a practical reason, and that reason is simple. The U.S. government was not prepared to give people anything — insulin, for example — but they would pay for kidney dialysis. They weren’t prepared to give people Lipitor, but they’d pay for open-heart surgery. That is a terrible way to run Medicare.

I am proud of the fact — and I’ll say this in Florida — I’m proud of the fact that I publicly, openly advocated Medicare Part D. It has saved lives. It’s run on a free enterprise model. It also included health savings accounts and it include Medicare alternatives, which gave people choices.

And I did it publicly, and it is not correct, Mitt — I’m just saying this flatly, because you’ve been walking around this state saying things that are untrue — it is not correct to describe public citizenship, having public advocacy as lobbying. Every citizen has the right to do that.

Mitt Romney

They sure do.

Newt Gingrich

And what I did on behalf of Medicare…

Mitt Romney

They sure do.

Newt Gingrich

… I did out in the open, publicly, and that is my right as a citizen.

Moderator

Gentlemen…

Mitt Romney

Here’s why it’s a problem, Mr. Speaker. Here’s why it’s a problem. And that is, if you’re getting paid by health companies, if your entities are getting paid by health companies that could benefit from a piece of legislation, and you then meet with Republican congressmen and encourage them to support that legislation, you can call it whatever you’d like. I call it influence-peddling.

It is not right. It is not right. You have a conflict. You are — you are being paid by companies at the same time you’re encouraging people to pass legislation which is in their favor.

Moderator

Governor…

Mitt Romney

This is — you spent now 15 years in Washington on K Street. And — and this is a real problem, if we’re going to nominate someone who not only had a record of — of great distress as the speaker, but that has worked for 15 years lobbying.

Moderator

Gentlemen, we’ve let this go because of the state of the race, and a certain amount of this conversation, I guess, had to happen. We — this also has to happen. We have to go to a break. We’ll come back. We’ll talk about foreclosure. We’ll talk about foreign policy. We’ll welcome in the other two gentlemen to this conversation when we continue from Tampa.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Moderator

Welcome back to what has already become an interesting night in Tampa, Florida. Gentlemen, welcome back to you.

And, Senator Santorum, let’s begin this segment with you. Since we’ve been nibbling around the edges of the foreclosure crisis, since, what, 40 percent of homeowners in this state are underwater, 53 percent of the homes in Tampa, Florida, are worth less today than before this crisis. Was it too easy? Did vehicles of the U.S. government make it too easy to own a home in America?

Rick Santorum

Well, the answer, unfortunately, is yes to that. And there were several of us in the United States Senate back in 2005 and 2006 who saw this on the horizon, who saw the problem with Freddie and Fannie, and tried to move forth with a bill — I was on the Banking Committee. We voted a bill out of committee to try to solve this problem, to constrain Fannie and Freddie, and there were a lot of people out there fighting that, including Harry Reid and his minions on the other side of the aisle.

I sent — I signed a letter, along with 24 other senators, that said, we either do something now, stop the filibuster of this bill, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, all of whom were in the Senate at the time. They were filibustering this bill to allow reform of Fannie and Freddie. And we said, if this doesn’t happen, if we don’t constrain these two behemoths from continuing to underwrite this subprime mortgage problem, then we’re going to have a collapse. Unfortunately, that proved — proved to be true.

The problem now is, what are you going to do about it? And what I’ve said is that, as you heard me say before, let capitalism work. Allow these — allow these banks to — to realize their losses. And create an opportunity for folks who have houses to realize their losses and at least help them out.

That’s why I proposed in my tax plan — and I talk about five areas where I allow deductions — well, one of them would be, be able to deduct losses from the sale of your home. Right now, you can’t do that. You have to pay gains, depending on the amount, but you can’t deduct the losses.

This is something I think is important temporarily to put in place to allow people the freedom to be able to go out and get out from underneath these houses that they’re holding onto and at least get some relief from the federal government for doing so.

Moderator

Congressman Paul, should that be any role for the government? Are those folks owed anything for being under?

Ron Paul

Well, the government owes them a free market and a sound monetary system, but they didn’t give it to them. They gave them a mess. They gave them a financial system that literally created this problem.

And it was compounded — first, the line of credit to the — to the Federal Reserve, it was excessive. Everybody now admits in Washington interest rates were kept too low, too long.

But not only that, in addition to that, it was an insult to injury, because they kept interest rates especially low with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and there was a line of credit there, and it was a guarantee. As a matter of fact, I had introduced legislation 10 years before the bubble burst to eliminate that line of credit. But then the Community Reinvestment Act added more fuel to it, you know, forcing banks to make loans that are risky loans.

So the whole bubble was easily seen. The consequences were anticipated. It was all government manufactured. But the question is, is what do you do after you come upon a mess that the government and the politicians created?

The best thing you can do is get out of the way, because you want the prices to come down so that people will start buying them again, but politicians can’t allow that to happen. Our policies in Washington still has been to try to stimulate houses and keep — keep prices up.

Ron Paul

But this whole thing about how we get involved in this low interest rate to stimulate the economy, almost everybody in Washington now in almost all spectrums of the economic sphere do not believe in wage and price controls, but they believe in controlling interest rates. That’s one-half of the whole economy, and here we have a bunch of guys getting in a room in secret, deciding what interest rates should be, and they create this mess. So, yes, we need to get out of the way, but instead the debt has to be liquidated.

The mortgage derivatives was a monster. A lot of people made a lot of money on that. But guess what? The Federal Reserve, to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars, as well as TARP funds, were used to bail out the people that made all this money.

Guess what happened to the bad debt? It should have been wiped off the book. They should have gone bankrupt. It was dumped on the taxpayers, and the taxpayers still have it. And as long as you maintain that debt on the books, you’re not going to have growth.

This is why Japan hasn’t recovered. We’re in four years now, and it’s going to continue until we understand who creates the business cycle, how it happens, and what you have to do to get out of it.

Moderator

Gentlemen, 30 seconds, please, on this, starting with Governor Romney.

To help these homeowners or not?

Mitt Romney

To help them? Of course we help them.

Pam Mati (ph) here in Florida is cracking down on people who are committing fraud, number one. Number two, you have to get government out of the mess. Government has created the mess.

Number three, you’re going to have to help people see if they can’t get more flexibility from their banks. Right now, with Dodd- Frank, we made it harder for banks to renegotiate mortgages to help people get out.

And finally, you’ve got to get the economy going again with people having jobs. With Florida with 9.9 percent unemployment, and with 18 percent real unemployment in this state, and underemployment, you’re not going to get housing recovered unless you get jobs created again.

Moderator

Speaker?

Newt Gingrich

Well, I think, first of all, if you could repeal Dodd- Frank tomorrow morning, you would see the economy start to improve overnight. I mean, people don’t realize this bill is — a little bit of what Congressman Paul said.

The fact is Dodd-Frank has led the biggest banks to get bigger. It is crushing independent banks. It has an anti-housing bias. Federal regulators are slowing down and making it harder to make loans for housing, and it is crippling small business borrowing.

All those things are a function of a bill passed by the Democrats called Dodd-Frank. If they would repeal it tomorrow morning, you would have a better housing market the next day.

Moderator

Do you really think the financial system is overregulated? That’s the second mention of Dodd-Frank tonight.

Newt Gingrich

I really think that when — yes, of course it’s overregulated. When you put that much power in the Treasury under Geithner, you know, it’s an invitation to corruption.

When you have a bias in the bill which makes the big banks get bigger, exactly the opposite of what a rational policy would be, it’s a bad bill. When you have regulators walk in small local banks and say, do not loan money on housing, it’s a bad idea.

Moderator

Governor Romney, was it overregulated prior to the collapse?

Mitt Romney

It was poorly regulated. Markets have to have regulation to work. You can’t have everybody open a bank in their garage. You have to have regulation, but it’s got to be up to date.

And they didn’t have capital requirements put in place for the different classes of assets banks had. They also didn’t have regulation properly put in place for mortgage lenders. Derivatives weren’t being regulated.

You need to have regulation that’s up to date. They had old regulation, burdensome. Then they passed Dodd-Frank, which the Speaker is absolutely right. It has made it almost impossible for community banks.

I was with the head of one of the big banks in New York. He said they have hundreds of lawyers working on Dodd-Frank to implement it.

Community banks don’t have hundreds of lawyers. It’s just killing the residential home market and it’s got to be replaced.

Moderator

Governor Romney, let me ask you this. There was a lot of talk in the last presidential campaign about that 3:00 a.m. phone call. Let’s say President Romney gets that phone call, and it is to say that Fidel Castro has died. And there are credible people in the Pentagon who predict upwards of half a million Cubans may take that as a cue to come to the United States.

What do you do?

Mitt Romney

Well, first of all, you thank heavens that Fidel Castro has returned to his maker and will be sent to another land.

(APPLAUSE)

Mitt Romney

Now, number two, you work very aggressively with the new leadership in Cuba to try and move them towards a more open degree than they have had in the past.

We just had, with Wilman Villar, his life was just lost in a hunger strike fighting for democracy. This president has taken a very dangerous course with regards to Cuba saying we’re going to relax relations, we’re going to open up travel to Cuba.

This is the wrong time for that, with this kind of heroics going on. We want to stand with the people of Cuba that want freedom. We want to move that effort forward not by giving in and saying we lost, but by saying we will fight for democracy.

Moderator

Mr. Speaker, as a practical matter, along the Florida coast, though, you know the policy, so called wet foot/dry foot. What do you do if folks start arriving in the United States?

Newt Gingrich

Well, Brian, first of all, I guess the only thing I would suggest is I don’t think that Fidel is going to meet his maker. I think he’s going to go to the other place.

Second, I would suggest to you the policy of the United States should be aggressively to overthrow the regime and to do everything we can to support those Cubans who want freedom. You know, Obama is very infatuated with an Arab Spring. He doesn’t seem to be able to look 90 miles south of the United States to have a Cuban Spring.

So I would try to put in place a very aggressive policy of reaching out to every single Cuban who would like to be free, helping network them together, reaching out to the younger generation inside the dictatorship, and indicating they don’t have a future as a dictatorship because a Gingrich presidency will not tolerate four more years of this dictatorship.

Moderator

Overt and covert, are you talking about engaging the U.S. military?

Newt Gingrich

No, I’m talking about using every asset available to the United States, including appropriate covert operations, to maximize the distance, what Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher did to the Soviet empire, bring together every asset we have to minimize the survival of the dictatorship and to maximize the chance for freedom in Cuba.

Moderator

Congressman?

Ron Paul

I — I have a little bit of work to do yet on him on foreign policy.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

No, I would do pretty much the opposite. I don’t like the isolationism of not talking to people. I was drafted in 1962 at the height of the Cold War when the missiles were in Cuba. And the Cold War’s over.

And I think we propped up Castro for 40-some years because we put on these sanctions, and this — only used us as a scapegoat. He could always say, anything wrong, it’s the United States’ fault.

But I think it’s time — time to quit this isolation business of not talking to people. We talked to the Soviets. We talk to the Chinese. And we opened up trade, and we’re not killing each other now. We fought with the Vietnamese for a long time. We finally gave up, started talking to them, now we trade with them. I don’t know why — why the Cuban people should be so intimidating.

I — I don’t know where you get this assumption that all of a sudden all the Cubans would come up here. I would probably think they were going to celebrate and they’re going to have a lot more freedom if we would only open up our doors and say, we want to talk to you, and trade with you, and come visit. Sometimes they can’t even send packages down there.

I — I think we’re living in the dark ages when we can’t even talk to the Cuban people. I think it’s not 1962 anymore. And we don’t have to use force and intimidation and overthrow of a — in governments. I just don’t think that’s going to work.

Moderator

Senator Santorum, an admittedly…

(APPLAUSE)

Moderator

… cynical question. If there was a strong lobby of Chinese dissidents living in a state as politically important of — as Florida, do you think we’d have a trade policy with China that looks more like the trade policy with Cuba?

Rick Santorum

Not if they were not 90 miles off our shore. This is an important doctrine of the United States to make sure that our hemisphere and those who are close to us are — are folks that we can and should deal with.

And right now, we have and have had for 50 years a dictatorship in Cuba. We’ve had sanctions on them. They should continue. They should continue until the Castros are dead, and then we should make it very clear that if you want mountains of aid, if you want normal relationships, if you want to improve your economy, if you want to have the opportunity for freedom, that the United States stands ready now to embrace you now that you’ve gotten rid of these tyrants who — who have controlled you for these 50-plus years. That’s why the sanctions have to stay in place, because we need to have a — a very solid offer to come forward and help the Cuban people.

And you’re right, Ron. It’s not 1962. They’re now with the Cubans and the Venezuelans, the Nicaraguans. There is a growing network of folks now working with the jihadists, the Iranians, who are very, very excited about the opportunity to having platforms 90 miles off our coast, just like the Soviets were, very anxious to have platforms 90 miles off our coast, or in Venezuela, or in Nicaragua, and other places they could come across the southern border.

This is a serious threat. It’s a threat that I’ve been talking about for about six or seven years. And it’s one that’s not going to go away until we — we confront the threat and hopefully are able to convince the Cuban people that, through what Newt and others have suggested, to — to change their government at the appropriate time.

Moderator

Governor — Governor Romney, last night, the Abe Lincoln, U.S. aircraft carrier and a couple other attendant U.S. Navy vessels passed through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf. If Iran was able to fulfill, carry out that threat to shut down the strait, would you consider that an act of war? What would you do about it as president?

Mitt Romney

Of — of course it’s an act of war. It is appropriate and — and essential for our military, for our Navy to — to maintain open seas. We have control of the commons, of space, air, and the seas. Our Navy has the capacity to do that — or did in the past.

Under this president and under prior presidents, we keep on shrinking our Navy. Our Navy is now smaller than any time since 1917. And — and — and the president is building roughly nine ships a year. We ought to raise that to 15 ships a year, not because we want to go to war with anyone, but because we don’t want anyone to take the — the — the hazard of going against us. We want them to see that we’re so strong they couldn’t possibly defeat us.

So we ought to have an aircraft carrier in the gulf, an aircraft carrier, and, of course, the task force with it in the Mediterranean. We want to show Iran, any action of that nature will be considered an act of war, an act of terror and — and America is going to be keep those sea lanes open.

Moderator

So, Speaker Gingrich if you accept that bedrock definition that it is an act of war, how do you gauge the appetite on the part of the American people after the better part of a decade of warfare, fighting dual wars overseas for something like that?

Newt Gingrich

The American people have no interest in going to war anywhere. We had no interest in going to war with the Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor. We had no interest in going to Afghanistan when Jihadist’s destroyed the World Trade Center. The fact is, we’ve historically been a country that would like peace, we’d like stability. But we also have a historic commitment to — to freedom of the sea. And I would say that the most dangerous thing, which by the way, Barack Obama just did, the — the Iranians are practicing closing the Straits of Hormuz, actively taunting us, so he cancels a military exercise with the Israelis so as not to be provocative?

Now, dictatorships respond to strength, they don’t respond to weakness and I think there’s a very grave danger that the Iranians think that in fact this president is so weak, they could close the Straits of Hormuz and not suffer substantial consequences.

Moderator

Governor Romney, how do you end a war in Afghanistan without talking to the Taliban?

Mitt Romney

By beating them. By standing behind our troops and making sure that — that we have transitioned to the Afghan military, a capacity for them to be successful in holding off the Taliban. Our — our mission there, is to be able to turn Afghanistan and it’s sovereignty over to a military of Afghan descent — Afghan people that can defend their sovereignty. And that is something which we can accomplish in the next couple of years.

This president, however, has done — made — made it very difficult for our troops to be able to be successful in that mission by, number one, announcing a withdrawal date for our troops, number two drawing down our surge troops faster than the time the commanders on the ground was necessary. You don’t draw them down during the middle of the fighting season. And finally, by not overseeing elections in Afghanistan to assure that the — the selection of their president was seen by the people as being legitimate. And he has failed in — in executing a policy in Afghanistan that would optimize our prospects of success.

(CROSSTALK)

Moderator

Go ahead. I was just going to ask, any appetite on this stage to negotiate with the Taliban? Congressman?

Ron Paul

No, but I wanted to get involved in the discussion.

Moderator

No, go ahead?

Ron Paul

Because the question was, you know, would you go to war? And Mitt said he would — he would go to war. But you have to think about the preliminary act that might cause them to want to close the Straits of Hormuz, and that’s the blockade. We’re blockading them. Can you imagine what we would do if somebody blockaded the Gulf of Mexico? That would be an act of war. So the act of war has already been committed and this is a retaliation.

But besides, there’s no interest whatsoever for Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz. I mean they need it as much as we do. I mean so you have to put that into perspective. But this whole idea that — that it’s — we — we have to go to war because we’ve already committed an act by blockading the country and I — I don’t see — I — I — and — and I think Newt is right. I think he’s wrong about World War II, I think the people were ready because we did it properly. We declared it and we won it quickly.

But, not the people are not ready. We don’t have any money. We have too many wars. We — the people want to come home and they certainly don’t want a hot war in Iran right now and I — I think that would be the most foolish thing in the world to do right now is take on Iran.

Moderator

Right now for us another break. I’ll welcome two colleagues out here to the stage when we continue from Tampa right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Moderator

And welcome back to Tampa.

I am happy to welcome two fellow journalists to this stage. Happy to be joined now by our partners in this debate. In fact, “The Tampa Bay Times” and “National Journal.”

Adam Smith is the longtime political editor at “The Tampa Bay Times,” covering national, state and local politics for more than a decade, one of the very best in the trade. And besides, a lot of people just thought a GOP debate should have Adam Smith present.

Beth Reinhard is a political correspondent for “National Journal.” She is a Florida native, was a veteran political reporter at “The Miami Herald” for 11 years.

But one piece of business, Senator Santorum, I had to go to a break. I didn’t get you in on what we’ll call the Iran round, because you’ve talked about this a lot. Specifically, as a last resort, as you said, taking out Iran’s nuclear program.

The problem with that, so many in the military tell you, is the target list. Where do you limit it — the air strikes that some estimate would begin at 30 to 60 days sustained, taking out air defenses, all of that familiar language the American people have just been through for a decade?

Rick Santorum

Well, the contrast for that is, what happens if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and the entire world changes? Iran is not just another country, or a little, small country, as President Obama said classically during the campaign. Obama’s Iran policy has been a colossal failure.

It’s been a failure because he’s not been true to the American public about the threat that Iran poses to the world. Not just to Israel, but to the world and to the United States.

The bottom line is the theocracy that runs Iran is the equivalent of having al Qaeda in charge of a country with huge oil reserves, gas reserves, and a nuclear weapon. That is something that no president could possibly allow to have happen under any circumstances.

And when you asked the question, Brian, are we at — is this is an act of war? Well, let’s look at the acts of war that Iran — they are — they are holding hostages, they are attacking our troops, their IEDs, the improvised explosive devices, that are killing our troops in Afghanistan, and killed them in Iraq, and maimed so many were produced, and people were trained and funded in Iran specifically to kill American troops.

You look at the ships that have been attacked by Iran, embassies were attacked by Iran. A — Iran has plotted to kill the Saudi ambassador here in this country. It is a long list of attacks of — of warlike behavior on the part of this regime. And to believe that if they have a nuclear weapon they’re somehow going to become into the community of nations is a reckless act on the part of a president. It would be reckless not to do something to stop them from getting this nuclear weapon.

Moderator

Senator, thank you. And to interests of local state politics, Beth Reinhard will take over the questioning.

Moderator

Senator Santorum, here in Florida, BP is still airing apologetic appeals on television, but there are proposals to expand offshore oil drilling. The state’s most optimistic estimates say more drilling would create 5,000 jobs, but an oil spill would threaten Florida’s tourism industry, which employs nearly 1 million people. Is that worth the risk?

Rick Santorum

What threatens the tourist industry in Florida, as we’ve seen, is a very bad economy, and a very bad economy that became a bad economy why? Because of a huge spike in oil prices in the summer of 2008. So energy is absolutely key to keep all of our country healthy, specifically Florida, which is a destination place. This is a — this is a place that relies upon people being able to travel and afford to be able to travel to come down here, relies upon an economy being strong.

I was at a manufacturer in Sarasota County today and was talking about them as a manufacturer and that, you know, the — the importance of manufacturing jobs, yes, even here in the state of Florida, and the price of energy for them to be able to be competitive.

It is absolutely essential that we have as much domestic supply of oil, that we build the Keystone pipeline, that we create the jobs that — that that would create, and provide oil from domestic sources. Pipelines that run on the floor of the sea or pipelines that come through America are the safest way to transport oil. It is tankers that are causing — that cause much more problems. Pipelines are the safe way. Building those rigs, piping that oil into — into — into our shore is the best way to create a good economy for the state of Florida.

Moderator

All of you favor making English the official language of the United States, which could mean that ballots and other government documents would not be available in Spanish. But, Speaker Gingrich, you’re sending out press releases in Spanish; Governor Romney, you’re advertising in Spanish. Why is it OK for you to court voters in Spanish, but not OK for the government to serve them in Spanish?

Speaker Gingrich?

Newt Gingrich

Well, first of all, you immediately jump down to a very important language, but not the only language. The challenge of the United States is simple. There are 86 languages in Miami Dade College, 86. There are over 200 languages spoken in Chicago.

Now, how do you unify the country? What — what is the common bond that enables people to be both citizens and to rise commercially and have a better life and a greater opportunity?

I think campaigning, historically, you’ve always been willing to go to people on their terms in their culture, whether it’s Greek Independence Day or something you did for the Irish on St. Patrick’s Day. And I’m perfectly happy to be on Radio Mambi, and I’m perfectly happy to have a lot of support in the Hispanic community.

But as a country to unify ourselves in a future in which there may well be 300 or 400 languages spoken in the United States, I think it is essential to have a central language that we expect people to learn and to be able to communicate with each other in.

Moderator

So to be clear, you would only have ballots in English?

Newt Gingrich

I would have ballots in English. And I think you could have programs where virtually everybody would be able to read the ballots.

Moderator

Governor Romney, can you take that question?

Mitt Romney

I think Speaker Gingrich is right with regards to what he’s described. I’d note that in my state we had a tradition of teaching people in the language of their birth, and so we had in our school systems people being taught in a whole range of languages. And we had to have teachers that could teach in Cambodian, in Vietnamese, and other languages. And our kids were being taught in foreign languages in our own schools. And we found at the end of their education experience they couldn’t all speak English well. It made absolutely no sense.

And so we campaigned for English immersion in our schools and said kids coming in will have a transition period. Then we’re going to teach them in English.

Mitt Romney

Look, English is the language of this nation. People need to learn English to be able to be successful, to get great jobs. We don’t want to have people limited in their capacity to achieve the American dream because they don’t speak English. And so encouraging people through every means possible to learn the language of America is a good idea.

Recognize at the same time we want people coming here from other cultures that speak other languages. That strengthens America. It’s a great thing. But having them learn English is also a great thing for them and for their kids.

Moderator

Congressman Paul?

Ron Paul

Yes, my answer is similar, but a little bit different, because at the national level, obviously we have to have one language. I mean, we can’t have multiple languages. So, for legal reasons, we would have one language.

But our system really gives us a way to be more generous, because if Florida wanted to have some ballots in Spanish, I certainly wouldn’t support a federal law that would prohibit Florida from accommodating a city election or a local election or a state election. I think that’s the magnificence of our system, where you can solve some of these problems without dictating one answer for all states. But nationally, we should have one language.

Moderator

Speaker Gingrich, I want to move on to a slightly different topic, the Dream Act, which, as you know, would provide a pathway to citizenship for children who have been brought to the U.S. illegally if they attend college or enroll in the military.

Now, Governor Romney and Senator Santorum have both said they would veto this legislation. Would you do the same?

Newt Gingrich

No. I would work to get a signable version which would be the military component. I think any young person living in the United States who happened to have been brought here by their parents when they were young should have the same opportunity to join the American military and earn citizenship which they would have had from back home.

We have a clear provision that if you live in a foreign country, and you are prepared to join the American military, you can, in fact, earn the right to citizenship by serving the United States and taking real risk on behalf of the United States. That part of the Dream Act I would support. I would not support the part that simply says everybody who goes to college is automatically waived for having broken the law.

Moderator

The questioning continues.

Mitt Romney

I just doubt (ph) that’s the same position that I have, and that is that I would not sign the Dream Act as it currently exists, but I would sign the Dream Act if it were focused on military service.

Moderator

Thank you, Governor.

Questioning continues with Adam Smith.

Moderator

Let’s stay on immigration for a second.

Governor Romney, there is one thing I’m confused about. You say you don’t want to go and round up people and deport them, but you also say that they would have to go back to their home countries and then apply for citizenship. So, if you don’t deport them, how do you send them home?

Mitt Romney

Well, the answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here. And so we’re not going to round people up.

The way that we have in this society is to say, look, people who have come here legally would, under my plan, be given a transition period and the opportunity during that transition period to work here, but when that transition period was over, they would no longer have the documentation to allow them to work in this country. At that point, they can decide whether to remain or whether to return home and to apply for legal residency in the United States, get in line with everybody else. And I know people think but that’s not fair to those that have come here illegally.

Moderator

Isn’t that what we have now? If somebody doesn’t feel they have the opportunity in America, they can go back any time they want to.

Mitt Romney

Yes, we’d have a card that indicates who’s here illegally. And if people are not able to have a card, and have through an E-Verify system determine that they are here illegally, then they’re going to find they can’t get work here. And if people don’t get work here, they’re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work.

Ultimately, with this transition period in place, we would then allow people to get in line at home and to come back to this country after they have reached the front of the line. But I just don’t think it’s fair to the people who have loved ones waiting in line legally to come to America and say, guess what? We’re going to encourage a wave of illegal immigration by giving amnesty of some kind to those who have come here illegally.

Moderator

Senator Santorum, is self-deportation. Is that a valid concept?

Rick Santorum

Well, it’s happening now. I mean, people are going back now because they can’t find jobs because of the lack of employment opportunities.

The bottom line is, is that if you do enforce the law and say that people who are here illegally, who are doing illegal acts — and that is working, which you’re not allowed to do — and if you’re working, probably you’ve stolen someone’s Social Security number, which you are not allowed to do — and that’s another law that is broken — that we should enforce the law. It’s not someone who has come here illegally in the first place and they’ve only broken the law once. They continually break the law in this country, and I don’t think that’s not something that should be rewarded.

My father came to this country, my grandfather came to this country. He left my dad behind for five years. My dad was without a dad for almost the first five years of his life.

And there are millions of stories across America of people making sacrifices because America was worth it to do it the right way. You come to this country and the first thing you do is to respect our laws. If you want to be an American, you respect the laws of America, and you do so continually while you’re here.

We reward that kind of behavior. We don’t reward behavior where you don’t respect our laws in your initial act and then you continually break the laws in order to stay here.

Moderator

Speaker Gingrich, in Iowa you were a big supporter of ethanol subsidies. Here in Florida, sugar is a very important industry, and it’s subsidized, as well, with import restrictions, quotas. There’s a conservative movement to do away with these programs. In the case of sugar, critics say it — it adds billions of dollars to — to consumers’ grocery bills every year. What would you do about that?

Newt Gingrich

Well, I pretty enthusiastically early in my career kept trying to figure out how to get away from the sugar subsidy. And I found out one of — one of the fascinating things about America, which was that cane sugar hides behind beet sugar. And there are just too many beet sugar districts in the United States. It’s an amazing side story about how interest groups operate.

In an ideal world, you would have an open market. And that’s — I think that would be a better future and, frankly, one where cane sugar would still make a lot of money. But it’s very hard to imagine how you’re going to get there. I spent a lot of time trying to reform agriculture when I was speaker. And I would say it was one of the two or three hardest things to try to do because the — the capacity of the agricultural groups to defend themselves is pretty amazing.

Moderator

Governor Romney, you’re going some campaign support from sugar growers. It’s a very influential group in this state. What’s your view on the sugar subsidies?

Mitt Romney

Yeah, my view is, we ought to get rid of subsidies and let markets work properly. But let’s step back for a second, talk about what’s really going on in Florida right now. And you know, you both know what’s going on here.

I spent time this morning with — with eight different individuals, listening to them talk about their circumstances. There are a lot of people in Florida that are hurting. You got a lot of homes underwater. This president came into office saying he’d turn this economy around, and everything he has done has made it harder for the people of Florida.

We have 25 million Americans out of work. We have, in Florida, 9.9 percent unemployed. We have 18 percent of our people in this state that are underemployed. Home values, 40 percent are underwater.

This president has failed miserably the people of Florida. His plans for NASA, he has no plans for NASA. The space coast is — is struggling. This president has failed the people of Florida. We have to have a president who understands how to get an economy going again. He does not. He plays 90 rounds of golf when you have 25 million people out of work. He says gasoline prices doubled during his presidency. He says don’t build a Keystone pipeline.

We have $15 trillion of debt. We’re headed to a — to a Greece- type collapse, and he adds another trillion on top for Obamacare and for his stimulus plan that didn’t create private-sector jobs. This president has failed. And this economy needs a president who understands this economy.

Moderator

Congressman Paul, Florida’s Everglades provide one in three Floridians with their drinking water. It affects thousands of jobs. Right now, there’s a — there’s a joint federal-state program to save what’s left of the Everglades. Would you commit to continuing that federal financing of the Everglades preservation?

Ron Paul

Sure. I — I don’t see any reason to go after that. I would still look into the details on whether that could be a state issue or not.

But with all the wars going on, and the economy is in shambles, as it is, and the unemployment, to — to worry about dealing with that program, we could do it in a theoretical sense. But I would see no reason to, you know, complicate things. But I wouldn’t have any desire to interfere with that.

Moderator

At this point, we’ll take another break. We’ll return from Tampa with this line of questioning right after this.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Moderator

We are back from Tampa tonight. As the conversation continues, once again the questioning continues.

Adam Smith of “The Tampa Bay Times.”

Moderator

Thank you.

Senator Santorum, in 2005, Florida was in the middle of a huge national debate over Terri Schiavo, whether her feeding tube should be removed after the courts had ruled that she had been in a vegetative state for years. You were at the center, at the front of advocating congressional intervention to keep her alive. You even came down here, came to her bedside after a fund-raiser.

Why should the government have more say in medical decisions like that than a spouse?

Rick Santorum

Well, number one, I didn’t come to her bedside, but I did come down to Tampa. I was scheduled to come down anyway for that event, and it so happened that this situation was going on.

I did not call for congressional intervention. I called for a judicial hearing by an impartial judge at the federal level to review a case in which you had parents and a spouse on different sides of the issue.

And these were constituents of mine. The parents happen to live in Pennsylvania, and they came to me and made a very strong case that they would like to see some other pair of eyes, judicial eyes, look at it. And I agreed to advocate for those constituents because I believe that we should give respect and dignity for all human life, irrespective of their condition.

And if there was someone there that wanted to provide and take care of them, and they were willing to do so, I wanted to make sure that the judicial proceedings worked properly. And that’s what I did, and I would do it again.

Moderator

USE) SMITH: Do not resuscitate directives, do you think they’re immoral?

Rick Santorum

No, I don’t believe they’re immoral. I mean, I think that’s a decision that people should be able to make, and I have supported legislation in the past for them to make it.

Moderator

Speaker Gingrich, in that case the courts had ruled repeatedly. How does that square, the Terri Schiavo, action with your understanding of the Constitution and separation of powers?

Newt Gingrich

Well, look, I think that we go to extraordinary lengths, for example, for people who are on murderers row. They have extraordinary rights of appeal.

And you have here somebody who was in a coma, who had, on the one hand, her husband saying let her die and her parents saying let her live. Now, it strikes me that having a bias in favor of life, and at least going to a federal hearing, which would be automatic if it was a criminal on death row, that it’s not too much to say in some circumstances your rights as an American citizen ought to be respected. And there ought to be at least a judicial review of whether or not in that circumstance you should be allowed to die, which has nothing to do with whether or not you as a citizen have a right to have your own end-of-life prescription which is totally appropriate for you to do as a matter of your values in consultation with your doctor.

Moderator

Congressman Paul, you’re a doctor. What was your view of the Terri Schiavo case?

Ron Paul

I find it so unfortunate, so unusual, too. That situation doesn’t come up very often. It should teach us all a lesson to have living wills or a good conversation with a spouse. I would want my spouse to make the decision. And — but it’s better to have a living will.

But I don’t like going up the ladder. You know, we go to the federal courts, and the Congress, and on up. Yes, difficult decisions. Will it be perfect for everybody? No. But I would have preferred to see the decision made at the state level.

But I’ve been involved in medicine with things similar, but not quite as difficult as this. But usually, we deferred to the family. And it wasn’t made a big issue like this was. This was way out of proportion to what happens more routinely.

But I think it should urge us all to try to plan for this and make sure either that one individual that’s closest to you makes the decision or you sign a living will. And this would have solved the whole problem.

Moderator

Beth?

Moderator

Governor Romney, this is the state that put the first men on the moon. America right now has no way to put people into space except to hitch a ride with the Russians. Meanwhile, the Chinese are ramping up their space program. At a time when you all want to shrink federal spending, should space exploration be a priority?

Governor Romney?

Mitt Romney

It should certainly be a priority. What we have right now is a president who does not have a vision or a mission for NASA. And as a result of that, there are people on the space coast that are suffering. And Florida itself is — is suffering as a result.

So what’s the right way forward? Well, I happen to believe our space program is important not only for science, but also for commercial development and for military development. And I believe the right mission for — for NASA should be determined by a president together with a collection of people from those different areas, from NASA, from the Air Force space program, from our leading universities, and from commercial enterprises, bring them together, discuss a wide range of options for NASA, and then — and then have NASA not just funded by the federal government, but also by commercial enterprises. Have some of the research done in our universities.

Let’s have a collaborative effort with business, with — with government, with a military, as well as with our educational institutions. Have a mission, once again excite our young people about the potential of space and the commercial potential will pay for itself down the road.

This is a great opportunity. Florida has technology. The people here on the space coast have technology and vision and passion that America needs. And with a president that is actually willing to create a mission and a vision for — for NASA and for space, we can continue to lead the world.

Moderator

Speaker Gingrich, would you put more tax dollars into the space race and commit to putting an American on Mars, instead of relying on the private sector?

Newt Gingrich

Well, the two are not incompatible. For example, most of the great breakthroughs in aviation in the ’20s and ’30s were as a result of prizes. Lindbergh flew to Paris for a $25,000 prize. I would like to see vastly more of the money spent encouraging the private sector into very aggressive experimentation. And I’d like a leaner NASA.

I don’t think building a bigger bureaucracy and having a greater number of people sit in rooms and talk gets you there. But if we had a series of goals that we were prepared to offer prizes for, there’s every reason to believe you have a lot of folks in this country and around the world who would put up an amazing amount of money and would make the space coast literally hum with activity because they’d be drawn to achieve these prizes.

Going back to the moon permanently, getting to Mars as rapidly as possible, building a series of space stations and developing commercial space, there are a whole series of things you can do that could be dynamic that are more than just better government bureaucracy. They’re fundamentally leapfrogging into a world where you’re incentivizing people who are visionaries and people in the private sector to invest very large amounts of money in finding very romantic and exciting futures.

Moderator

Speaker Gingrich, I have another question for you on another topic. You’ve talked about the millions of jobs created by the Reagan tax cuts. If tax cuts create jobs, why didn’t the Bush tax cuts work?

Newt Gingrich

Well, the Bush tax cuts, I think in a period of great difficulty, with the attack of 9/11, actually stopped us from going into a much deeper slump. I think we would have been in much, much worse shape, and I think most economists agree, that in 2002 and ’03 and ’04 we’d have been in much worse shape without the Bush tax cuts.

But — but you have to also look at the regulatory burden. The reason I called for repealing Dodd-Frank and for repealing Obamacare and for repealing Sarbanes-Oxley is you now have these huge layers of paperwork and government intervention and bureaucratic micromanagement that are crippling the American system and are making it much harder for us to create the kind of jobs we’d want.

In North Dakota today, we have a boom in oil development, unemployment is down to 3.2 percent. They have had seven straight tax cuts at the state level because the oil was on private land.

If that oil had been on public land, the environmentalists and Barack Obama would have stopped its development, and North Dakota would be mired in 8 percent or 9 percent unemployment. So, get the regulations out of the way, get the tax incentives right, and you can get back to creating an amazing number of jobs very fast.

Moderator

To my fellow questioners, our panelists tonight, my thanks.

So ends this section of our conversation. The final bit of our debate from Tampa tonight coming up after this last break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Moderator

Welcome back to Tampa for this final section of our conversation tonight. We’re back down to the five of us here on stage. I thought we’d talk a little bit more big picture.

This has been called, in addition to this unprecedented primary contest the GOP is in the midst of, a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. Governor Romney, the question is, about that soul, what have you done to further the cause of conservativism as a Republican leader?

Mitt Romney

Well, number one, I’ve raised a family. And I’ve — I’ve — with my wife, we’ve raised five wonderful sons, and we have 16 wonderful grandkids.

Number two, I’ve worked in the private sector. The idea that somehow everything important for conservativism or for America happens in government is simply wrong. I’ve been in the private sector. I worked in one business that was in trouble and helped turn it around. Another I started. And as part of that, we were able to create thousands and thousands of jobs.

And then I took an opportunity to become governor of a state that was slightly Democrat. About 85 percent of my legislature was Democrat. And I worked very hard to promote a conservative agenda. We cut taxes 19 times. We balanced the budget every year, put in place a rainy day fund of over $2 billion by the time I left. We were also successful in having English immersion in our schools, driving our schools to be number one in the nation.

That kind of conservative model in a state like Massachusetts was a model in many respects that other states could look at and say, “OK, conservative principles work.” We were able to reach across the aisle to fight for conservative principles, and now I’m taking that to a presidential campaign, wrote a book about those principles that lay out why I believe they’re right for America.

Moderator

Mr. Speaker, you’ve been talking a lot about conservative principles in this campaign so far. Is that enough for you? Is that good enough?

Newt Gingrich

Look, I don’t want to spend my time commenting on Mitt. I’d like to just tell you that I started — I went to a Goldwater organizing session in 1964. I met with Ronald Reagan for the first time in 1974. I worked with Jack Kemp and Art Laffer and others to develop supply-side economics in the late ’70s. I helped Governor Reagan become President Reagan. I helped pass the Reagan economic program when I worked with the National Security Council on issues involving the collapse of the Soviet empire.

I then came back, organized a group called GOPAC, spent 16 years building a majority in the House for the first time since 1954, the first re-elected majority since 1928, developed the Conservative Opportunity Society, talked about big ideas, big solutions.

So I think it’s fair to say I’ve spent most of my lifetime trying to develop a conservative movement across this country that relates directly to what we have to do. And I think only a genuine conservative who’s in a position to debate Obama and to show how wide the gap is between Obama’s policies and conservativism can, in fact, win, because he’s going to spend a billion dollars trying to smear whoever the nominee is. And we’d better be prepared to beat him in the debate and prove exactly how wrong his values are and how wrong his practices are.

Moderator

Which, Senator Santorum, gets us back to electability, the gap between the Republican Party and the president. Some of the newspaper headlines about this gathering we were going to have tonight, in Florida, Romney seeks to link Gingrich to foreclosure crisis. And here’s a second one: The verdict is in, Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital problem is real.

What’s the net effect of all this, of the tax release tomorrow, of Freddie — the Freddie Mac release tonight on your party, say your candidacy, as you try to go forward?

Rick Santorum

Well, I would say that there are more fundamental issues than that, where there’s a gap and a problem with two of the gentlemen who are up here with me. And one is on the biggest issue that they — we have to deal with in this election, that’s — that’s crushing the economy, will crush it even further and crush freedom, and that’s Obamacare.

Governor Romney’s plan in Massachusetts was the basis for Obamacare. Speaker Gingrich for 20 years supported a federal individual mandate, something that Pam Bondi is now going to the Supreme Court saying is unconstitutional. Speaker Gingrich, for 20 years, up until last year supported an individual mandate, which is at the core of Obamacare.

If you look at cap-and-trade, Governor Romney was very proud to say that he was the first state in the country as governor to sign a cap on CO-2 emissions, the first state in the country to put a cap believing in — in global warming and criticized Republicans for not believing in it, as did, by the way, Speaker Gingrich, who was for a cap-and-trade program with incentives, business incentives, but was for the rubric of cap-and-trade, not specifically the cap-and-trade bill that was out there.

Again, huge, huge differences between my position and where President Obama is, but not so on two major issues. You go down and you look at the Wall Street bailouts, I said before, here’s one where you had folks who preach conservativism, private sector, and when push came to shove, they got pushed. They didn’t stand tall for the conservative principles that they argued that they were for. And as a result, we ended up with this bailout that has injected government into business like it had never been done before.

Rick Santorum

They rejected conservativism when it was hard to stand. It’s going to be hard to stand whoever this president is going to be elected. It’s going to be tough. There is going to be a mountain of problems. It’s going to be easy to be able to bail out and compromise your principles.

We have gentlemen here on the three issues that got the Tea Party started, that are the base of the conservative movement now in the Republican Party. And there is no difference between President Obama and these two gentlemen. And that’s why this election in Florida is so critical, that we have someone that actually can create a contrast between the president and the conservative point of view.

Moderator

Congressmen Paul, are the two men in the middle insufficiently conservative for you?

Ron Paul

Well, I think the problem is, is nobody has defined what being conservative means.

Moderator

Go ahead.

Ron Paul

And I think that is our problem.

Conservative means we have a smaller government and more liberty. And yet, if you ask, what have we done? I think we have lost our way.

Our rhetoric is still pretty good, but when we get in charge, we expand the government. You talk about Dodd-Frank, but we gave Sarbanes-Oxley. We gave debts as well, you know, when we’re in charge.

So, if it means limited government, you have to ask the basic question, what should the role of government be? The founders asked that question, had a revolution and wrote a Constitution. And they said the role of government ought to be to protect liberty.

It’s not to run a welfare state and not to be the policemen of the world. And so if you’re a conservative, how can you be conservative and cut food stamps, but you won’t cut spending overseas? There is not a nickel or a penny that anybody will cut on the conservative side, overseas spending. And we don’t have the money.

They are willing to start more wars. So, I say, if you’re conservative, you want small government across the board, especially in personal liberty. What’s wrong with having the government out of our personal lives? So, this is what — we have to decide what conservative means, what limited government means.

And I have a simple suggestion. We have a pretty good guide, and if we follow the Constitution, government would be very small and we would all be devoted conservatives.

Moderator

Governor Romney, again tonight, so called Romneycare and so-called Obamacare have been positioned very closely side by side by your opponent, the senator. And again, you have been called insufficiently conservative.

Mitt Romney

You know, I have a record. You can look at my record. I just described what I had accomplished in Massachusetts. It’s a conservative record.

Also, the fun of running against Ted Kennedy. What a great thrill that was. I didn’t beat him, but he had to take a mortgage out on his house to make sure that he could defeat me. I believe that the policies he put in place had hurt America and helped create a permanent underclass in this country.

My health care plan, by the way, is one that under our Constitution we’re allowed to have. The people in our state chose a plan which I think is working for our state.

At the time we crafted it, I was asked time and again, “Is this something that you would have the federal government do?” I said absolutely not.

I do not support a federal mandate. I do not support a federal one-size-fits-all plan. I believe in the Constitution. That’s why the attorney general here is saying absolutely not.

You can’t impose Obamacare on the states. What I will do if I’m president, I will repeal Obamacare and return to the states the authority and the rights the states have to craft their own programs to care for their own poor.

Moderator

Speaker Gingrich, I know none of you believe in polls, but as we came in here tonight, of the numbers in the known world, your numbers were on the rise. What scares you about the presidency if you made it to the job you want?

Newt Gingrich

I actually agree with what Rick Santorum said. I believe that whoever the next president is, if we’re going to get America back on the right track, is going to face enormous, difficult problems, some of which have been accurately diagnosed by Dr. Paul.

And the fact is that we have tremendous institutional biases against doing the right thing and against getting things done. And we have huge interest groups who would rather preside over the wreckage than lose their favored position by helping the country.

So I always tell audiences I never ask anyone to be for me. Because if they are for me, they vote yes and go home and say, I sure hope Newt does it. I ask people to be with me, because I think this will be a very hard, very difficult journey. And I find it a very humbling and a very sobering thought that one would have to try to get America back on the right track despite all of our elites and all of our entrenched bureaucracies.

Moderator

Governor Romney, you talk about restoring America’s greatness. Given that, in your view when was America last great?

Mitt Romney

America still is great, but we have a lot of people suffering. We have people that are underemployed that shouldn’t be, unemployed that shouldn’t be. Home values continue to go down. We have the median income in this country has declined 10 percent in the last four years.

We’re still a great nation, but a great nation doesn’t have so many people suffering. And I’m running in part because I have experience in how the economy works. And I want to use that experience to get people working again, to get our economy working again.

And the idea to get our economy working is not to have the government play a more intrusive role in how our economy works, but instead to do the seven things that always get an economy going: get taxes competitive, regulation as modest as possible and modernized, get ourselves energy independent, open up trade with other nations and crack down on cheaters, make sure we don’t have crony capitalism — that’s what we have going on right now — build human capital through education, and also finally balance the budget.

People will not invest in an economy and create new jobs if they think we’re going to hit a Greece-like wall. I will do those seven things and get America working again.

Moderator

I want to thank all of our candidates and our hosts, of course, here at the University of South Florida. We are obligated at this point to say, “Go Bulls.”

(APPLAUSE)

For our hosts here, for our viewers here on your NBC station, our coverage will continue. I’ll be back with you shortly. But for now, let’s go over to David Gregory to take a look at part of what transpired here on stage tonight with our thanks to you all. Thank you very much.

Campaign Buzz January 8, 2012: NBC News Meet the Press / Facebook New Hampshire Republican Presidential Debate — 16th GOP Debate — Candidates’ Attacks Target Romney

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

Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry listen to a question from NBC Meet the Press moderator David Gregory. (Charles Krupa – AP)

IN FOCUS: NBC NEWS MEET THE PRESS / FACEBOOK NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Fact Checking the Concord Debate: Reporters take a closer look at some of the candidates’ responses to debate questions…. – NYT, 1-8-12

Romney Is the Main Target in a Caustic G.O.P. Debate: One by one, his Republican rivals lined up against Mitt Romney, the established front-runner, engaging him in some of the most pointed exchanges of the campaign so far during Sunday’s debate…. – NYT, 1-8-12

NH LIVE: “Pious Baloney” Time At GOP Debate: Republican rivals shed their inhibitions toward frontrunner Mitt Romney Sunday, accusing him of “pious baloney” in hyping … – New York Daily News, 1-8-12

“We want someone when the time gets tough — and it will in this election — who will stand up for conservative principles.” — Rick Santorum

“How can you believe in America when you’re not willing to serve America? That’s just phony.” — Jon Huntsman

“I’m very proud of the conservative record I have.” — Mitt Romney

“We want everyday, normal people to run for office. Not just millionaires.” — Newt Gingrich

  • With 2 days to go before NH primary, GOP rivals go after Romney: Mitt Romney’s Republican presidential rivals piled on the criticism Sunday, two days before New Hampshire’s primary, with a combative Newt Gingrich leading the aggression by accusing the GOP front-runner of “pious baloney” and charging him with hiding behind inaccurate attack ads aired by allies.
    In the increasingly acerbic nomination fight, Romney fired back at Gingrich during a morning debate: “This ain’t beanbag … we’re going to describe the differences between us.” By evening, he also had taken shots from Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry…. – AP, 1-8-12
  • Romney sails through soft Republican debate: Republican Mitt Romney fended off a few attacks on his business record on Saturday and sailed through a high-stakes debate that his rivals used to jockey for position as his conservative alternative in the race for … – Reuters, 1-8-12
  • No Sunday day of rest: Gingrich goes after Romney, gets tough response in New … : A combative Newt Gingrich accused Mitt Romney of “pious baloney” Sunday and charged him with hiding behind inaccurate attack ads aired by allies in the increasingly rancorous race for the Republican presidential nomination. … – WaPo, 1-18-12
  • Romney Targeted by Rivals In Round Two NH Debates: In a debate that started off with few differences from the night before, Mitt Romney’s rivals pounded him once more on Sunday, looking for a chance to bruise the front-runner for the Republican presidential nominee. … – Fox News, 1-8-12
  • Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum don’t pass on second-chance shot at Mitt Romney: Maybe they were testy from a lack of sleep. Maybe they felt urgency from the dwindling number of days until the New Hampshire primary. Or maybe they were simply sick and tired of 2012 Republican presidential … – Boston.com, 1-8-12
  • A new New Hampshire Republican debate: If it’s Sunday, it must be ‘baloney’!: The second Republican debate within 12 hours was held Sunday morning during an expanded version of Meet The Press. Having laid back last night and given Mitt Romney an opportunity to speak at greater length than he has during any previous … – Entertainment Weekly, 1-8-12
  • Romney, Santorum challenged on gay rights: In a Sunday morning debate, Republican presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the top finishers in the Iowa caucuses last week, were questioned about gay rights – for very different reasons. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, … – CBS News, 1-8-12
  • Slipping Romney barraged with questions of electability: Support for former Massachusetts governor and front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination has slipped 8 percentage points in the past five days in New Hampshire, whose first-in-the-nation primary is only two days away. … – Globe & Mail, 1-8-12
  • Republican Debate Sunday Serves Up More Fireworks But No Game-Changers: The Republican presidential candidates came alive Sunday morning during their second debate in 12 hours, trading verbal blows and taking on frontrunner Mitt Romney in a way that had been expected the previous evening…. – Huff Post, 1-8-12
  • GOP presidential candidates offer views on entitlement cuts: The Republicans met for a nationally televised debate Sunday. Debate moderator David Gregory of NBC News asked candidates to name three areas they would cut that would cause pain for Americans…. – WaPo, 1-8-12

Full Text Campaign Buzz January 8, 2012: NBC News Meet the Press / Facebook New Hampshire Republican Presidential Debate — 16th GOP Debate –Candidates’ Attacks Target Romney

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

New Hampshire debate: Meet the Press / Facebook debate transcript

Source: WaPo, 1-8-12

Full transcript of the New Hampshire Republican presidential debate sponsored by Meet the Press and Facebook, Jan. 8, 2011:

Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry listen to a question from NBC Meet the Press moderator David Gregory. (Charles Krupa – AP)

GREGORY: This Sunday, a special edition of “Meet the Press,” live from New Hampshire, the last debate before the first-in-the- nation Republican presidential primary. Voting here is just 48 hours away. We come to the Granite State, where nearly 1 in 5 voters remains undecided, despite seeing these candidates face-to-face in town halls, coffee shops, and even in their living rooms, a small state that will have a big impact on the race. Their motto: Live free or die.

The issues: jobs and the economy, America’s role in the world, and which of these candidates is best suited to take on President Obama. This morning, a debate, in partnership with Facebook, the world’s number-one social platform, and the New Hampshire Union Leader.

The candidates, the issues, and your questions.

ANNOUNCER: This is the NBC News-Facebook Republican candidates debate. From the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, New Hampshire, here now, the moderator of “Meet the Press,” David Gregory.

(APPLAUSE)

GREGORY: And good morning and welcome to this special edition of “Meet the Press,” the final debate before New Hampshire voting begins. All six candidates are here. And before we begin, you know the drill. We quickly go through the rules.

Each candidate will have one minute, 60 seconds, to make their statement, to respond to questions, and at my discretion, 30 seconds for follow-ups or rebuttals. We’re on a pretty tight schedule, so I will ask the candidates to stay within their allotted time, and we’ll see how that goes.

We’ve partnered with Facebook, so some of the questions will come from me and some, of course, will come from you. We encourage you to weigh in on the debate in real time, our online app at mtp.msnbc.com. You can monitor the conversation there, and we’ll see some of your feedback during that debate — over the course of this debate.

Candidates, good morning. I just want to say, on behalf of all Americans, that I thank you for being willing to debate each other every 10 hours, whether you feel you need it or not.

(LAUGHTER)

This is an important moment. Elections are about choices. They’re about distinguishing one from the other. There’s a political element to that, and of course, it has to do with policy, as well.

Governor Romney has won the Iowa caucuses, although narrowly. He’s up in the polls here in New Hampshire. He’s also up in the polls down in South Carolina. Speaker Gingrich, why shouldn’t Governor Romney be the nominee of this party? What about his record concerns you most or makes him disqualified to be the nominee?

GINGRICH: Well, look, I think what Republicans have to ask is, who’s most likely in the long run to survive against the kind of billion-dollar campaign the Obama team is going to run? And I think that a bold Reagan conservative, with a very strong economic plan, is a lot more likely to succeed in that campaign than a relatively timid, Massachusetts moderate who even the Wall Street Journal said had an economic plan so timid it resembled Obama.

So I think you’ve got to look at — you know, Massachusetts was fourth from the bottom in job creation under Governor Romney. We created 11 million jobs while I was speaker, and I worked with Governor — with President Reagan in the entire recovery of the 1980s. So I just there’s a huge difference between a Reagan conservative and somebody who comes out of the Massachusetts culture with an essentially moderate record who I think will have a very hard time in a debate with President Obama. It’s that simple.

GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, bottom line, you believe that Governor Romney is unelectable?

GINGRICH: No, I don’t believe he’s unelectable, but I think he has a — look, against Obama’s record, I think, you know, the fact is, President Obama is going to have a very hard re-election effort. But I do think the bigger the contrast, the bolder ideas, the clearer the choice, the harder it is for that billion-dollar campaign to smear his way back into office.

GREGORY: Speaker, this is your flyer that you’re circulating here in New Hampshire. It says very clearly, “Romney is not electable”?

GINGRICH: I think he will have a very hard time getting re- elected — getting elected.

GREGORY: Governor?

ROMNEY: David, I’m very proud of the record that I have, and I think the one thing you can’t fool the people about New Hampshire about is the record of a governor next door. And people have watched me over my term as governor and saw that I was a solid conservative and that I brought important change to Massachusetts.

They recognized that I cut taxes 19 times, balanced the budget every one of the four years I was governor, put in place a $2 billion rainy day fund by the time I’d gone. We had — we’d seen job losses in the months leading up to my becoming the governor, and then we began to finally create jobs.

By the way, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than Barack Obama’s created in the entire country.

ROMNEY: We also got our state police to enforce illegal immigration laws, put in place English immersion in our schools. I’m very proud of the conservative record I have, and I think that’s why some of the leading conservatives in today’s world, who are fighting the conservative battles of today, that don’t have any axe to grind, have gotten behind my campaign.

Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, right here, the great senator of New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte. These are conservatives who looked at my record, looked at my plan to get this economy going.

I happen to believe that if we want to replace a lifetime politician like Barack Obama, who had no experience leading anything, you have to choose someone who’s not been a lifelong politician, who has not spent his entire career in Washington, and instead has proven time and again he can lead, in the private sector twice, in the Olympics, and as a governor. We’ve got to nominate a leader if we’re going to replace someone who is not a leader.

GREGORY: Well, Senator Santorum, had you not lost re-election in 2006, you would have been in Washington even longer than you were. It would have been 21 years. So you’ve got a long Washington record. How do you address this question? Why shouldn’t Governor Romney be the nominee? What is disqualifying, in your judgment?

SANTORUM: Well, if his record was so great as governor of Massachusetts, why didn’t he run for re-election? I mean, if you didn’t want to even stand before the people of Massachusetts and run on your record, if it was that great, why didn’t — why did you bail out?

I mean, the bottom — the bottom line is, you know, I go and fight the fight. If it was that important to the people of Massachusetts that you were going to go and fight for them, at least you can stand up and — and make the battle that you did a good job.

I did that. I ran for re-election a couple of times, and I won a couple of times, and — and in a 71 percent Democratic district, when I ran for re-election, I was redistricted. And I was in a 71 percent Democratic district, had a 90 percent conservative voting record. It was a hard thing to do. My district was more Democrat than the state of Massachusetts that I ran in. It was the steel valley of Pittsburgh.

And I stood up and fought for the conservative principles. I didn’t do what Governor Romney did in 1994. I was running the same year he ran, in 1994. I ran in a tough state of Pennsylvania against an incumbent. Governor Romney lost by almost 20 points. Why? Because at the end of that campaign, he wouldn’t stand for conservative principles. He ran from Ronald Reagan. And he said he was going to be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights, on abortion, a whole host of other issues.

We want someone, when the time gets tough — and it will in this election — we want someone who’s going to stand up and fight for the conservative principles, not bail out and not run, and not run to the left of Ted Kennedy.

GREGORY: Well, you did say when you endorsed him four years ago, just those words, that he would stand up for conservative principles, Senator.

SANTORUM: Vis-a-vis John McCain.

GREGORY: Vis-a-vis John McCain. Governor, your response?

ROMNEY: Well, a lot of things were inaccurate in that, and I’m not going to go through them one by one. But I can tell you this: I think it’s unusual and perhaps understandable that people who spend their life in politics imagine that if you get in politics, that that’s all you want to do, that if you’ve been elected to something, well, you get — want to get re-elected and re-elected.

I went to Massachusetts to make a difference. I didn’t go there to begin a political career, running time and time again. I — I made a difference. I put in place the things I wanted to do. I listed out the accomplishments we wanted to pursue in our administration. There were 100 things we wanted to do. Those things I pursued aggressively. Some we won; some we didn’t.

Run again? That would be about me. I was trying to help get the state into the best shape as I possibly could, left the world of politics, went back into business. Now I have the opportunity, I believe, to use the experience I have — you’ve got a surprised look on your face.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: It’s still — it’s still my time.

SANTORUM: Are you going — are you going to tell people you’re not going to run for re-election for president if you win?

ROMNEY: Rick, Rick, it’s still my time.

SANTORUM: I’m just asking.

ROMNEY: OK.

GREGORY: Go ahead. Governor Romney — Governor Romney, take 30 seconds there. ROMNEY: Yeah. What I’m going to tell you is, this — this for me, politics is not a career. For me, my career was being in business and starting a business and making it successful. My — my life’s passion has been my family, my faith, and my country.

I believe, by virtue of the experiences I’ve had, that I’m in a good position to make a contribution to Washington. I long for a day when instead of having people who go to Washington for 20 and 30 years, who get elected, and then when they lose office, they stay there and make money as lobbyists or connecting to businesses, I think it stinks.

I think when people go to Washington and serve Washington and — and serve as — as their — the people of their — of their nation and go home. I’d love to see term limits in Washington.

SANTORUM: So one — so one term?

ROMNEY: And so — no, as the president of the United States, as the president of the United States, if I’m elected, of course I’ll fight for a second term. There’s a lot of work to be done.

GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, take 30 seconds here to get in.

GINGRICH: Well, yeah. Mitt, I realize the red light doesn’t mean anything to you, because you’re the frontrunner.

(APPLAUSE)

But — but can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney? The fact is, you ran in ‘94 and lost. That’s why you weren’t serving in the Senate with Rick Santorum. The fact is, you had a very bad re- election rating, you dropped out of office, you had been out of state for something like 200 days preparing to run for president. You didn’t have this interlude of citizenship while you thought about what you do. You were running for president while you were governor. You were going all over the country. You were — you were out of state consistently.

You then promptly re-entered politics. You happened to lose to McCain as you had lost to Kennedy.

Now you’re back running. You have been running consistently for years and years and years. So this idea that suddenly citizenship showed up in your mind, just level with the American people. You’ve been running for — at least since the 1990’s.

(APPLAUSE)

GREGORY: Governor, please.

ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, citizenship has always been on my mind and — and I happened to see my dad run for governor when he was 54-years- old. He had good advice to me. He said, Mitt, never get involved in politics if you have to win an election to pay a mortgage. If you find yourself in a position where you can serve, well you ought to have a responsibility to do so, if you think you can make a difference.

He said also don’t get involved in politics if your kids are still young because it may turn their heads. I never thought I’d get involved with politics. When I saw Ted Kennedy running virtually unopposed in 1994, a man who I thought by virtue of the policies of the liberal welfare state, had created a permanent underclass in America, I said someone’s got to run against him. And I happened to have been wise enough to realize, I didn’t have a ghost of a chance at — at beating him.

This — this guy from — Republican from Massachusetts was not going to beat Ted Kennedy. And I told my partners at my firm, I’ll be back in six months, don’t take my chair. And I — I went in and gave it a real battle and went after it. It was — I was happy that he had to take a mortgage out on his house to ultimately defeat me. And I’m — I’m very proud of the fact that I have stood up as a citizen to battle when I felt it was best for the nation. And — and we’re talking about running for president.

I am in this race because I care about the country. I believe my background and experience are …

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Let me bring Dr. Paul into this, because there is a question about who is the true conservative in the race. And Governor Romney said only nine years ago during an interview with New England Cable News, he said the following, “I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan republican, that I’m someone who is moderate and my views are progressive.” Do you believe Governor Romney now when he says he is a man of constancy and that he’ll stand up for conservative principles?

PAUL: You know, I think this whole discussion so far has been very superficial. And I think the question in the way that you ask it is superficial and you’re talking about character, which is very important. But I feel we should deal with the issues as well. And I don’t see how we can do well against Obama if we have any candidate that, you know, endorsed, you know, single payer systems and TARP bailouts and don’t challenge the Federal Reserve’s $15 trillion of injection bailing out their friends.

I don’t see how we can have anybody really compete with Obama who doesn’t challenge this huge empire we have overseas and the overseas spending. I mean this is how nations come down. You see they extend themselves too far overseas. That’s how the Soviets came down. We — we really have to talk about real cuts. We haven’t gotten around to this yet.

So if we want to change things, this is what we have to talk about. Character is important and motivation is important, our history is important. But I really consider that, in the debate format, to be less significant than what we really believe in.

GREGORY: You read my mind, Dr. Paul. And we’re going to get to…

(APPLAUSE)

GREGORY: …some of the touch choices, not just on politics, but on policy. First Governor Perry, I do want to ask you to flat out — your staking your campaign going down to South Carolina, is Governor Romney unelectable in your judgment?

PERRY: Well I think you have to ask the question of, who is it that can beat Obama. Who is it that can invigorate the — the Tea Party? Who is it that can take the message of — of smaller, outsider government that’s truly going to change that places (sic). I look from here down to Rick Santorum I see insiders. Individuals who have been the big spending Republicans in — in Washington, D.C.

And lets be honest with ourselves, I mean the fact of the matter is that Obama has thrown gasoline on the fire. But the bonfire was burning well before Obama got there. It was policies and spending, both from Wall Street and from the insiders in Washington, D.C., that got us in this problem. And we need a candidate that can not only draw that stark contrast between themselves and Barack Obama, but also stand up and lead the Tea Party movement back.

2010 was about the Tea Party standing up and understanding that Republicans, big spending Republicans that caused the — as much of this problem as anything, and it was their power that brought together — that brought Washington, D.C., and the House to Republican control. And that’s the kind of individual we’ve got to have to — to lead this election.

GREGORY: Before I get to Governor Huntsman, I’d be remiss, Governor Romney if I did not allow you to respond to the quote that I read from you nine years ago. What would you say to conservatives so that they’ll trust that you will stand up for conservative principles?

ROMNEY: They’ve got my record as governor. That — that’s the great thing of people here in New Hampshire is they see what I did as governor of Massachusetts. I also had the occasion after my last failed attempt to run for president, a learning experience, to sit down and write a book. And I wrote a book and described my view for the country. And people can describe it in differing ways but I — but my view is that — that the principles that I’ve learned in business and the principles as governor, frankly, it made me more conservative as time has gone on.

I’ve seen a lot of government trying to solve problems, and it didn’t work. And — and my view is, the right course for America is to have somebody who understands how the economy works, who will passionately get America back on track.

GREGORY: All right. We’re going to come back to the question of obstacles to the nomination, but let me get to policy, Governor Huntsman. This is, by all accounts, an age of austerity for this country, a jobs crisis, also a spending crisis in Washington. I wonder what specifically you would do to say to Americans, “These are cuts I’m going to make in federal spending that will cause pain, that will require sacrifice”?

HUNTSMAN: Let me say — let me say, first are all, with respect to Governor Romney, you know, there are a lot of people who are tuning in this morning, and I’m sure they’re terribly confused after watching all of this political spin up here.

I was criticized last night by Governor Romney for putting my country first. And I just want to remind the people here in New Hampshire and throughout the United States that I think…

(APPLAUSE)

He criticized me while he was out raising money for serving my country in China, yes, under a Democrat, like my two sons are doing in the United States Navy. They’re not asking who — what political affiliation the president is.

I want to be very clear with the people here in New Hampshire and this country: I will always put my country first. And I think that’s important to them.

GREGORY: All right. Well, why don’t you get a response, Governor Romney? And then I’ll come back to you on the austerity question. ROMNEY: I think we serve our country first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles and doing everything in our power to promote an agenda that does not include President Obama’s agenda. I think the decision to go and work for President Obama is one which you took. I don’t disrespect your decision to do that. I just think it’s most likely that the person who should represent our party running against President Obama is not someone who called him a remarkable leader and went to be his ambassador in China.

HUNTSMAN: This nation is divided, David, because of attitudes like that.

(APPLAUSE)

The American people are tired of the partisan division. They have had enough. There is no trust left among the American people and the institutions of power and among the American people and our elected officials. And I say, we’ve had enough, and we have to change our direction in terms of coming together as Americans first and foremost and finding solutions to our problems.

GREGORY: Dr. Paul said let’s not be superficial. Let’s talk substance. So, Governor Huntsman, name three areas where Americans will feel real pain in order to balance the budget.

HUNTSMAN: Well, I would have to say that I agree with the Ryan plan. I think I’m the only one standing up here who has embraced the Ryan plan. It’s a very aggressive approach to taking about $6.2 trillion out of the budget over 10 years. And it looks at everything.

And what I like about it is it says there will be no sacred cows. Medicare won’t be a sacred cow. Department of Defense won’t be a sacred cow. As president of the United States, I’m going to stand up and I’m going to say, we are where we are, 24 percent spending as a percentage of GDP. We’ve got to move to 19 percent…

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Three programs that will make Americans feel pain, sir.

HUNTSMAN: Well, let me just say on — on entitlements, across the board, I will tell the upper-income category in this country that there will be means testing. There are a lot of people in this nation who don’t need…

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Social Security and Medicare?

HUNTSMAN: Absolutely. Absolutely. And also, I’m not going to tie Department of Defense spending to some percentage of GDP. I’m going to tie it to a strategy that protects the American people. And if we think that we can’t find efficiencies and cuts in the Department of Defense budget, then we are crazy.

GREGORY: Senator Santorum, same question. Three programs that would make — would have to be cut to make Americans feel pain, to sacrifice if we’re going to balance the budget?

SANTORUM: I would agree with Governor Huntsman that means testing — I talked about that in Hollis yesterday. We had about 1,200 people, and I walked through and talked about how we have to make sure that we’re not going to burden future generations with a Social Security program that’s underfunded. It’s already unfunded right now.

And we have to take those who have — who have been successful, who are seniors, who have a tremendous amount of wealth, and we’ve got to reduce benefits. It makes no sense for folks who are struggling right now to pay their payroll tax, which is the biggest tax. It’s tax on labor, makes us uncompetitive. And the idea that someone on the left would have to raise those taxes, to make labor even more uncompetitive for those working people who are trying to get a job to subsidize high-income seniors doesn’t make any sense to me.

Food stamps is another place. We’ve got to block grant it, send it back to the states, just like I did on welfare reform, do the same thing with Medicaid. Those three programs. We’ve got to — and including housing programs, block grant them, send them back to the states, require work, and put a time limit. You do those three things, we will help take these programs, which are now dependency programs, which people are continually dependent upon, and you take them into transitional programs to help people move out of poverty.

GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, on the issue of Medicare, when you were on “Meet the Press” earlier in the year, you had talked about what Paul Ryan was talking about as a step too far, which is moving seniors onto a premium support or a voucher program, depending on how you phrase it.

As you know, Senator Santorum thinks that current seniors should be moved off of that program into premium support or a voucher program.

Do you agree with doing it that quickly and making current seniors bear the brunt of that?

GINGRICH: Well, the fact is that the Ryan-Wyden bill, which was just introduced recently, actually incorporates allowing people to choose and allows them to stay in traditional Medicare with the premium support model or go to new methods. And I think it’s a substantial improvement, because it allows for a transition in Medicare in a way that makes sense.

But, David, you know, I — I find it fascinating that very, very highly paid Washington commentators and Washington analysts love the idea of pain.

What — who’s going to be in pain?

The duty of the president is to find a way to manage the federal government so the primary pain is on changing the bureaucracy. On — on theft alone, we could save $100 billion a year in Medicaid and Medicare if the federal government were competent. That’s a trillion dollars over 10 years. And the only people in pain would be crooks.

So I think a sound approach is…

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: — to actually improve the government, not punish the American people because of the failure of the political class to have any sense of cleverness.

GREGORY: Governor Perry, from Facebook, a lot of question, as we mentioned, have been submitted. And this from Martin Montalvo, because we do have a spending crisis, but also, a lot of people hurting. He writes this: “With more Americans on government assistance than ever before, is it un-American for Americans to feel relieved when the government helps them?” PERRY: Well, let me answer the question that you asked earlier, what are the three areas that you would make some reductions that people would feel some pain. And I will tell you, it would be those bureaucrats at the Department of Commerce and — and Energy and Education that we’re going to do away with.

(APPLAUSE)

GREGORY: And that’s your final answer?

(LAUGHTER)

PERRY: You know, the fact of the matter is that Americans want to have a job. That’s — that’s the issue here. And the idea that — that there are people clamoring for government to come and to give them assistance is just wrong-headed. And — and that’s what he needs to be focusing on as a people, is how do we create the environment in this country where the entrepreneurs know that they can risk their capital, have a chance to have a return on the investment and create the — the jobs out there so people can have the dignity to take care of their families.

That’s what Americans are looking for.

I’ve done that for the last 11 years in the state of Texas and have the executive governing experience that no one else up here on this stage has.

GREGORY: All right, I’m going to leave it there.

We’re going to take a quick break.

We are going to come back live from New Hampshire with many more questions for the candidates and feedback from you. So please participate online at mtp.msnbc.com.

We’re coming right back to New Hampshire.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: And we are — we are back on this special edition of MEET THE PRESS from here in New Hampshire.

We want to get right back to the questions here with our candidates.

And before the break, we were talking about Medicare. Paul Ryan, Senator Santorum, had a plan where he’d like to move seniors off, give them a voucher or premium support and then they would take care of their health care from there.

There’s a lot of debate about that. And I mentioned, you said seniors should be affected right now, 55 plus, have them affected right now, which has been somewhat controversial.

You wanted to respond to that? SANTORUM: Well, you know, I hear this all the time when I was — I’ve been campaigning around the state, you know, we should have the same kind of health care that members of Congress have.

Well, that’s pretty much what Paul Ryan’s plan is. It’s a — the members of Congress have a premium support model. So does every other federal employee.

I mean it works very well as, you know, the federal government has a liability. They put — put money out there and then if you want, you — you have about this thick, if you’re an employee in Washington, DC, have got a whole bunch of different plans to choose from. And you have all sorts of options available to you. If you want a more expensive plan, you pay more of a coinsurance. If you want a less expensive plan, you don’t.

But here’s the fundamental difference between Barack Obama and — and everybody up here. It’s whether you believe people can be free to make choices or whether you have to make decisions for them.

And I believe seniors, just like every other Americans, should be free to make the choices in their health care plan that’s best for them.

GREGORY: Governor Romney, there’s a lot of discussion…

(APPLAUSE)

GREGORY: — a lot of discussion this morning on Facebook about taxes. And as we talk about taxes and spending, of course, what about economic security and economic growth.

There’s been a debate in Washington and beyond, as you well know, between Warren Buffet and Grover Norquist. Grover Norquist, the anti- tax crusader, who says no tax increases under any circumstances. Warren Buffet says, hey, the wealthier in this country can pay more and they should pay more. Indeed, balancing the budget is a way for more economic growth down the line.

Who knows more about the American economy, Grover Norquist or Warren Buffet?

ROMNEY: Well, who knows more about tax policy?

I’m not sure that we’re going to choose from the two of them. But I can tell you this, the right course for America is not to raise taxes on Americans. I understand that President Obama and people of his political persuasion would like to take more money from the American people. And they want to do that so that they can continue to grow government.

But the answer for America is not to grow government, it is to shrink government. We’ve been going — over the last 20, 30, 40 years, government keeps growing at a faster rate relative to inflation. We’ve got to stop the extraordinary spending in this country. That’s why I put out a — a plan that reduces government spending…

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: — I cut — I cut programs, a whole series of programs, by — by the way, the number one to cut is ObamaCare. That saves $95 billion a year.

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: Return this — as Rick indicated — return to states a whole series of programs — food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid. And then set how much goes to them.

And, finally, with regards to entitlements, in the entitlement reform area, I do not want to change Medicare and Social Security for current retirees. But for younger people coming up, they have to recognize that, in the future, higher income people will receive less payments of the premium support program.

GREGORY: Governor Huntsman, who knows more about the American economy?

You — you — and this is an odd question (ph), you seem to be a little bit uncomfortable with a moment from earlier in this debate cycle when everybody said that they would reject even a 10 to one ratio of cuts to new taxes.

HUNTSMAN: It was — it was a silly format. I mean it was an important question they asked us to raise our hands. I mean for heaven’s sake, we didn’t get a chance to talk about it. I put a tax reform proposal on the table endorsed by the Wall Street Journal that goes farther than anybody elses on this stage. It calls for what absolutely needs to be done. And everybody knows about it.

We are so chock full of loopholes and deductions, it weighs down our tax code to the tune of $1 trillion, $100 billion. You can’t compete that way. It gives rise to lobbying on Capitol Hill that needs to clean up. We’ve got to phase out loopholes and deductions in total. And we’ve got to say, so long to corporate welfare and to subsidies. Because this country can no longer afford it. And we’ve got to prepare for competition in the twenty first century.

GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, if you become President Gingrich and the leader of the Democrats, Harry Reed says he’s going to promise to make you a one term president, how would you propose to work with someone like that in order to achieve results in Washington?

GINGRICH: I think every president who works with the leader of every opposition knows they’re working with someone who wants to make them a one term president. I mean you know that — that’s the American process. I worked with Ronald Reagan in the early 1990’s. Tip O’Neil was speaker. He wanted to make Reagan a one term president. We had to get one-third of the Democrats to vote for the Reagan tax cuts and we did.

As speaker I was negotiating with Bill Clinton. He knew I wanted him to be a one term president. And we got a lot of things done, including welfare reform. Because you have to reach — I agree with what Governor Huntsman said earlier, you have to at some point say, the country comes first. How are we going to get things done? We’ll fight later. Lets sit down in a room, lets talk it through. I’ll tell you what I need and I’ll tell you what I can’t do.

You tell me what you need and you tell me what you can’t do and it sometimes takes 20 or 30 days. But if people of goodwill, even if their partisans, come together, talk it out, you know, we’ve got welfare reform, the first tax cut in 16 years, 4.2 percent unemployment and four straight years of a balanced budget, with a Republican speaker and a Democratic president. So it can be done with real leadership.

GREGORY: Anybody else have a point of view about how you would actually work with the other side when they’ve committed to working against you? Governor?

ROMNEY: Yeah I was governor of a state that had a slightly democratic leaning House and Senate.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: My legislature was 85 percent Democrat. And I went around at the very beginning of having been elected and met with the Speaker of the House and the Senate president. The Senate president said something I won’t forget, he said, Mitt the campaign is over. The people expect us to now govern for them. And we did. We met every week. We rotated in offices. We got to know each other personally. We developed a relationship of respect and rapport, even though we disagreed on a lot of issues.

And when crises arose, as they did time and again — we had a severe budget crisis. I went to them and said, will you give me unilateral power to cut spending? Without even a vote of the legislature, they had enough confidence in me and decided to do that. And — and I was able to cut the spending on an emergency basis, not just slow down its rate of growth. We can work together, Republicans and Democrats are able to go across the aisle because we have common — we really do have areas of — of common interest.

Even though there are dramatically different perspectives on how the world works and what’s right, we can find common ground. And I have proven in a state that is very Democrat that I’m able to work with people. Nineteen tax cuts, protected charter schools, drove our schools to be number one in the nation — kept them there rather. I — I — that — that record can work with Republicans and Democrats who are willing to work together.

GREGORY: Dr. Paul, there’s this question of argument versus accomplishment. The question again comes from Facebook. Health Treat (ph) writes, I want to — Paul Treat (ph) rather — I want to know what Ron Paul’s plan of action will be to achieve getting the House and Senate to help him do all he has promised. And here’s the record Dr. Paul. You have actually sponsored 620 measures. Only four made it to a vote on the House floor. And only one has been signed into law.

PAUL: You know that demonstrates how out of touch the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress is with the American people. Because I’m supporting things that help the American people.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: That’s the disgust that people have. Is because they keep growing government. Whether it’s the Republicans in charge or the Democrats in — in charge. But as far as working with other groups, I think my record is about as good as anybody’s because I work on the principle that freedom and the Constitution bring people together, for different reasons. People use freedom in different ways like it does. It invites variations in our religious beliefs and economic beliefs.

PAUL: We tell people that they’re allowed to, you know, spend their money as they choose. On civil liberties, that’s a different segment. Republican conservatives aren’t all that well known for protecting privacy and personal liberties. When it comes to this spending overseas, I can work a coalition. Matter of fact, my trillion dollar proposal to cut spending, doesn’t immediately deal with Social Security, it’s to try to work our way out of Social Security.

I’m cutting a trillion dollars by attacking overseas spending and going back to ‘06 budget. And I do not believe that you have to have — people who have gotten special privileges and bailouts from the government, they may get the pain, but the American people, they get their freedom back and get no income back, they don’t suffer any pain.

GREGORY: Senator Santorum, here’s the reality. Two previous presidents, President Bush talked about being a united and not a divider, President Obama talked about transforming Washington, and it hasn’t worked. Washington is polarized, the country is polarized, and the American people are pretty sick of the fact that nothing gets done in Washington. Specifically, how do you change that?

SANTORUM: Well, let me first address Congressman Paul, because the — the serious issue with Congressman Paul here is you’re right. He’s never really passed anything of any — any import.

And one of the — one of the reasons people like Congressman Paul is his economic plan. He’s never been able to accomplish any of that. He has no track record of being able to work together. He’s been out there on the — on the margins and has really been unsuccessful in — in working together with anybody to do anything.

The problem is that what Congressman Paul can do as commander-in- chief is he can on day one do what he says he wants to do, which is pull all our troops back out of seas, overseas, put them here in America, leave us in a — in a — in a situation where the world is now going to be created — huge amounts of vacuums all over the place, and have folks like China and Iran and others. Look at the Straits of Hormuz, as I said last night. We wouldn’t even have the Fifth Fleet there.

The problem with Congressman Paul is, all the things that Republicans like about him he can’t accomplish and all the things they’re worried about, he’ll do day one. And — and that’s the problem.

(APPLAUSE)

And so what we — what we need to do is have someone who has a plan and has experience to do all the things Republicans and conservatives would like to do.

GREGORY: Let me get Dr. Paul to respond…

(CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: And then I’d like my opportunity to come back and answer the question.

GREGORY: Well…

PAUL: It’s not exactly a simple task to repeal approximately 100 years of us sliding away from our republic and still running a foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, trying to make the world safe for democracy. And, look, we have elections overseas and we don’t even accept the elections.

No, changing foreign policy is significant, but that’s where a nation will come down if they keep doing this. We can’t stay in 130 countries, get involved in nation-building. We cannot have 900 bases overseas. We have to change policy.

What about changing monetary policy? Yes, we do. But we’ve had that for 100 years. And right now, we’re winning that battle. The American people now agree. About 75 percent of the American people now say we ought to audit the Federal Reserve, find out what they’re doing, and who are their friends that they’re bailing out constantly?

(APPLAUSE)

GREGORY: Senator Santorum, come back to this point. It’s easy to say, boy, I’m going to change the culture in Washington, hasn’t worked for the past two presidents.

SANTORUM: Well, it — it worked in my case. Look at welfare reform. In a federal entitlement that — I remember standing next to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ted Kennedy, who were out there just talking about how this was going to be the end of civilization as we know it, there’d be bread lines, the horrific consequences of removing federal income support from basically mothers with children.

And we stood up and said, no, that creating dependency and creating that dependency upon — upon federal dollars is more harmful than — and in not believing in people and their ability to work is more harmful. And so we stood up and fought and went out to the American public — Bill Clinton vetoed this bill twice. We had hard opposition. But I was able to — to work together and paint a vision.

We made compromises, but not on our core principles. The core principles were this was going to end the federal program, we were going to require work, and we were going to put time limits on welfare. I stuck to those principles, and we were able to compromise on some things like transportation funding, and some daycare funding, all in order to get a consensus that poverty is not a disability…

GREGORY: All right.

SANTORUM: … and that programs that we need to put in place should help transition people, not make them dependent, and we were able to get 70 votes in the United States Senate, including 17 Democrats.

GREGORY: Governor Huntsman, this question of — if the leader of the Democrats promised to make you a one-term president, how would you go about dealing with them in a more effective way than you think the man you serve, President Obama, did?

HUNTSMAN: I think it comes down to one word, David, and I think the one word is trust. When the American people look at the political process play out, they hear all the spinning and all the doctrinaire language, and they still walk away with the belief that they’re not being represented in Congress, that there’s no trust in the executive branch. And the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan proposal lands right on the desk of Barack Obama, and it lands in the garbage can.

The first press conference I had when I ran for governor in 2004 was on ethics in government service. I talked about term limits. I talked about campaign finance reform. I talked about the role of lobbyists and knew I wouldn’t make a lot of friends. I had one member of the legislature who supported me in that run. We won, because we had the will of the people. And I believe the next president — and if that is to be me, I want to roam around this country and I want to generate the level of excitement and enthusiasm that I know exists among the American people to bring term limits to Congress, to close the revolving door…

(APPLAUSE)

HUNTSMAN: — on members going right on out and become a lobbyist. We’ve got to start with the structural problems. There is no trust…

GREGORY: All right.

Governor Perry, I want to continue on the theme of leadership.

PERRY: Good. We need to.

GREGORY: This is…

(LAUGHTER)

GREGORY: As you well know, New Hampshire is an independent place. And I wonder where, besides criticizing the previous administration for running up the debt, I wonder where you would buck your party.

What would you say or do to make Republicans uncomfortable?

PERRY: I hope I’m making Republicans uncomfortable right now by talking about the spending that they’ve done back in the 2000s, when we had control of both parties. I mean that…

GREGORY: But aside from that, I just…

PERRY: — that is…

GREGORY: — I just mentioned that.

PERRY: Well, listen, Dr. Paul says that the biggest problem facing this country is — is our work overseas. I disagree with that. The biggest problem facing this country today is a Congress that is out of control with their spending. And we’ve got to have someone, an outsider, that will walk in, not part of the insider group that you see here, people who have voted for raising the — the debt limit, people who have been part of the problem that is facing America.

I will tell you two things that can occur that a president can lead the charge on. And it will put term limits into place. One of those is a part-time Congress to tell those members of Congress, we’re going to cut your pay, we’re going to cut the amount of time that you spend in Washington, DC, send you back to your districts so you can have a job, like everybody else in your district has, and live under the laws of which you pass…

GREGORY: But Governor…

PERRY: — and then a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

GREGORY: Governor, my question…

PERRY: You do those two things…

GREGORY: — but my question, sir was…

PERRY: — and that will make them uncomfortable.

GREGORY: You think telling conservatives a balanced budget amendment is something I’m going to do and I’m going to cut spending, that’s going to make them uncomfortable?

PERRY: You’re darned right, because there’s a bunch of people standing up here that say they’re conservatives, but the records don’t follow up on that.

GREGORY: All right, I’ve got to take another break here.

We’ll come back — we’ll come back on this point.

Another quick break here.

We’ll return with much more. And, of course, please share your thoughts with us online via Facebook at mtp.msnbc.com.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: And we are back in New Hampshire.

I’m happy to be joined now by our local partners for the debate, for the — from the “New Hampshire Union Leader,” senior political reporter, John DiStasos is — is with us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, David.

GREGORY: Good go have you here, John.

And from WHT — WHDC — we had this problem yesterday — TV in Boston, Channel 7 in Boston, political editor Andy Hiller.

Welcome to you, as well.

Good to have you both.

John, get it started.

JOHN DISTASOS, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, “NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION LEADER”: All right, Governor Huntsman, it’s winter in New Hampshire. It’s a little mild, but it’s still winter. Home heating oil is nearly $4 a gallon. Yet President Obama and Congress have cut by 25 percent the program that helps — helps low income people heat their homes. About a million households that were helped last year won’t be helped this year.

Is this an example of pain that must be suffered?

Should this — should this program funding be restored?

Should it be cut more?

So does this program be eliminated, perhaps?

Where does this fit in?

This is a practical problem in this area of the country.

HUNTSMAN: No. We have people in need. We have people suffering. And this is a challenge that we need to address.

But I believe we’re not going to be able to effectively confront it head-on until such time as this nation begins to move more toward greater energy diversity and energy independence.

One of the first things I would do as president is I would take a look at that one product distribution bias that always favors one product, and that’s oil. And I’d say, if we’re going to do what this nation needs to be done, in terms of using a multiplicity of products that we have in such diversity and abundance and get them to the customers, we’re going to have to break up that one product distribution monopoly.

And I want to do to that oil distribution monopoly what we did to broadcast communication in the — in the early 1970s. We blew it apart. And we went to the Federal Trade Commission and said we need more. We need diverse sources to draw from. We need — we need to service the consumers.

I believe if we’re going to do what needs to be done from an energy independence standpoint, all products — getting the products to the customer, we’ve got to disrupt that one product monopoly that does not serve this country well nor its consumers.

GREGORY: Congressman Paul, Congressman Paul…

(APPLAUSE)

GREGORY: — how do you feel about…

(APPLAUSE)

DISTASOS: How do you — how do you feel about subsidies in — in general for — for specific energy and…

(CROSSTALK)

DISTASOS: — and also, though, more — more specifically right now, more immediately, this low income program, heating assistance program.

PAUL: Right.

DISTASOS: Is this something that fits in un — under your view of — of what government does do or should not do?

PAUL: Well, subsidies per se are — it’s bad economic policy. It’s bad moral policy, because it’s using government force to transfer money from one group to another. And economically, it does a lot of harm.

But when it — when it comes to energy, we should, you know, deregulate it, like others talk about.

But we need to talk — you know supply and demand — everybody knows about supply and demand. They talk about oil and if we had more alternative sources, that we — we always hope the prices will go down.

But everybody forgets that there’s another 50 percent of a transaction is the monetary unit and you don’t deal, very few people talk about the supply and demand of money.

And when you create a lot of money, prices go up. So it goes up in the areas where government most gets involved, you know, in education and medical care, housing and in energy.

So prices go up much faster than in any other place. So if you subsidize somebody and you print money to do it, you compound the problem.

It’s good politics. Yes, I’m going to subsidize you and take care of you. But it’s bad economic policy and it — it’s not a good way to find — find any answers.

DISTASOS: Gov — Governor Romney, this is such an important topic, because beyond the — the regional implication, there’s also a larger question about the social safety net. You think all the time about opportunity for Americans.

But what about Americans left behind?

In this age of austerity, what do Americans have to learn to live with less of?

ROMNEY: Well, what we don’t need is to have a — a federal government saying we’re going to solve all of the problems of poverty across the entire country, because the — what it means to be poor in Massachusetts is different than Montana and Mississippi and other places in the country.

And that’s why these programs, all these federal programs that are bundled to help people and make sure we have a safety net need to be brought together and sent back to the states. And let states that are closest to the needs of their own people craft the programs that are de — able to deal with their — the needs of those folks.

So you — you — whether it’s food stamps and housing vouchers, they’re certainly on the list. But certainly Medicaid, home — home heating oil support.

ROMNEY: What — what unfortunately happens is with all the multiplicity of federal programs, you have massive overhead with government bureaucrats in Washington administering all these programs, very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.

These — they — government — folks in Washington keep building program after program. It’s time to say enough of that. Let’s get the money back to the states, the way the constitution intended.

DISTASO: OK.

ROMNEY: And let states care for their own people in the way they feel best.

(APPLAUSE)

GREGORY: Andy Hiller.

HILLER: Governor Romney, I’d like to remind you of something you said in Bay Windows, which is a gay newspaper in Massachusetts in 1994, when you were running against Senator Kennedy. These are your words: “I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party, and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts.” How have you stood up for gay rights? And when have you used your voice to influence Republicans on this issue?

ROMNEY: Andy, as you know, I don’t discriminate, and in the appointments that I made when I was governor of Massachusetts, a member of my cabinet was gay. I appointed people to the bench regardless of their sexual orientation, made it very clear that, in my view, we should not discriminate in hiring policies and legal policies.

At the same time, from the very beginning in 1994, I said to the gay community: I do not favor same-sex marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage, and that has been my — my view.

But — but if people are looking for someone who — who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.

HILLER: When’s the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights?

ROMNEY: Right now.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

HILLER: Senator Santorum, would you be a voice for increasing gay rights in the party?

(LAUGHTER)

SANTORUM: Surprised he’s coming to me. What? What was your question?

HILLER: Would you be a voice for speaking out for gay rights in your party? And if not, why not?

SANTORUM: I would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has equality of opportunity. That does not mean that I would agree with certain things that the gay community would like to do to change laws, with respect to marriage or respect to adoption, and things like that.

So you can be respectful. This is the beautiful thing about this country. James Madison called the First Amendment — he called it the perfect remedy. And that is, people of all different backgrounds — diversity, opinions, faith — can come into the public square and can be heard and can be heard in a way that’s respectful of everybody else.

But just because you don’t agree with someone’s desire to change the law doesn’t mean you don’t like them or you hate them or you want to discriminate against them, but you’re trying to promote — excuse me, promote things that you think are best for society.

And I do so, and I think if you — if you watch the town hall meetings that I’ve been doing all over New Hampshire, I do so in a respectful tone. I listen to the other side. I let them make their arguments. And then we do so in a very — very respectful way. And you know what? We may not agree. That’s why we leave it open to the public to be able to elect members of Congress and the Senate and the president who will support their ideas.

HILLER: What if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay?

SANTORUM: I would love him as much as I did the second before he said it. And I would try to do everything I can to be as good a father to him as possible.

(APPLAUSE)

DISTASO: Governor Perry, we’re going to move on. Right-to-work, which outlaws mandatory union membership, as you know, continues to be a major issue in the state of New Hampshire. You’ve spoken about promoting, having states pass state laws. What about on the federal level? Do you see this as a federal issue and one that you would promote as president or is it a state-by-state…

PERRY: Actually, it is a federal issue, and it’s a federal issue because of the law that was passed that forces the states to make a decision about whether or not they’re going to be right-to-work. So Jim DeMint’s legislation, I would support that, of repealing that legislation that forces states to make that decision to be a right-to- work, rather than all of this country being right-to-work.

Listen, I’m not anti-union. I’m pro-job. And the way you promote this country’s rehabilitation from the Obama administration’s attack on — on job creation is by taxes and regulation, particularly the regulatory side, and — and pulling those regulations that have gone forward over the course of the last — since ‘08 and test them all for — do they create jobs or do they kill jobs? And if they kill jobs, you throw them out.

That will make more difference in this country from the standpoint — I’m a right-to-work guy. I come from a right-to-work state. And I will tell you, if New Hampshire wants to become the magnet for job creation in the Northeast, you pass that right-to-work legislation in this state.

(APPLAUSE)

DISTASO: I’d like to — I’d like to ask both Governor Romney, quickly, and Senator Santorum, quickly, do — what positive contributions do labor unions provide in this country at this — this point in the 21st century?

ROMNEY: Well, the carpenters union, for instance, trains their workers to be more effective on the job. And when they compete against nonunion workers, while they do that on a fair basis, if that happens, that’s a positive contribution.

But let me just say this with regards to unions. I agree with Governor Perry. Right-to-work legislation makes a lot of sense for New Hampshire and for the nation.

But — but, also, let’s not forget the government unions and the impact they’re having. If we’re going to finally pull back the extraordinary political power government unions are exerting in this country, we’re going to have to say that people who work for the government, government workers, should have their compensation tied to that which exists in the private sector. People who are government servants, public servants, should not be paid more than the taxpayers who are paying for it.

GREGORY: Governor, can I just — very quickly, Senator, because we’re about to hit a hard break, a quick comment on this?

SANTORUM: Yeah, I will. I’ve signed a — a pledge that I would support a national right to work. When I was in — I mentioned this last night. When I was a senator for Pennsylvania, I didn’t vote for it because Pennsylvania’s not a right-to-work state and I didn’t want to vote for a law that would change the law in Pennsylvania, number one.

Number two, what can unions do? As — as Mitt mentioned, they can do training. They also do a lot in the community. I work with a lot of labor unions in Philadelphia and other places to do a lot of community involvement work. And they — they try to participate as good members of the community, like a business does.

GREGORY: I’ve got to cut you off. I apologize. We have a mandatory break. We’ll be back with more questions in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: The NBC News-Facebook Republican presidential candidates debate continues from New Hampshire. Now, the moderator of “Meet the Press,” David Gregory.

(APPLAUSE)

GREGORY: And we are back for our final half-hour. So much discussion, Speaker Gingrich, on Facebook in the course of this debate about jobs. And you can understand why. And we’ve talked about spending; we’ve talked about economic growth.

It was Governor Romney who made the point to a young person who approached him that if he were president, and when this person got out of college, he or she’d have a job. If President Obama has a second term, he or she will not have a job. Isn’t that the kind of thing that makes people angry, the politicians, easy answers like that?

GINGRICH: Well, I don’t think that’s an easy answer. I think that’s a statement of fact.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

You know, but let me — let me take — I want to go back to what John DiStaso said, because it’s exactly the same question. The long- term answer to $4 heating oil is to open up offshore development of oil and gas, open up federal lines to oil and gas, flood the market, as — as Dr. Paul said, make supply and demand work for us, not against us. The price will come down.

Under Obama, 2011 was the highest price of gasoline in history. It is a direct result of his policies, which kill jobs, raise the price of heating oil and gasoline, weaken the United States, increase our dependence on foreign countries, and weaken our national security in the face of Iran trying to close the Straits of Hormuz.

So the right president opening up in a Reagan tradition and using the massive development of American energy, there’s 3.2 percent unemployment in North Dakota. There’s a hint here. You can actually have jobs, lower price heating oil, which by the way means less LIHEAP spending, so you get more revenue from the federal government from royalties, less spending on — on LIHEAP subsidy, lower price, people are happier all the way around. That’s what supply-side economics was originally all about in the 1970s.

GREGORY: But, Governor Romney, on this economic question, you blame President Obama for the jobs crisis, but when you look at the data and a positive trend line, he still only gets the blame and none of the credit. How come? ROMNEY: Actually, I don’t blame him for the recession and for the decline. What I blame him for is having it go on so long and going so deep and having a recovery that’s been so tepid.

Businesses I talked to all over the country that would normally be hiring people are not hiring. And I asked them why. And they say because they look at the policies of this administration and they feel they’re under attack.

When you have an administration that tries to raise taxes — and has on businesses — when it puts in place Obamacare that’s going to raise the cost of health care for businesses, when they stack the National Labor Relations Board with labor stooges, which means that the policies relating to — to labor are now going to change dramatically in a direction they find uncomfortable, when you have Obamacare that — that places more mandates on them, when you — when you have Dodd-Frank, which makes it harder for community banks to make loans, all these things collectively create the — a reality of a president who has been anti-investment, anti-jobs, anti-business, and people feel that.

And if you want to get this country going again, you have to recognize that the role of government is not just to catch the bad guys, important as that is. It’s also to encourage the good guys…

GREGORY: All right.

ROMNEY: … and to return America to a land of opportunity.

GREGORY: Back to John and Andy.

John, go ahead.

HILLER: Governor Romney, I’m going to stay with you for one moment here on the — talking about regulation. One of your prime New Hampshire supporters, Senator Kelly Ayotte, has said, quote, “New Hampshire should not be the tailpipe for pollutants from out-of-state power plants.”

Many Senate Republicans attacked an EPA rule limiting air pollution that affects downwind states, but she and others, including Scott Brown, joined with the president and Senate Democrats to block a repeal effort.

Now, is this an example, this cross-state air pollution rule, of fair regulation, something that we in the Northeast are very concerned about in terms of pollution? Or is this overregulation, job-killing overregulation?

ROMNEY: Well, I’m not — I’m not familiar with the specific regulation as it — as it applies to — to New Hampshire. But I do believe that we have a responsibility to keep the air clean, and we have to find ways to assure that we don’t have the pollution of one state overwhelming the — the ability of another state to have clean air.

I know, in my state of Massachusetts, we — we received a lot of air from the rest of the country, obviously, given the winds coming from the west of the country to the east. And so the responsibility in our state was to get the cost — get the — the emissions from our power plants down. That’s one of the reasons why we moved to natural gas.

And, really, by the way, this discussion about energy and security, and getting the cost of gasoline down, the big opportunity here is not just a new oil distribution system, but it’s natural gas. We have massive new natural gas reserves that have been found in Pennsylvania, in — in North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, natural gas cheap, a fraction of the cost for BTU of oil.

If we want to help people in New England have not only homes and businesses that emit less pollutant into the air — and therefore would have cleaner air — and also have lower cost of energy, it’s let’s build out this natural gas system so that we can take advantage of that new, enormous source of American economic strength.

DISTASO: Speaker Gingrich, what exactly is an Environmental Solutions Agency? I don’t — I think a lot of people might not know or understand that — why you want to disband the EPA and set up — set up something that kind of looks like the EPA?

GINGRICH: If you look at the EPA’s record, it is increasingly radical. It’s increasingly imperious. It doesn’t cooperate, it doesn’t collaborate and it doesn’t take into account economics. The city of Nashville recently had a dump that was cited by EPA. They went down to find out, what was it being cited for? And they told them, frankly we don’t know. We can’t find the records that lead to this citation and we’re not exactly sure what it referenced. But it must be bad or we wouldn’t have sent it out.

(LAUGHTER)

GINGRICH: In Iowa they had a dust regulation underway because they control particulate matter. I do agree on clean air. There are things they should do that are right. But dust in Iowa is — is an absurdity. And they were worried that the plowing of a cornfield would leave dust to go to another farmer’s cornfield. And they were going to — they were planning to issue a regulation. In Arizona they went in on the dust regulation and suggested to them that maybe if they watered down the earth, they wouldn’t have these dust storms in the middle of the year. And people said to them, you know the reason it’s called a desert…

(LAUGHTER)

GINGRICH: …is there’s no water. Now this is an agency out of touch with reality which I believe is incorrigible and you need a new agency that is practical, has commonsense, uses economic factors and in the case of — of pollution actually incentives change, doesn’t just punish it.

DISTASO: All right, Andy?

HILLER: Governor Perry, your party’s last nominee, John McCain wrote in the Washington Post in an op-ed about a year ago, his words, “I disagree with many of the president’s policies but I believe he is a patriot, sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country’s cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America, or opposed to it’s founding ideals.” Agree?

PERRY: I make a very proud statement and, in fact that we have a president that’s a socialist. I don’t think our founding fathers wanted America to be a socialist country. So I disagree with that premise that somehow or another that President Obama reflects our founding fathers. He doesn’t. He talks about having a more powerful, more centralized, more consuming and costly federal government.

I am a Tenth Amendment believing governor. I truly believe that we need a president that respects the Tenth Amendment, that pushes back to the states. Whether it’s how to deliver education, how to deliver health care, how to do our environmental regulations. The states will considerably do a better job than a one-size-fits-all Washington, D.C. lead by this president.

GREGORY (?): Can I just jump in? Senator Santorum, Governor Perry — he called the president a socialist. I wonder Senator Santorum, when you voted for a new prescription drug benefit that did not have a funding mechanism, were you advancing socialism?

SANTORUM: Why — I said repeatedly that we should have had a funding mechanism and it’s one of those things that I had a very tough vote, as you know. In that bill we had health savings accounts. Something I’ve been fighting for, for 15 years to transform the private sector health care system into a more consumer, bottom-up way of doing it. We also had Medicare Advantage to transform the entire Medicare system into — Medicare Advantage is basically a premium support type model.

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: …socialism though. That’s the… (CROSSTALK)

SANTORUM: I — I think I’m just answering your question. Maybe I’m — maybe we’re not communicating well, but I just talked about the — the medical — it’s a health savings accounts is an anti- socialistic idea to try to build a bottom-up, consumer based economy in — in health care. The same thing with Medicare Advantage. And we also structured the Medicare Part-D benefit to be a premium support model as a way of trying to transition Medicare. So there were a lot of good things in that bill. There was one really bad thing. We didn’t pay for it. We should have paid for it. And that was a mistake.

GREGORY: You want to have a follow up on that?

HILLER: No, I’m going to switch to Congressman Paul and I’m going to say, many Americans, particularly Democrats, think that health care is a right. In your opinion, what services are all Americans entitled to expect to get from government?

PAUL: Entitlements are not rights. Right mean you have a right…

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: …rights mean you have a right to your life. You have a right to — to your liberty and you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor. And this is quite a bit different, but earlier on there was a little discussion here about gay rights. I in a way don’t like to use those terms, gay rights, woman’s rights, minority rights, religious rights. There’s only one type of right. It’s the right to your liberty. And I think this causes divisiveness when we see people in groups, because for too long we punish groups. So the answer then was, let’s — let’s relieve them by giving them affirmative action.

So I think both are wrong. If you think in terms of individuals and protect every single individuals, no, they’re not entitled. One group isn’t entitled to take something from somebody else. And the basic problem here is, there’s a lot of good intention to help poor people, but guess who gets the entitlements in Washington? The big guys get — the rich people. They run the entitlement system, the military industrial complex, the banking system. Those are the entitlements we should be dealing with.

GREGORY: Dr. Paul, thanks.

In our remaining moment here, back to you, John.

DISTASO: OK. Well, Governor Huntsman, Andy and I are about to wrap up our role in this debate. And as we do, I’d like to ask you, as someone who’s been here in New Hampshire a while, what does our state motto, “Live Free or Die,” mean to you personally? And how would it guide you in the White House?

HUNTSMAN: It is the fulfillment of a citizenry being able to live out the meaning of our founding documents: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And everywhere I’ve gone in this great state — and we’ve done 160-plus public events… (APPLAUSE)

… I feel it, and I sense it, and people take that very seriously. You know what else they take seriously? They take seriously the idea of real leadership.

I’ve heard a lot of obfuscating up here, the blame game, talking about gays, talking about unions. Everybody’s got something nasty to say. You know what the people of this country are waiting for and the people of — they want a leader who is going to unify, who’s going to bring us together. Because at the end of the day, that’s what leadership is all about.

It’s not about taking on different groups and vilifying them for whatever reason. It’s about projecting a vision for a more hopeful tomorrow. That’s why there is no trust in this country today. And that’s why, as president, I’m going to attack that trust deficit just as aggressively as I attack that economic deficit. Because with no trust, I can’t think of anything more corrosive longer term to the people of this nation.

GREGORY: All right. We’re going — we’re going to leave it there.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, John, thank you, Andy, both. We’re going to take another quick break here. I’ll be back with a final round of questions, including your questions from our “Meet the Press” Facebook page. We’re back with our final moments in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: We are back.

Gentlemen, candidates, we have just a few minutes left. And I’d like to try something, because I do want to get to as much substance and pin you down on views as best I can.

I know this could be hard for you, but you are spending a lot of money getting your message out in 30 second increments, based on what I’ve been watching in the hotel room here in New Hampshire. So I know you know how to do this.

Let’s try having 30 second answers to some of these questions and we might have some response along the way.

Senator Santorum, I want to ask you about Iran. It’s been a big issue in the course of this campaign so far.

I wonder why it is, if America has lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we have come to live with a nuclear North Korea, why is it that we cannot live with a nuclear Iran?

And if we can’t, are you prepared to take the country to war to disarm that country?

SANTORUM: They’re a — they’re a theocracy. They’re a theocracy that has deeply embedded beliefs that — that the afterlife is better than this life. President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said the principle virtue of the Islamic Republic of Iran is martyrdom.

So when your principle virtue is to die for your — for Allah, then it’s not a deterrent to have a nuclear threat, if they would use a nuclear weapon. It is, in fact, an encouragement for them to use their nuclear weapon. And that’s why there’s a difference between the Soviet Union and China and others and Iran. GREGORY: What about Pakistan?

They are an indifferent ally, at best. They have nuclear weapons.

Are you also prepared, as president, to say they must disarm or else?

SANTORUM: They are not a theocracy. And we’re very hopeful of — of maintaining a — a more secular state than — than is in place today.

But there is a serious threat. And this administration has bungled it about as badly as they can in trying to con — continue those positive relationships. We’ve had some real serious problems with the — with the Pakistani military, obviously, with respect to Osama bin Laden and with respect to North Waziristan.

But you have a — the reason is we have a president who’s just very weak in — in that region of the world and is not respected…

GREGORY: All right.

SANTORUM: — and — and therefore, he’s not a — he’s not been able to have that strong hand in working with Pakistan that they’re used to.

GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, how about tone of this campaign?

I was in Iowa. I heard you on the stump. You complained bitterly about the super PAC, the outside groups that were lodging charges against you, bringing up some old issues against you.

And now you have a former campaign spokesman who is preparing attacks against Governor Romney, calling him, quote, “a predator” for his involvement at the investment company, Bain.

You agreed with someone who said that Governor Romney was a liar when he didn’t take account for those attacks against you.

Are you consistent now, as you’re preparing to launch against Governor Romney?

GINGRICH: Sure.

GREGORY: How so?

GINGRICH: I’m consistent because I think you ought to have fact- based campaigns to talk about the records.

GREGORY: Calling him a predator is not over the line?

GINGRICH: Well, I think you have to look at the film, which I haven’t seen. But if you look at “The New York Times” article, I think it was on Thursday, you would clearly have to say that Bain, at times, engaged in behavior where they looted a company, leaving behind 1,700 unemployed people. That’s “The New York Times.” That’s not me.

So I think, you know, the — I mean one of the ads I complained about got four Pinocchios from “The Wall Street” — from “The Washington Post.” Now, to get four Pinocchios in a 30 second ad means there’s virtually nothing accurate…

GREGORY: All right.

GINGRICH: — in 30 seconds.

GREGORY: Speaker, you — you — you decry the Washington establishment and you just talked about “The New York Times” and “The Washington Post.” You have agreed with the characterization that Governor Romney is a liar.

Look at him now.

Do you stand by that claim?

GINGRICH: Well, sure. Governor, I wish you would calmly and directly state it is your former staff running the PAC. It is your millionaire friends giving to the PAC. And you know some of the ads are — aren’t true. Just say that. It’s straightforward.

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: Well, of course it’s former staff of mine. And, of course they’re people who support me. They wouldn’t be putting money into a PAC that supports me if they weren’t people who support me.

And with regards to their ads, I haven’t seen them. And, as you know, under the law, I can’t direct their ads.

Speaker…

GINGRICH: Yes, but…

ROMNEY: Hold on a second. I — I can’t direct their ads. If there’s anything in them that’s wrong, I hope they take it out. I hope everything that’s wrong…

GINGRICH: Good.

ROMNEY: — is taken out.

But let me tell you this. The — the ad I saw said that — that you’d been forced out of the speakership. That was correct.

GINGRICH: (INAUDIBLE).

ROMNEY: It said that — that you had sat down with Nancy Pelosi and — and argued for — for a climate change bill. That was correct. It said that you called the — the Ron Paul’s — Ron Paul — Paul Ryan’s plan to bu — to provide Medicare reform…

(LAUGHTER) ROMNEY: — a — a — a right-wing social engineering plan. It said that — that as part of an investigation, an ethics investigation, that you had to reimburse some $300,000. Those things were all true.

If there was something related to abortion that it said that was wrong, I hope they pulled it out. Anything wrong, I’m opposed to.

But, you know, this ain’t — this ain’t beanbag. We’re going to come into a campaign, and we’re going to describe the differences between us. But…

(CROSSTALK)

GREGORY: Go ahead, Speaker. Go ahead, Speaker.

ROMNEY: But I do think — but I do think the rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, I think was a little over-the-top.

GINGRICH: You think my rhetoric was over-the-top, but your ads were totally reasonable? That’s what I don’t understand. Look…

ROMNEY: Again — again…

(CROSSTALK)

GINGRICH: I’ve taken the governor’s advice.

ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, the — the super PACs that are out there running ads with Ron Paul’s, mine, yours, as you know, that is not my ad. I don’t write that ad. I can’t tell them how to.

GREGORY: Well, how about this? Would you both — would both agree to take these super PAC ads down?

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: But, Mr. Speaker, but, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t call someone the things you’ve called me public. I think that’s just over- the-top.

GREGORY: Would you both agree that — to — to request that these super PAC ads be taken down?

GINGRICH: David, wait a second. Come on. Come on. I’m glad finally on this stage, weeks later, he has said, gee, if they’re wrong, they should take them down. They would have course — we’ve sent a letter in South Carolina saying — warning the stations to just fact-check them before they start running them.

But I’m taking his advice. You know, we started to run his commercial from 1994 attacking Teddy Kennedy for running negative ads. We thought, no, that would be wrong.

So, instead, I — I agree with him. It takes broad shoulders to run. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. When the 27-and-a-half-minute movie comes out, I hope it’s accurate.

I — I — I can say publicly I hope that the super PAC runs an accurate movie about Bain. It will be based on establishment newspapers, like the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Barron’s, Bloomberg News. And I hope that it’s totally accurate and then people can watch the 27-and-a-half minutes of his career at Bain and decide for themselves.

GREGORY: All right. Let me ask you, Senator Santorum, we’ve talked some about the role of government, but the presidency is often called the bully pulpit. I wonder as president how you’d use the bully pulpit to try to shape American culture and values?

SANTORUM: I haven’t written a lot of books. I’ve written one. And it was in response to a book written by Hillary Clinton called “It Takes a Village.” I didn’t agree with that. I believe it takes a family, and that’s what I wrote.

And I believe that there’s one thing that is undermining this country, and it is the breakdown of the American family. It’s undermining our economy. You see the rates of poverty among single- parent families, which are — moms are doing heroic things, but it’s harder. It’s five times higher in a single-parent family.

We — we know there’s certain things that work in America. The Brookings Institute came out with a study just a few — couple of years ago that said, if you graduate from high school, and if you work, and if you’re a man, if you marry, if you’re a woman, if you marry before you have children, you have a 2 percent chance of being in poverty in America. And to be above the median income, if you do those three things, 77 percent chance of being above the median income.

Why isn’t the president of the United States or why aren’t leaders in this country talking about that and trying to formulate, not necessarily federal government policy, but local policy and state policy and community policy, to help people do those things that we know work and we know are good for society? This president doesn’t.

In fact, he has required programs not to talk about marriage, not to talk about abstinence, if — in order to get federal funds. He’s working exactly against the things…

GREGORY: Dr. Paul…

SANTORUM: … he knows works because he has a secular ideology that is against the traditions of our country and what works.

GREGORY: Dr. Paul, quickly, how would you use the bully pulpit?

PAUL: I would continue to do what I’m doing now, preaching the gospel of liberty. I think that the most important ingredients in this country that made us great was our founders understood what liberty meant. And that is what we need. We have deserted that. We have drifted a long way. It involves our right to our life, right to our liberty. We ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor. We ought to understand property rights. We ought to understand contract rights. We ought to understand what sound money is all about, and we ought to understand what national defense means. That means defending this country. That is the bully pulpit we need. We need to defend liberty.

GREGORY: All right. Defend liberty and…

(APPLAUSE)

(LAUGHTER)

PAUL: And liberty.

(LAUGHTER)

GREGORY: Thank you. We’re going to take another break here. We’ll be back with some closing moments right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GREGORY: I would like to thank the candidates for joining us. I’d also like to thank our debate partners, Facebook, the New Hampshire Union Leader, and our hosts here, of course, in Concord, the Capitol Center for the Arts. Thank you, of course, for watching and participating in this debate online.

Post-debate analysis will continue on MSNBC. Be sure to watch complete coverage of the New Hampshire primary returns. That’s Tuesday night on NBC News, MSNBC, and online at nbcpolitics.com. We’ll be back next week from Washington. If it’s Sunday, it’s “Meet the Press.”

END

%d bloggers like this: