The Resurgence of Liberty – CPAC - a Winning Message

In the years that one may or may not have paid a great deal of attention to the annual CPAC Convention, it has appeared mainly centric GOP – something has changed and that change is an overwhelming rejection of the status quo by those speakers who may or may not have Presidential aspirations.

The speeches by Paul, Palin, Cruz, Perry and several other keynote’s were impressive and inspiring to those who have always been to the side of Libertarian, one heard the word Constitutionalist quite a bit.

The individual who appears to have won most of the hearts and minds is one Senator Rand Paul, winning the straw poll handily. (Boston Globe) One thing is certain, he is a stronger candidate for 2016 than his father – appealing to a wide range of liberty minded individuals, from Jeffersonian Republicans to those on the left of center who appreciate someone who is not a fan of Government overreach – especially into one’s private life.

Further indication of Paul’s intention was the recent defection of the Iowa State GOP chair to run his PAC while noting that there has been a shift in the Iowa GOP – away from the mainstream GOP(WFMZ – CNN Article)

Should one think that these Liberty minded individuals have not caught the rank and file GOP of the Washington elite, one might pick up the WaPost, Jennifer Rubin’s musing on CPAC , although she does not, obviously, suggest Cruz, Paul or Palin, she does not wail about a disconnect, and notes that the three she does mention (Christie, Rubio and Perry) were speaking to a more liberty minded group and, in her opinion, had done very well. Oddly the Washington elite favor Christie, most likely for his ability to be more Democrat at times than Republican, that said, the model, will no longer “fly”.

Suffice it to say, that as the mid-terms near, and as Palin reminded the establishment of which party brought them the majority (Tea versus GOP), the same fervor of 2010 is alive and kicking, with apparently little allegiance to the standard Washington elite. She was brilliant in her speech, as was Perry, Cruz and especially Paul.

Although it is too early in the political process, and straw polls, being paid participant polls are not exactly bellwethers, it is a first where the appeal of the players is more broad than in the past – to those disenfranchised Democrats and especially Republican’s who lean towards Libertarian roots.

About time.

The Way Out of Obamacare – Defund – The Republican Base Approval of Cruz Plan On the Move – 2014 – Change is Coming

Sarah Palin on the Stump for Cruz in Texas - image from legalinsurrection.com

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been suggesting that the budget of the U.S. could move forward without funding Obama Care (or the Affordable Health Care Act), and on that point he is correct. The Government, contrary to what is being touted by the Administration would not come to a screeching halt. Most recently support has been growing form the more Conservative wing of the Republican Base as evidenced by Sarah Palin lending her support to Cruz’s drive to Defund the behemoth program(Examiner) Palin still holds considerable sway with the base, however, she is not alone in her endorsement of the plan. George P. Bush of the Texas Bush family also supports the plan (burtorangereport). The option of defunding the program through a budgetary procedure would give a way out to those in the Congress from both sides of the aisle that are now uncertain as to the value of the plan. (See Politico: Democrats fret over Obamacare as 2014 looms” (Politico)

What those members of both parties who support the plan, without hesitation on both sides of the aisle may have cause for concern. The latest Rasmussen Polling on the subject finds that 42% of Republicans are in favor of shutting down the government (which is not technically what Cruz is proposing) in order to rid the country of that program. (Rasmussen Reports) Rasmussen polled Republican leaning voters for this survey, had the polled Democrat leaning voters, the question remains – would they also have been as willing to shut it down? More than likely – as jobs are scarce, and employers who are reducing benefits and hours are not shy about telling employees the reason behind their hard decisions – Obamacare. One might suggest those workers are not all Republicans.

Those most in danger of losing their jobs in Washington are those Senators and Congressional Representatives who do not support a shutdown – in fear of becoming unpopular (i.e. unelectable) with the press, and by extension the public. They should rethink that strategy as primaries will loom and the press and general public are not likely to vote. It will be fairly easy to predict some mightily upheaval on the Republican side of the aisle should those August (installed for life) members of both Chambers are ousted in favor of a candidate who will do the job that is in the best interest of the public, not the best interest of the party or for personal gain. One might suggest the same will occur on the opposite side of the aisle, as the base of the Democrat Party has become more progressively left – those who even smack of moderate will face challenges. If one thinks there is division now, wait until the dust settles after the 2014 election – and this is one issue that will drive the debate on both sides.

What’s in a Poll? McClatchy-Marist finds Obama Job Approval Plummeting – Congress at bottom, Two-Thirds Disapprove of Democrats.- When Will Voters Wise Up?

A new McClatchy-Marist poll released yesterday, pretty much sums up the salient fact that a majority of American’s don’t particularly like their elected officials. The poll suggests that Obama’s numbers are “still higher than Congress”, but notes that the 41% approval is the lowest since “September of 2011”, yet remind readers that he still managed to get the popular vote by (a somewhat anemic) 51%.

Apparently, the nation is paying attention to the “controversies” surrounding the White House (without mentioning the IRS, the NSA, Benghazi, ad naseum), and McClatchy further suggests that the President does best when he talks about the economy – so he’s going to give some speeches. Of course, McClatchy also found that only 37% of those polled actually trusts the President with the economy, therefore, it’s somewhat difficult to see the silver-lining – yet they do.

The fact that Congress fares worse does not mitigate the fact that all of D.C. is viewed with a bit of wariness by those who sent their Congressional Representatives and Senators to the Golden City to do their bidding. Although McClatchy underscores that the Republican’s are in trouble, due to the fact that Congressional members polled at a low point and that those Republicans are in control of Congress. One can’t help but wonder where those Republican’s polled against the dismal numbers that the Democrats received (1 out of 3 approve of the job Democrats are doing.) One has to guess it is close, unless of course they weren’t polling many Libertarians.

Suffice it to say, that despite the IRS attempting to blot out the Tea Party, (with a little help from MSNBC), the regular folk apparently are becoming “Fed Up”. Obamacare also is weighing heavily as more details come out about the bill Pelosi famously spoke, “ “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....” (Washington Post). From skyrocketing premiums, to layoffs and part-time positions only as employers try to evade the heavy fees, to the IRS in charge of enforcement, and the fact that the Data Hub program designed to oversee all data, and sign-up those for Obamacare, will be staffed by individuals who are less than qualified:

In June, the Government Accountability Office reported that HHS is considering allowing navigators to assist with outreach and enrollment tasks even before completing their formal training. The reason? Like so much of Obamacare, the navigators program is behind schedule and drowning in its own complexity.

This spring, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee lawyers were also told by HHS that, despite the fact that navigators will have access to sensitive data such as Social Security numbers and tax returns, there will be no criminal background checks required for them. Indeed, they won’t even have to have high-school diplomas.

But HHS is unconcerned. It points out that navigators will have to take a 20–30 hour online course about how the 1,200-page law works, which, given its demonstrated complexity, is like giving someone a first-aid course and then making him a med-school professor. “I want to assure you and all Americans that, when they fill out their [health-insurance] marketplace applications, they can trust the information they’re providing is protected,” said Marilyn Tavenner, head of HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, at a congressional hearing last week”

(Weekly Standard)

Now that’s comforting. The hope is that those in Washington will realize what a mess this system is and repeal it entirely, of course, that might not be the case as lobbyist come in all shapes, sizes, and well, family members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats alike.

Watch for more poll numbers dropping in coming months. The question now remains: “Will the general public, including those “low information voters”, get a grip and vote incumbents out of office, especially those who’ve made a career out of a job meant to be a public service? That remains to be seen – but odds aren’t good.

A side note: From the LA times, Sarah Palin is remembered for being right about those darn Death Panels – a shocking op-ed.

Sarah Palin, Does not Suggest She will Run for Alaska Senate – Unless, of course, it’s necessary.

Sarah Palin, during a radio interview, was asked if she would run for the Alaskan Senate seat currently held by Democrat, Mark Begich . In response, she replied she’s been asked about running for the seat, however, she was waiting to see if there were other candidates in the race that were not the “same old politicians in the state.”(Washington Post). Understanding that there is a tiny bit of angst by the standard rank and file Republican’s in DC and elsewhere that want to continue the status quo, Sarah Palin is a thorn in their side, along with any other politico that bucks their system.

According to the Anchorage Daily News – there are two GOP candidates, Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell and Joe Miller. Miller won the 2010 GOP primary against Sen. Lisa Murkowski only to lose to her in the general election as she mounted a historic write-in campaign.”. On the one hand, there’s the Tea Party/Independent Joe Miller, and on the other, the Bush Appointee with private sector experience, and apparently little polling has been done, as of yet to indicate the acceptance of either candidate by those actually living in Alaska.

It remains to be seen if Palin would enter a race, however, by the tone of the interview, it appears, at this juncture unlikely. It's just Sarah Palin speaking her mind - which is always refreshing.

Sarah Palin – What If She Decided To Join/Work with a Third Party? – The Writing Has Been On the Wall Since 2010.

Sarah Palin pictured with Ted Cruz (R-TX), both Constitutionalists - image pat dollard dot com

There’s been a lot of speculation the past few days over former Governor of Alaska, and 2008 GOP VP Candidate, Sarah Palin’s remarks regarding leaving the GOP for greener pastures. The remark about starting a “Freedom Party” came as a Q&A, and, as a good many situations arise out of Washington, or either major political party, that irk Palin, it appears that the focus is on her stance on the Republican’s who voted for the Senate Immigration package bill. (Seattle Post)

The political analysts over at the Christian Science Monitor ask the rhetorical question: “Why is Sarah Palin saying she might leave the GOP?”, and go on to answer that with a “not likely”.

Why would the Christina Science Monitor or any news outlet believe that Palin was not serious? Although no one, especially anyone in media, new or old, knows what’s on Governor Palin’s mind, if one were to take a look at footage of her speaking at rallies prior to the 2010 elections; one might have a different point of view as to whether or not she may be considering ditching a major party.

Upon introducing herself to the U.S. Political stage (outside of the State of Alaska and the Governors Associations), Palin has been a virtual unknown entity in the lower 48. How many people even know the name of the Governor of an adjoining state, let alone the name of their own State’s Govenor (given the absolutely pitiful rise of the low information voter.) Therefore, Palin, an unknown, with zero interest from the media (other than to make her look as incompetent as possible), remains that way today.

With the exception of those who have been lucky enough to hear that woman speak about what our nation should look like in a political sense – straight from the Constitution – without the powerful two-party machines, rather, with citizens who actually have more interest in their nation, than in getting more from the trough. Those that may have been at one of the events, from one end of the coast to the other, would have heard a sane and sensible message, one that was inspiring, and more bi-partisan, or anti-party, than anticipated. A message of hope for the future, of building a better society, and overall, one that was welcoming to anyone, any race, creed, color, or political affiliation.

Therein lays the danger in Sarah Palin – were she to take the GOP infiltrated Tea Party, and motivate those millions of activists hoping against hope for a return to Congressional and Senatorial sanity, to form, precinct by precinct, state by state, a solid alternative to not only the GOP but the DNC, it would have a general appeal that one might suggest would pull from both parties, and especially from those who consider themselves unenrolled, unaffiliated or independent.

Perhaps she was, at the time of the query, just voicing her frustration over the ridiculous situation in Washington. The immigration bill is only a tiny part of what is wrong –there’s the waste, and the downright stupid decision that are made on a daily basis, that not only cost the taxpayers’ money, but are generally embarrassing for those whose State or Congressional district sent said Legislator to D.C. in the first place. (Of course, they would have to know what that individual did that was so lame, but, unless it’s a Republican stuck on stupid, the media wont’ report it, there, if one is questioning why we have low information voters? – They are turned off – so the tune off the news – in droves- and are so disgusted, they don’t even vote, or are peacefully and blissfully unaware of what’s going on in DC or their State Capitol, that is making life so unbearable.)

Palin may be as frustrated as the rest of the nation who is even semi-aware of the nonsense created by both major parties. Or, she may be serious. If she is serious, she would be much maligned (which by now, the woman should be used to the vitriol), and she would be a patriot under any guise, as she would be attempting to taka the countries governance on the Federal level back to its founders intent.

Should Palin decide to take it one the road and organize, one might find that she’d soon have company, and that she may draw equally from both parties – thus castrating the two major parties, and leaving them each with one-third of the nation – imagine, not over night, but in a decade or less, the ability to send a third party candidate to the White House, not one beholden to one party or the other, but one that would be representative of the People. Whether or not Palin actually decides to put herself and her family through a national campaign of such a scope is another thing – however what a great thing it would be.

CPAC – From the Outside Looking In – the Rise of the Libertarians, Tea Party Conservatives – Anti-Beltway – Populist Leaders

C-SPAN- Coverage of CPAC2013 - image C-SPAN - visit CSPAN Video for additional coverage

The coverage of the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) was as expected – with the media calling this event akin "to going to the land before time" – (Matthew Dowd – ABC News). There was a bit of the old Republican’s in chaos – but…those watching from a distance (C-Span) saw the event from a slightly different angle. For one, the Conservatives are not necessarily “Republican”, as in the “brand”, rather they are a mix of Moderates, Conservatives and Libertarians – new faces and old faces – and they are, for the most part – young – between 18 and 25 years of age. They are, in effect, ordinary people who believe strongly in fiscal conservatism – as a combination of a moral and pragmatic objective. What was most interesting was the emphasis by those who were speaking, on what’s wrong in Washington D.C. and the power vacuum that exists between the Capital and the balance of the nation – there is a great disconnect between the elites in Washington and the people who send them. (Although there were plenty of those “Republican’s in the mix.)

This was made apparent by Sarah Palin, who lashed out at the “elite” in D.C. and the Machine that is the GOP establishment – picking winners and losers, and then ultimately losing elections. There was a not so subtle jab at Karl Rove, one time GOP political strategist under George W. Bush, who had a virtual melt-down on Fox News election eve, when they called key states for President Obama. Rove, in his passion as a Republican, could not concede that yet another election was going towards the opposition party. What Rove, and one might suspect, the other lobbyists, strategist etc. in D.C. as well as the media (who plays to both sides of Washington politics as it is basically, one group that is the same, both Democrats and Republicans, by virtue of their control over events. In the last two elections, the choice by the party controllers, of what is considered a moderate – has failed. The reasoning is usually a jab at the “mainstream media”, who is somewhat culpable, however, with a 26% trust (or thereabouts) polling for all news media (Gallup), one has to wonder, is the media being given too much credit? Rather one might suggest that when a candidate it pushed forward, and the “base” which is varied, cannot abide one or the other of these candidates – they stay home, and they don’t vote. There were problems’ with Mitt Romney’s candidacy that is not being discussed – for one, the nonsense that is one if at the top of the ticket, Republicans and Republican leaning voters will simply vote for that individual. Nothing can be further from the truth. Ron Paul’s two million strong army, Rick Santorum’s devout followers, those evangelicals who could not see a path to voting for a man who’s religion was considered a “cult” – would have been, each one alone, enough to change the course of the election. Therefore, it is the changing face of conservatism, the populist, Libertarian and Tea Party rising, that needs the support, rather than the derision of those who would be kingmakers, lest they see themselves on the outside looking in.

Therefore, enter the new (and some older) faces of Conservatism – the brand of Conservatism that appeals to those from both “traditional” parties – in other words, not the hard-line social conservatives, of which there are millions, rather an individual who was not so repellant to their core beliefs – and someone who was not part of the permanent political class, rather a fresh face – and there were many at CPAC.

They are all worth listening to – without the “haze” of opinion – and all segments are available on YouTube: at the ACU CPAC playlist for CPAC 2016 Here

There are the keynote speakers, (Palin, most notably), those who one might not recognize, Dr. Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, names one might recall hearing as of late, and a host of others that speak to the heart of American rather than the black hole that is Washington.

What one finds most entertaining is the numbers of individuals who are ready to dismiss a speaker (such as Sarah Palin) based upon what they have heard through media, or professors, and when confronted with a written snippet of a speech, find that individual to be somewhat brilliant. Therein lays the crux of the matter – those who would be holding onto their power in Washington, even losing an election does not change their status, may finds themselves, going into the 2016 general, a bit on the outs. The potential candidates, especially Dr. Ben Carson and Rand Paul, deliver messages that cross the great personal political divide – Not surprisingly, Ran Paul won the annual straw poll – although it was suggested that he did not win by a huge percentage due to the exclusion of libertarian groups at the conference. However, when Rand Paul took to the floor of the Senate to filibuster, those following Twitter understood he was attracting individuals both conservative and liberal, who all took a “standwithrand”. Therefore, one might not want to discount this particular win, just because his father had won in years past. They are, of note, different men, wedded to the same ideology of Libertarianism.

Watch, listen, learn – although there may be some differences, and points of order to be called, one might find that there is hope for a return to the principles that guide American forward, with less government focused in D.C., and more power to the individual states. Perhaps that is why a politically connected D.C. journalist (who’s very power is derived by those connections), would rant about a “land before time” – as it threatens, should those very conservatives take back Washington in its original intent, it would be a personal game-changer.

Now, 2016 begins in earnest – the die is cast, and although one might see the return of the Bush Dynasty, as well as a Clinton to oppose, one might be heartened that the people will be drawn to a different type of Leader –or leaders, (Senators, Congressional Representatives), one who is not going to go along to get along, or worse, continue the dogma and rhetoric that keeps those 501C’s in business, and the Senator, Congressional Representative or President for that matter, in power for multiple terms – one rather is going to change minds and hearts, lead all people. At this point, there are several who can fit that bill. That fact alone, gives those who are tired of the constant bickering, and political chicanery in what is D.C. – hope.

Sarah Palin Aiken Should Step Down, Palin will support Sarah Steelman as an Independent – Cites 28 days for Aikin to Step Aside

Sarah Steelman, Palin's Choice for MO Senate Candidate - image FoxNews.com

Sarah Palin made an appearance on Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren’s “On the Record”, blasting Missouri GOP primary winner, Todd Aiken for his comments regarding rape, and his misguided, draconian, insane statement on what might be considered “rape”. The statement caused a firestorm coming from within the GOP establishment – generally known to boot anyone who steps outside the line, no matter the offense, to the curb, and quickly. The Democrats immediately attempted to link the crackpot from Missouri with the balance of the GOP candidates – not an unusual step for a party that is filled to the brim with candidates and incumbents who have been convicted, investigated, chastised, and supported – by the DNC. The Democrat who strays from the appropriate is applauded and protected by the main Party – regardless of the charges (See Rangel and Frank for prime examples). It is rank partisanship on one side (Democrats) and intolerance for any member who strays from reality or is charged with an offense on the other side (Republican) that might, at times, have independent thinks a bit mind-boggled.

Palin, who was furious with the situation in Missouri, and made no bones about it. She suggested that the “establishment” Republicans had supported Aiken, and now are calling for him to get out of the race, should have supported her candidate of choice to begin with – Sarah Steelman. In the segment (shown below) Palin went on to suggest that Steelman run as an independent, and basically offered both political and financial support in order for her to do so. This is in the event that Aiken does not remove himself from ticket by September 28th. Sarah Steelman is the type of candidate that would gain Palin’s backing (See the candidates site at www.sarahsteelman.com, issues page), a conservative, who has served as the Missouri State Treasurer and is a fiscal hawk.

According to the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, a candidate has six weeks (the 6th Tuesday) prior to the general election) to formally withdraw, in which case the political party may appoint a successor. Palin’s suggestion that Aikin would face reality as the national GOP leadership and State GOP will stop funding the candidate, giving time to run Ms. Steelman as a Republican, and if not, as an Independent.

Palin, who in 2010, helped propel both Congressional and Gubernatorial candidates to office, has supported both Tea Party as well as Establishment GOP candidates. In addition, she has had a history of bucking the party in general.
When Biden made the racially charged statement in August, Palin was quick to suggest that Biden be removed from the ticket and replaced by Hillary Clinton, for the good of the nation. That video appears below and is worth watching.

Palin’s sincere passion for the political process, but more specifically for the individual candidates character, regardless of party affiliation, is what most of her detractors studiously miss about the former Governor of Alaska. In reality, the nation needs more Sarah Palin’s, those who are of one party or the other, or no particular party at all, but who stand up for the process, not the party – being truly independent and a voice for the American people.

Palin on Aiken



On August 14, Palin suggested that President Obama choose Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as his running mate - Palin has a deep regard for the nation that goes beyond partisan politics, although she is cast in that light more often than not.

Palin Will Not Run for the GOP Nomination in 2012 – Will Work for Historic GOP 2010 Repeat in 2012

Via the Mark Levin Show: Sarah Palin, former 2008 GOP V.P. Candidate and Governor of Alaska, will not seek the GOP nomination for the Presidency in 2012. The text of her letter to supporters follows:

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska
After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.
My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.
From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.
I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.
Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller, smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people can better serve this most exceptional nation.
In the coming weeks I will help coordinate strategies to assist in replacing the President, re-taking the Senate, and maintaining the House.
Thank you again for all your support. Let’s unite to restore this country!
God bless America.
– Sarah Palin

From this conservative feminists’ point of view, Palin’s decision in not seeking the office of the Presidency, is, at this juncture, a best use of her talents in shaping the race for not only the Presidency, but the Senate and Congress as well. It is a fact that she was a major force in the 2010 elections, turning the midterms into an historic gain for the GOP, especially with the addition of Tea Party members to the Congress. Although one would have loved to have seen Palin in the debate forum, those eight that have taken the podium are more than deserving, specifically, in this opinion, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. From a pragmatic point of view, those donors and supporters are now free to support the candidate that most respects the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a limited Federal government and freedom from excessive taxation that our Founder’s had in mind. In addition, the candidate who is not afraid to put those, in the media and in both major political parties, that are disparaging, in their place. The country needs a leader who has the intellect, the judgment, the character and the will to govern at this most critical time in our nation’s history. In this opinion, there are those in the current GOP field that fit the bill. God Bless Sarah Palin and her family for all they have put up with, for all she has given of herself for these United States and for all that she intends to do to serve our great nation.

2012 GOP - Herman Cain Rising – Tonight Show Appearance – Cain’s Straight Talk, Take No Prisoner’s Approach – Two Words: Brilliant and Capable

Herman Cain, speaking at crowded event - image World News Blog

On Friday evening, 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate, Herman Cain, was a guest on NBC’s “Tonight Show with Jay Leno”. Both Leno and his counterpart on CBS, Letterman, have been slumping in the ratings lately (NY Times) , therefore, Leno took the step to attract the rest of the available late night audience which may not be overly “left”, with an appearance by Cain. The last time both Leno and Letterman had sky high ratings was when they opened with guests: Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin in early 2010 (LA Times). Apparently, lost on the networks (or those booking for the shows), was a spike in ratings when one brings in the Conservatives – and Herman Cain would be no exception, as he certainly has the momentum in the race at this point.

One knows that Cain’s stock is rising when Democrat “strategists” start playing the race card! (Real Clear Politics). Apparently, to a Progressive Democrat, (i.e. Socialist), Cain is a bigoted racist. That mind boggling remark is sure to be added to other less brilliant or original attacks on Cain from the left, due to the fact that his presence and his rise in the Republican Race, doesn’t’ fit neatly into their mantra of “All Republican’s are white Racists” – wait – that’s where they got it. Apparently, whether one is Latino, a woman, African American, and a Conservative, one is suddenly a "rich white man", in the eyes of Socialists Democrats. How well that plays is well, up to the electorate.
Unfortunately, Cain being embraced by the GOP and Tea Party knocks out that age old theory, so they either have to attack him on his plans, his experience and or his personal life – they’ve got nothing – so, they use what seems to have failed in the past (which explains the current administrations fascination for and implementation of for Carter’s foreign, domestic, and economic policy).

Cain is likeable, and he’s smart, and he’s got a sense of humor. He’s been able to pick up the appropriate tone in the debate arena, faster than any politician’s one has seen in a long time – for someone who is clearly not a politician – His remarks regarding his economic plan are solid, and he backs them up with facts, from a businessman’s perspective. Not a lot of hubris being thrown out there by Mr. Cain.

The highlights of the video clip below (in two segments via NBC):

Cain on the other candidates: Mitt Romney: Good Hair, New Gingrich: Brilliant and Ron Paul: Grumpy Old Man shows a sense of humor that is peppered with honesty.
When asked about the comments by Palin regarding his being flavor of the week (which was a speech not on Cain per se, rather on the media, which concept has gotten lost somehow (last word rhetorical) Cain noted correctly that Palin had called him Herb (and he forgives her now), that she lends a great deal to the national debate, but that he doesn’t feel she’ll enter the race.

Overall it was a good foray into the late night show talk circuit lion’s den, and one can anticipate more appearance by Cain in the future (specifically if Neilson gives the green light to Leno in ratings next week – one can expect additional GOP candidates to be in the rotation.)

Cain is a breath of fresh air, and although one might argue that he doesn’t have experience in “government’ – that’s more of a plus than a negative, whiel his forty plus years in executive positions gives him credibility, the man would be more capable of hiring the right people than any politician to take the reins since the founders – that’s something to think about heading into the primaries.

The Tonight Show with Herman Cain Part I

The Tonight Show with Herman Cain Part II


To learn more about Herman Cain visit his website: www.hermancain.com

GOP Fox Debate Winner – The Underdogs – Cain, Bachmann, Gingrich and CNN – Opinion and Analysis, Debate Transcript and Calendar.

Present GOP 2012 Candidates on Fox Debate Stage - image: Tampabay.com

Fox News held their second 2012 GOP debate last evening with, what appeared to be, the two “front-runners”, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, receiving the majority of time – a little too early in the “race” for the GOP nomination. The full “first version” transcript from Fox appears below. The pace was “choppy”, at best, and although co-hosted by Google, it failed to live up to the standards set by CNN’s last debate, which was, in this opinion, more dignified, less “gimmicky” and allowing equal time for all candidates.

Understanding that the fortunes of front-runners, especially this early in the process, historically changes, the focus on Romney and Perry did neither candidate any good, and those one might consider “long-shots” rose to the occasion. Debate newcomer, Libertarian and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, had the best line of the night, and, as it turns out, the ability to give Mitt Romney the most human and likable impression in the forums to date: (paraphrased) “My neighbors two dogs have had more shovel ready projects than Obama”, camera pans to Romney who is literally holding his side laughing (along with anyone who has a sense of humor).

In Romney and Perry’s ongoing battle for “first”, the two went back and forth over who wrote what in one anothers books, (CBS Analysis here), which in fact, is a bit risky, considering both books are in print and easily accessible to the public. (Granted, most often only read by “fans”, political junkies, and those who review “political tomes” i.e. the New York Times).

From the “real time Graphics” showing instant poll results via You Tube, which were somewhat out-of-sync (bars showing lesser percentages longer than those with larger percentages), to the apparent lack of a “buzzer” sounding “time”, during the longer periods of time when Romney and Perry were highlighted, it was akin to watching MSNBC’s format, without the follow-up by Rachel Maddow.

It goes without saying that either Perry or Romney, give the aforementioned focus, will, in all likelihood exchange a few points in the polls: Romney clearly was the more comfortable of the two in the debate forum, but it was not enough to keep the second tier candidates from scoring with the public.

Herman Cain was most gracious, did well in all “categories”, and prompted a declaration of “winner” from Erick Erickson of Redstate.com. Bachmann rose to the occasion, as well as New Gingrich, who, in post debate conference with those who most likely cast their 2008 vote for Obama, won the “I dislike him less each debate, he’s actually witty, and obviously was able to work with Bill Clinton” (note: it’s perception). This was the biggest surprise coming from the left of center. Like Erickson’s notes in the aforementioned declaration of Cain as winner, the debate became a snoozer (literally – one needed two cups of espresso to make it through this particular debate).

Most “call to action” comment goes to Michelle Bachmann, (paraphrasing) “We don’t have to settle, Conservatives can chose the candidate they want, Obama’s numbers have not yet reached bottom.”, which was a clear and concise swipe at both the media, Perry and Romney in one fell swoop. It also rang true with those GOP voters (and or DNC for that matter) that go to the polls in General Elections, holding ones nose as one votes, due to a lack of confidence in the individual one is voting for. This may be why Bachmann was seen to be signing autographs post debate.

Although, prior to each debate, the media anticipates the that one of those not considered “front runners” will end their campaigns, however, and whoever that may be, it is still, again, too early in the process, and one might note: The LA Times Blog on the Debate featured the inclusion of Governor Johnson, noting : “Republican presidential candidates are scheduled to hold another debate Thursday evening in Orlando, Fla., with a new face on hand. No, it's not Sarah Palin, although she may turn up at a future contest. This time its former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson -- not exactly a game-changing entry but certainly an interesting one.”

Palin and Giuliani (Giulianni being one of the front runners at this time in the 2008 GOP Debate process), both continue to do well in polls using a majority Democrat format including Fox and McClatchy Marist, the latest putting Palin in a statistical tie with the President, (yet somehow doing poorly with Republican in the nomination process – this is especially true of the Fox poll which supplied crosstabs, allowing one to notice the questions involving Palin as a Republican Candidate, were directed at all demographics, and the poll was weighted heavily with Democrats, in order to gain top tier with the peers, and also statistically tie the President, one must understand that the polls has certain flaws. Palin, who from this research, has yet to weigh in on the debate last evening, and may choose not to do so, had noted in a recent Fox interview that she was weighing the decision to run, and that there was time for other candidates to enter the race. In addition, her “polling is for strippers and cross-country skiers” comes to mind when one takes a hard look at the two aforementioned polls.

Scoring on Technical’s: Debate tie: Cain and Gingrich. Bachmann held her own, both Perry and Romney stumbled over each others books far too long to take them seriously, Ron Paul did well, in the fact that he went less over the ledge and took no swipes at Perry, even Jon Huntsman, who is the least aggressive of the bunch, did fairly well.

Best post debate media headline Washignton Times: Great GOP Candidates Stuck in Awful Debate” - agreed, any one of those individuals on that stage would be capable and although within the party proper, it may be obvious there are preferences, the fields is rich, and is other candidates should soon step into the forum, future debates will continue to draw millions of viewers. A note to Fox, review what CNN did, and blatantly copy their format, selfish request to reduce overall boredom.

Next!
(Debate Schedule via Hillbuzz.org)
October 11th, 2011 8pm EST on Bloomberg Television
Location: Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH
Sponsor: Bloomberg, The Washington Post and WBIN-TV

October 18th, 2011 8pm EST on CNN
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Sponsor: CNN and the Western Republican Leadership Conference
.
Of note: There are four additional candidate debates prior to January 12th, and five additional debates either prior to or during the March primaries. This allows for a lot of “cha cha cha changes” to take place in the interim (Big David Bowie Fan).

Transcript Via Fox News

TRANSCRIPT: Fox News-Google GOP Debate
Published September 22, 2011
This is a rush transcript from the Fox News-Google GOP Presidential debate on September 22, 2011 at the Orlando Convention Center in Orlando, Fla. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
BRET BAIER, ANCHOR: Welcome to the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida, the site of our Republican presidential debate. It is being sponsored by Fox News and Google in conjunction with the Florida Republican Party.
Besides watching us on Fox News Channel, we are being streamed on YouTube.com/Fox News and heard on Fox News Radio.
Now let's meet the candidates.
Texas Governor Rick Perry.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Congressman Ron Paul.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Businessman Herman Cain.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Former Senator Rick Santorum.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: And former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Joining me at the big desk tonight, my Fox News colleagues Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: With our partner Google, we have some new features we'd like to quickly tell you about.
Throughout the night we'll be playing some questions from viewers who posted their video and text questions on YouTube. We will also be polling viewers on key issues while the debate is under way. We will have updates from our own Shannon Bream.
Our rules are similar to previous Fox debates, one minute for answers, 30 seconds for follow-ups. And after an outpouring of e-mails from dog owners who said the last bell sounded like their doorbell, we have a new sound for the candidates if they run too long.
Thank you to Google for that sound. We hope after a string of debates we don't have to use that too much.
Now, we received thousands and thousands of questions from around the world on different topics. Each one of these pins on the map is another question from health care and immigration, to foreign policy and social issues. But the highest percentage of questions dealt with jobs, the economy, debt, and government spending. And that was even before today's major market slide.
What makes this debate unique is that not only did you submit the questions, you voted on them, letting everyone know which questions you think the candidates should be asked tonight.
We received questions from all 50 states, but our first question comes from Dave Meldeau, right here in Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: As a small business owner, one of the obstacles I have in growing my business in today's economy is having the confidence and incentive to go out and hire new employees. I'm wondering what each one of our candidates would propose to do as president to help incent small businesses like mine to hire new employees and to confidently grow our business in this troublesome economic environment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: Governor Perry, I'll put that question to you.
GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS: Yes, sir.
Well, Rick Scott is sitting right over there, and he and I compete every day with trying to get jobs into our states. And what we have done in the state of Texas over the course of the last decade is to lower that tax burden on the small businessmen and women, have a regulatory climate that is fair and predictable, and sweeping tort reform that we passed in 2003 that told personal injury trial lawyers, don't come to Texas, because you are not going to be suing our doctors frivolously.
(APPLAUSE)
PERRY: That's the way you get the government off of the back of small businessmen and women. And that's the way you free up those small business entrepreneurs, where they know that they can risk their capital and have a chance to have a return on investment.
If it will work in the state of Texas, it will work in Washington, D.C. And that's exactly what I'm going bring to Washington when I go there in November -- or, excuse me, in January of 2013.
BAIER: Governor Perry, the thing we've heard from most people who submitted questions is they wanted specifics, they wanted details. Most of the people on the stage, opponents, have a specific jobs plan on paper that people can read.
Where is your jobs plan?
PERRY: Well, you will see a more extensive jobs plan. But the fact of the matter is, you look at the state of Texas and see what we've done there from the standpoint of lowering that tax burden, the regulatory climate in the state of Texas. We've taken those types of regulation off the throat of small business operators.
People understand that the state of Texas, during the last decade, something special happened there. It was the number one state for relocation for five years in a row. And we plan on keeping it that way, Rick.
(LAUGHTER)
BAIER: Governor Romney -- Governor Romney, you have a specific plan. In recent days, actually, the top rising search of your name on Google actually dealt with people searching for specifics of that plan.
But a Wall Street Journal editorial recently called your 59-point economic plan, quote, "surprisingly timid and tactical considering our economic predicament." Specifically, the editorial board had a problem with you picking the $200,000 income threshold for eliminating interest, dividends, and capital gains taxes, writing that you were afraid of President Obama's, quote, "class warfare rhetoric."
How do you response to that criticism?
MITT ROMNEY, FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR: Well, let's go back -- let's go back and talk -- microphone on? Can we get the mike on? There we go.
BAIER: There we go.
ROMNEY: Let's go back and talk about the question that Dave asked, which is how to get small business a break. And President Obama has done everything wrong.
I happen to believe that to create jobs it helps to have had a job, and I have (ph). And having had a job in small business and in big business, I know what you have to do is make America the most attractive place in the world for business, and that means our corporate tax rates, our employer tax rates have to be competitive. Small business pays at the highest rate. We need to get those rates down to globally competitive levels.
Number two, government and regulators have to be allies of business, not foes.
Number three, we've got to become energy secure in this country.
Number four, we have to have trade policies that work for us, not just for the other guys, and crack down on cheaters like China.
And my list goes on in my 59 points. But finally, let me tell you this...
(APPLAUSE)
I -- I know there are some that say, look, we should lower taxes for the very highest-income people. Other folks have different plans. My view is very simple: The people that have been hurt most by the president's economy, the Obama economy, has been the middle class.
That's why I cut taxes for the middle class.
BAIER: So, sir, what...
(APPLAUSE)
... what do you consider rich? Is half-a-million dollars, a million dollars rich? At what income does someone reach your definition of rich?
ROMNEY: I don't try and define who's -- who's rich and who's not rich. I want everybody in America to be rich. I want people in this country to have opportunity.
(APPLAUSE)
And I want everybody to have the kind of opportunities that we on this stage have had. I want people in America to recognize that the future will be brighter for their kids than it was for them.
I know that the -- the president's party wants to try and take from some people and give to the others. That isn't the way to lift America. The way to lift America is to give people opportunity and to let them enjoy the freedoms that have made us the envy of the world.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Governor, thank you very much. Occasionally, through the debate, we will ask the same questions we ask the candidates to you at home. The first one, what is your definition of rich? You can vote on that answer at youtube.com/foxnews. We'll bring some of those results throughout the show with Shannon Bream.
Now to my colleague, Megyn Kelly.
KELLY: Thanks, Bret.
Congresswoman Bachmann, after the last debate, a young member of the California Tea Party said he didn't feel he had had his question fully answered. And it's a question that received the most votes on Google and YouTube on the list, as well. The answer his question is a number. And the question was, quote, "Out of every dollar I earn, how much do you think that I deserve to keep?"
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN.: And after the debate, I talked to that young man, and I said I wish I could have answered that question, because I want to tell you what my answer is: I think you earned every dollar. You should get to keep every dollar that you earn. That's your money; that's not the government's money.
(APPLAUSE)
That's the whole point. Barack Obama seems to think that when we earn money, it belongs to him and we're lucky just to keep a little bit of it. I don't think that at all. I think when people make money, it's their money.
Obviously, we have to give money back to the government so that we can run the government, but we have to have a completely different mindset. And that mindset is, the American people are the genius of this economy. It certainly isn't government that's the genius. And that's the two views.
President Obama has embraced a view of government-directed temporary fixes and gimmicks. They don't work. He's destroyed the economy. What does work is private solutions that are permanent in the private sector. That gives certainty; that will grow our economy.
(APPLAUSE)
MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: Senator Santorum, next question is for you. This map from Google depicts 22 states in the U.S. are right-to-work states. In the other 28, if a business is a union shop, you have to join the union if you want to work there. Now, this next question is one of the top-voted questions online, and it comes to us via YouTube from Yates Wilburn of Hilton Head, South Carolina.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: With unemployment numbers remaining above 9 percent, union issues, such as the National Labor Relations Board lawsuit against Boeing and several union battles in state legislatures across the country have become incredibly relevant to the national discussion. For all the candidates, would you support some form of a federal right-to-work law, allowing all workers to choose whether or not to join a union?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: That's for you, Senator Santorum.
FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, R-PA.: I -- I think the most important area that we have to focus in on when it comes to unions is public employee unions. That's the area of unionization that's growing the fastest and it's costing us the most money.
We've seen these battles on the state level, where unions have -- have really bankrupted states from pension plans to here on the federal level, for example, 30 percent to 40 percent union -- union employees make above their private-sector equivalents.
I do not believe that -- that state, federal or local workers, unions, should be involved in unions. And I would actually support a bill that says that we should not have public employee unions for the purposes of wages and benefits to be negotiated.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Speaker Gingrich, this next one's for you. You criticized extending unemployment benefits, saying that you were, quote, "opposed to giving people money for doing nothing." Benefits have already been extended to 99 weeks, and they are set to expire soon. If you were president today, would you extend unemployment benefits? And if not, how do you justify that to the millions of unemployed Americans who are looking in earnest and whose families are depending on those checks?
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, what I've said is that I think unemployment compensation should be tied directly to a training program. And if you have to -- if you don't have a job and you need help, then in order for us to give you the help, you should sign up for a business-led training program so that that 99 weeks becomes an investment in human capital, giving us the best-trained workforce in the world so you can get a job.
But I believe it is fundamentally wrong to give people money for 99 weeks for doing nothing. That's why we had welfare reform.
(APPLAUSE)
And, frankly, the easiest thing for Congress to do, if the president sends up a proposed extension, is to allow all 50 states to experiment at the state level with developing a mandatory training component of unemployment compensation, so you'd have 50 parallel experiments, and not pretend that Washington knows best or that Washington can solve the problem by itself. But I believe deeply, people should not get money for doing nothing.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Now I turn to my colleague, Chris Wallace.
Chris?
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Bret, thank you. Good evening, candidates.
Governor Huntsman, in Utah, you offered millions of dollars in tax credits to promote clean energy. In June you said that as president you would subsidize natural gas companies. How is that different from the Obama administration, which gave the solar panel company Solyndra a half-a-billion dollars in federal loan guarantees, and as we all know, that company ended up bankrupt, and we taxpayers ended up on the hook?
FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN, R-UTAH: Chris, first of all, it's an honor to be here in Orlando, home of my wife, the greatest human being I've known in 28 years.
We've learned some important lessons as this economy has spun out of control. We have some hard decisions to make. And we're not going to fix the problem. We're not going to be able to bring our people together in America until we fix the economy.
I'm convinced that part of the divide that we're experiencing in the United States, which is unprecedented, it's unnatural, and it's un-American, is because we're divided economically, too few jobs, too few opportunities.
We have learned that subsidies don't work and that we can no longer afford them. I believe that we can move toward renewable energy, but we're going to have to have a bridge product. Everybody wants to draw from the sun and draw from the wind, and I'm here to tell you that eventually that will make sense, but today the economics don't work.
We need something like natural gas. I've put forward an energy independence program, along with tax reform and regulatory reform. Just by drawing from natural gas, for example, you're looking at 500,000 to 1 million jobs over the next five years. It is ours, it's affordable, it has important national security implications, and we should begin the conversion process.
WALLACE: But just a 30-second follow-up, sir. In June, you told the New Hampshire Union Leader as president you would subsidies the natural gas industry.
HUNTSMAN: I would be willing to begin an effort, so long as there was a rapid phase-out. I do not like subsidies. I do not like long-term subsidies. But if there was some sort of way to get the ball rolling with a -- with a -- with a quick phase-out, I would be in favor of that.
WALLACE: Mr. Cain, I want to follow up on your 999 plan for economic growth. That's a 9 percent...
(APPLAUSE)
Well, they seem to already know what it is. But for the few who don't, it's a 9 percent flat corporate tax, a 9 percent flat income tax, and a new 9 percent national sales tax.
Now, conservatives usually say repeal the income tax before you impose a new tax. Isn't there a danger with your 999 plan, with these three taxes, that some government down the road after President Cain is going to increase three forms of taxation on Americans?
HERMAN CAIN, FORMER CEO OF GODFATHER'S PIZZA: No, there's no danger in that. And first, let me answer Dave's question with the 9, 9, 9 plan. Unfortunately, nobody up here answered his question. He wanted to know as a small businessman what are we going to do to help him as a small business person? I have walked in Dave's shoes.
This economy is on life support, that's why my 9, 9, 9 plan is a bold solution. It starts with throw out the current tax code and pass 9 percent business flat tax, 9 percent personal income tax, and the 9% national sales tax. This is the most important part, it eliminates, or replaces corporate income tax, personal income tax, capital gains tax as well as the estate tax.
Then it treats all businesses the same. And the people who are paying only payroll tax, 15.3, that 15.4 they don't have to pay, now they only have to pay that 9 percent.
And unlike Governor Romney's plan my plan throws out the old one.
He's still hooked to the current tax code. That dog won't hunt.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: The rule is if your name is mentioned in an answer you get 30 seconds to respond -- Governor Romney.
ROMNEY: That's fine. I put my plan out, I want to make it clear my intent is to help the people who have been most hurt by President Obama's economy. And the people who have been most hurt are the middle income families of America. And that's why my plan says that if middle income families want to save their money, anybody earning under $200,000 and not pay any taxes on interest, dividends or capital gains, zero tax on their savings, that's the plan I'm for. And I will get that done in my first year. Thank you.
WALLACE: Congressman Paul I want to show the video that got the most votes of all the video questions submitted to YouTube. And this one comes, as you can see, from Brandy and Michael in Spencer, Indiana.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: There's growing concern among Americans about the size and the scope of the federal government and its infringement upon state and individual rights.
QUESTION: If you're elected president how do you plan to restore the 10th amendment, hold the federal government only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution and allow states to govern themselves?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Congressman what is your answer for Brandy and Michael?
REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well obviously, it would take more than one individual, but the responsibility of the president would be to veto every single bill that violates the 10th amendment. That would be the solution.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Anything else? You have a little time left.
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: Well, I'll tell you what, that is the subject that is crucial because government is too big in Washington, D.C. It's run away. We have no controls of spending, taxes, regulations, no control in the Federal Reserve printing money. So if we want government, whether it is medical care or whatever, it is proper to do it at the local level as well as our schools. But there's no authority in the constitution to do so much what we're doing. There's no authority for them to run our schools, no authority to control our economy, and no authority to control us as individuals on what we do with our personal lives!
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: OK, we got to the full answer there at the end. Governor Johnson, same question to you about the 10th amendment. With this added, you are an outspoken libertarian. What makes you a better choice for libertarian Republicans than Congressman Paul?
FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON, R-N.M.: I'm not going to presume to make that assumption, but I would like to say that I do bring a unique perspective to this stage. I started a one-man handyman business in Albuquerque in 1974 and grew it to over 1,000 employees. I have run for two political offices in my life: governor of New Mexico and reelection. I promise to submit a balanced budget to congress in the year 2013. I promise to veto legislation where expenditures exceed revenue.
And if anybody doubts my willingness to veto bills, I think I vetoed more bills than any governor in the history of the United States. I think I vetoed more bills than all the other governors in the country combined.
Add to that, throwing out the entire federal tax system and replacing it with a consumption tax, the fair tax, which would absolutely reboot the American economy because it does away with the corporate tax to create tens of millions of jobs in this country.
BAIER: Governor Johnson, thank you.
We'll be coming back to the issue of the economy throughout this debate tonight. As I mentioned at the top of the show, we'll also be checking in with our own Shannon Bream throughout the night to get real-time updates from people watching -- Shannon.
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS: Hi Bret.
Well, this is the most interactive debate ever, and it's thanks to our partner Google. You can go to YouTube.com/Fox News. What happens there, folks can see the debate streaming live. But also, to the right of the screen, all night long, we are sending out questions so we can get your answers at home. And you can participate and weigh in.
Bret, a little bit earlier, asked Governor Romney how he defines rich. It's a question we put to folks out on the Internet as well, and we've got the results.
Here's the question: "I define rich as someone having an annual income higher than." A hundred thousand dollars, 13 percent of you weighed in there; $250,000, 22 percent; $500,000, 22 percent; and the majority went with $1 million annual income, that defines you as rich,
44 percent of those who voted.
We'll be going through all kinds of polls and data on the commercials. Join us at YouTube.com/Fox News.
Bret, back to you.
BAIER: Thanks, Shannon.
After the break, we will be tackling foreign policy, government spending. Shannon will have more on that, too. And also the issue of immigration.
Now, here for a preview of what's to come, let's take a look at what's called a word cloud. It shows the words that were used most often in all of the questions you asked about immigration. The bigger the word, the more often it was used.
The biggest word in this cloud, as you see, is "illegal."
Back after a short break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RICK SCOTT, R-FLA.: Good evening. I'm Florida Governor Rick Scott. Because of Florida's size and diversity, our state represents the very pulse of our great nation. Not only will Florida be a must win for a Republican to be our party's nominee, Florida is a must win on the road to the White House.
It is my belief that the next president will be the candidate who both articulates a plan for getting America's economy back on the right track and inspires confidence in the hearts and minds of all Americans.
Good luck to all the candidates.
This debate is a partnership with Fox News and Google. I thank the men and women of Fox News and Google for choosing Florida, and thank all of you for being part of this exciting event.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: Thank you Governor Scott.
And welcome back to Orlando, Florida, and the Republican presidential debate.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: My colleague Megyn Kelly will take us through the next round of questions on government spending and debt.
KELLY: Thanks, Bret.
Governor Perry, Governor Romney has been hammering you on your idea of turning Social Security back to the states, repeatedly. Can you explain specifically how 50 separate Social Security systems are supposed to work?
PERRY: Well, let me just say first, for those people that are on Social Security today, for those people that are approaching Social Security, they don't have anything in the world to worry about. We have made a solemn oath to the people of this country that that Social Security program in place today will be there for them.
Now, it's not the first time that Mitt has been wrong on some issues before. And the bottom line is, is we never said that we were going to move this back to the states. What we said was, we ought to have as one of the options the state employees and the state retirees, they being able to go off of the current system, on to one that the states would operate themselves.
As a matter of fact, in Massachusetts, his home state, almost 96 percent of the people who are on that program, retirees and state people, are off of the Social Security program. So having that option out there to have the states -- Louisiana does it, almost every state has their state employees and the retirees that are options to go off of Social Security.
That makes sense. It's an option that we should have.
KELLY: Governor Romney, you're satisfied with that?
ROMNEY: Well, it's different than what the governor put in his book just, what, six months, and what you said in your interviews following the book. So I don't know. There's a Rick Perry out there that is saying -- and almost to quote, it says that the federal government shouldn't be in the pension business, that it's unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional and it should be returned to the states.
So you better find that Rick Perry and get him to stop saying that.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Now, my own view is, that we have to make it very, very clear that Social Security is a responsibility of the federal government, not the state governments, that we're going to have one plan, and we're going to make sure that it's fiscally sound and stable.
And I'm absolutely committed to keeping Social Security working. I put in my book that I wrote a couple of years ago a plan for how we can do that and to make sure Social Security stable not just for the next 25 years, but for the next 75.
Thank you.
PERRY: And I would like to respond to that.
KELLY: Go ahead, Governor Perry.
PERRY: Speaking of books and talking about being able to have things in your books, back and forth, your economic adviser talked about Romneycare and how that was an absolute bust. And it was exactly what Obamacare was all about.
As a matter of fact, between books, your hard copy book, you said it was exactly what the American people needed, to have that Romneycare given to them as you had in Massachusetts. Then in your paperback, you took that line out. So, speaking of not getting it straight in your book sir, that would be a --
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: Governor Perry, we were talking about Social Security, but if you want to talk about health care, I'm happy to do that.
BAIER: We are going to have a round on that.
ROMNEY: I actually wrote my book, and in my book I said no such thing. What I said, actually -- when I put my health care plan together
-- and I met with Dan Balz, for instance, of The Washington Post. He said, "Is this is a plan that if you were president you would put on the whole nation, have a whole nation adopt it?"
I said, "Absolutely not." I said, "This is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan."
And it's fine for to you retreat from your own words in your own book, but please don't try and make me retreat from the words that I wrote in my book. I stand by what I wrote. I believe in what I did.
And I believe that the people of this country can read my book and see exactly what it is.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: We've got plenty of questions for all the other candidates up here tonight, but I want to stick with you on this one, Governor Romney.
Congresswoman Bachmann has said that President Obama has "ushered in socialism" during his first term. Governor Perry says that this administration is "hell bent" toward taking America toward a socialist country" When Speaker Gingrich was asked if he believes President Obama is a socialist, he responded, quote, "Sure, of course he is."
(LAUGHTER)
Do you, Governor Romney...
(APPLAUSE)
Do you, Governor Romney, believe that President Obama is a socialist?
ROMNEY: Let me tell you the title that I want to hear said about President Obama, and that is: former President Barack Obama. That's the title I want to hear.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me tell you this. What President -- what President Obama is, is a big-spending liberal. And he takes his political inspiration from Europe and from the socialist democrats in Europe. Guess what? Europe isn't working in Europe. It's not going to work here.
I believe in America. I believe in the opportunity and in the freedom that is American opportunity and freedom. I believe in free enterprise and capitalism. I believe government is too big. It's gone from 27 percent of our economy in the years of JFK to 37 percent of our economy. We have to rein in the scale of government or we're not going to be -- continue to be a free economy.
I love this country. I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I only spent four years as a governor. I didn't inhale.
(LAUGHTER)
I'm a business guy. I'm going to get America working again, because I believe in the principles that make America the hope of the Earth.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
MEGYN KELLY, FOX NEWS: Governor Huntsman, this next one's for you. This week, President Obama proposed a tax hike on millionaires, saying that they need to pay their, quote, "fair share." According to an August Gallup poll, 66 percent of American adults actually believe that a tax hike on the wealthy is a good idea to help tackle our mounting debt. Is there any scenario under which you could side with the 66 percent of people who believe that it is a good idea to raise taxes on millionaires?
FORMER GOV. JON HUNTSMAN, R-UTAH: We're not going to raise taxes. This is the worst time to be raising taxes, and everybody knows that.
(APPLAUSE)
We need to grow. We need to be reminded of what Ronald Reagan told us so beautifully, that which is great about America, freedom. We need to re-establish freedom in the marketplace.
We need to address our underlying structural problems that we have.
And in order to do that, we're going to have to fix our taxes. And we put forward a program endorsed by the Wall Street Journal that phases out for individuals all the loopholes, all the deductions, and creates three rates, 8, 14, 23.
On the corporate side, it phases out all of the corporate welfare, all of the subsidies, and it gets it from 35 percent to 25 percent.
This is exactly where we need to be. We need to grow; we need to create jobs. This is not a point in time where we should be raising taxes.
We need to fix the underlying structural problems in this economy.
And until such time as we do, we're not going to provide the confidence to businesses who are looking to deploy capital in the marketplace and hire people. And that would be serious tax reform, like I proposed, and like I did in the stay of Utah, and that would be -- that would be structural reform, as well, dealing with Dodd-Frank, and repealing Obamacare, because they are presenting tremendous uncertainty to the marketplace right now.
KELLY: Thank you, Governor.
Mr. Cain, this question was one of the top 10 video questions voted on by people online, and it comes to us from Lee Doren of Arlington, Virginia, via YouTube.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: My question is, if you were forced to eliminate one department from the federal government, which one would you eliminate and why? Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
HERMAN CAIN, BUSINESSMAN: The first -- the first department, if I were forced to eliminate a department, I would start with the EPA and start all over.
It's out of control.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I know that makes some people nervous, but the EPA has gone wild. The fact that they have a regulation that goes into effect January 1, 2012, to regulate dust says that they've gone too far.
(LAUGHTER)
So rather than try to fix it, eliminate all of the things that they have right now and then start rebuilding a responsible EPA.
Now, with the rest of my time, may I offer a solution for Social Security, rather than continuing to talk about what to call it? I have proposed the Chilean model. It's been around 30 years, and it works.
It's a personal retirement account. And in the last 30 years, not only has Chile succeeded with that model, but 30 other countries have done so. I don't think we're doing a service to the American people to keep bantering about what you call it and what you don't call it. The solution is: Fix it.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Speaker Gingrich, every day the federal government takes in about $6 billion, but spends about $10 billion. So we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. Now, I understand that you believe that if we modernize the federal government that it'll help a lot, it'll save billions. But given the resistance that we've seen in Washington -- the seeming intractable resistance we've seen in Washington to spending cuts, how can you possibly slash spending by 40 percent? How can you do it?
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSR: Well, the way you described the question, you can't.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLY: Well, that's it. Stick a fork in us.
GINGRICH: If -- if you assume Washington remains the way Washington is right now, it's all hopeless. We might as well buy Greek bonds and go down together.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLY: How do you get us out of that?
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: Well, next Thursday in Des Moines, I'm going to outline a 21st century Contract with America. And it's going to be far bolder, far deeper, far more profound than what we did in 1994 or what I helped Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan do in 1980.
It's important to remember, this month, in the Reagan administration, September 1983, we created 1,100,000 new jobs. Obama's socialist policies, class warfare, and bureaucratic socialism, we created zero in August.
I believe with leadership we can balance the budget. I did it for four consecutive years. We went from $2.2 trillion projected deficit over a decade to $2.7 trillion projected surplus when I left. I think it is doable, but it takes real leadership.
(APPLAUSE)
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS: Thank you, Megyn.
The next question is for all of the candidates. It comes to us from Atlanta, Georgia, on the topic of education.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Hi, I'm Stella Lohmann from Atlanta, Georgia. I've taught in both public and private schools, and now as a substitute teacher I see administrators more focused on satisfying federal mandates, retaining funding, trying not to get sued, while the teachers are jumping through hoops trying to serve up a one-size-fits-all education for their students. What as president would you seriously do about what I consider a massive overreach of big government into the classroom? Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: That topic is for all candidates. And to get everyone to weigh in, 30 seconds each, please.
Governor Johnson?
FORMER GOV. GARY JOHNSON, R-N.M.: I'm promising to submit a balanced budget to Congress in the year 2013. That's a 43 percent reduction in federal spending.
I am going to promise to advocate the abolishment of the federal Department of Education.
(APPLAUSE)
The federal Department of Education gives each state 11 cents out of every dollar that every state spends, but it comes with 16 cents worth of strings attached. So what America does not understand is that it's a negative to take federal money. Give it to 50 laboratories of innovation, the states, to improve on, and that's what we'll see:
dramatic improvement.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Senator Santorum?
FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, R-PA.: Yeah, 20 years ago, the federal contribution to education was 3 percent. It's now at 11 percent, and our schools are doing worse, and it's exactly what Gary Johnson just said. It's because the federal government's meddling.
The bottom-line problem with education is that the education system doesn't serve the customer of the education system. And who's the customer? The parents, because it's the parents' responsibility to educate the children.
It's been that responsibility -- from the moment they were born, they began the education of their children. And at some point, we have
-- the government has convinced parents that at some point it's no longer their responsibility. And in fact, they force them, in many respects, to turn their children over to the public education system and wrest control from them and block them out of participation of that.
That has to change or education will not improve in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Speaker Gingrich?
GINGRICH: I think you need very profound reform of education at the state level. You need to dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education, get rid of virtually all of its regulations.
And the truth is, I believe we'd be far better off if most states adopted a program of the equivalent of Pell Grants for K-through-12, so that parents could choose where their child went to school, whether it was public, or private, or home-schooling, and parents could be involved. Florida has a virtual school program that is worth the entire country studying as an example.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Congressman Paul?
REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: If you care about your children, you'll get the federal government out of the business of educating our kids.
(APPLAUSE)
In 1980, when the Republican Party ran, part of the platform was to get rid of the Department of Education. By the year 2000, it was eliminated, and we fed on to it. Then (inaudible) Republicans added No Child Left Behind.
So the first thing a president should do is -- the goal should be set to get the government out completely, but don't enforce this law of No Child Left Behind. It's not going to do any good, and nobody likes it. And there's no value to it. The teachers don't like it, and the students don't like it.
But there are other things that the federal government can do, and that is give tax credits for the people who will opt out. We ought to have a right to opt out of the public system if you want.
BAIER: Governor Perry.
GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS: There are a lot of good ideas here on the side and whether it is cutting back on the Department of Education, making those types of reductions.
I happen to believe we ought to be promoting school choice all across this country. I think school -- the voucher system, charter schools all across this country. But there is one person on this stage that is for Obama's Race to the Top and that is Governor Romney. He said so just this last week. And I think that is an important difference between the rest of the people on this stage and one person that wants to run for the presidency.
Being in favor of the Obama Race to the Top and that is not conservative.
BAIER: Governor Romney?
FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS.: Nice try.
Let me tell you what I think I would do.
One, education has to be held at the local and state level, not at the federal level. We need get the federal government out of education. And secondly, all the talk about we need smaller classroom size, look that's promoted by the teachers unions to hire more teachers. We looked at what drives good education in our state, what we found is the best thing for education is great teachers, hire the very best and brightest to be teachers, pay them properly, make sure that you have school choice, test your kids to see if they are meeting the standards that need to be met, and make sure that you put the parents in charge.
And as president I will stand up to the National Teachers Unions.
BAIER: Governor Romney, I want give you more time. Did Governor Perry say something that wasn't true?
ROMNEY: I'm not sure exactly what he's saying. I don't support any particular program that he's describing. I think that the president -- I think the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is doing a good thing by saying, you know what, we should insist that teachers get evaluated and that schools have the opportunity to see which teachers exceeding and which ones are failing and that teachers that are not successful are removed from the classroom. Those ideas by Secretary Duncan, that is a lot better than what the president did which is cutting off school choice in the Washington, D.C. schools. So let's give us a full chance to talk about it.
BAIER: Congresswoman Bachmann?
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN.: We need that to do with education what has always worked historically, and that's local control with parents. What doesn't work is what we see happen right now.
I'm a mom five biological kids. We've raised 23 foster children in our home. The reason why I got involved in politics was because of the concern I had about our foster children and the education they were getting. What I would do as president of the United States is pass the mother of all repeal bills on education. I would take the entire federal education law, repeal it. Then I would go over to the Department of Education, I'd turn off the lights, I would lock the door and I would send all the money back to the states and localities.
BAIER: Mr. Cain?
CAIN: A lot of good ideas, I won't repeat them.
All of the programs at the federal level where there's strings attached, cut all the strings. We have got to encourage parents to take advantage of choices, but provide those choices and we must find ways to empower the students. This is how we are going to improve education, but primarily get the federal government out of trying to educate our kids at the local level.
BAIER: Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: This is a key question, because it has so much to do with our nation's competitiveness. I feel like I've run my own clinical trial in my home, raising seven kids. We've seen every option. We've experienced everything out there. But as governor I learned some important things. I signed the first -- or the second voucher bill in the United States, Carson-Smith. I've actually done something about this.
We actually worked on early childhood literacy. If you can lock in the pillars of cognitive development around reading and math before age six, you are giving those kids the best gift possible as they then proceed through education.
Finally, you've got to say no to unfunded mandates coming out of Washington. They are totally unacceptable. No one loves their schools more than parents and local school boards, and local elected officials.
Localize, localize, localize.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Governor Huntsman thank you.
And by the way, everyone likes the new sound, it's far more pleasing instead of the bell? OK, I guess they do.
(LAUGHTER)
BAIER: ...round of questions on immigration.
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS: Congresswoman Bachmann, as you well know, a number of states are trying to crack down on illegal immigration. We got a bunch of questions on immigration like this one from Tim Emerson, this is a text question so you don't need to look up there. Tim Emerson of California.
He wrote this, "would you support each state enforcing the immigration laws since the federal government is not?"
Congresswoman, could you answer Tim's question? And if your answer is yes, how do you square that with the constitution which says that congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?
BACHMANN: Well, the reason why he's asking this question is because the federal government has failed the American people and has failed the states. It's reprehensible that President Obama has sued the state of Arizona and the governor of Arizona for trying to protect the people in Arizona. That's wrong.
(APPLAUSE)
BACHMANN: As president of the United States, I would do what my job would demand of me. That's to uphold the sovereignty of the United States of America.
To do that, I would build a fence on America's southern border on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border. I think that's what we have to do, not only build it, but then also have sufficient border security and enforce the laws that are on the books with the ICE agents, with our border security.
And here's the other thing I would do. I would not allow taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal aliens or for their children.
(APPLAUSE)
BACHMANN: That's a madness. End the madness for illegal aliens to come into the United States of America.
WALLACE: Congresswoman, thank you.
And we're going to get back to that issue in a moment.
But first, Speaker Gingrich, as you well know, there's a debate going on in Congress right now about whether or not to make all employers, all businesses use E-Verify, a government database, to check whether or not new hires are illegal. Now, some Tea Partiers object to that idea because they say it would turn small businessmen into immigration agents.
But Kristen Williamson of the Federation for American Immigration Reform sent this question. Please look at it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Kristen Williamson, the Federal for American Immigration Reform.
Struggling U.S. workers continue to compete with millions of illegal aliens. Do you support legislation to require all employers to use E-Verify in order to ensure that the people that they hire are actually legally authorized to work in the U.S.? And will you impose penalties against employers who continue to hire illegal workers?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: The question, Mr. Speaker, is, should employers be required to use E-Verify?
GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, I think we would be better off to outsource E-Verify to American Express, MasterCard or Visa, because they actually know how to run a program like that without massive fraud.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: Second, the program should be as easy as swiping your credit card when you buy gasoline. And so I would ask of employers, what is it you would object to in helping the United States of America in dealing with the problem involving illegal immigration?
But, in addition, I want to reinforce what Congresswoman Bachmann said. I strongly favor 100 percent control of the border, and I strongly favor English as the official language of government.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: And I favor modernizing the legal visa system to make it far more convenient, far easier and far more practical. Here in Orlando, where we have a huge interest in people being able to visit easily for tourism, we have a terribly antiquated legal system while our border is too open for people who are illegal.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Governor Romney, I want to continue a conversation that you had with Governor Perry in the last debate.
In Massachusetts, you vetoed legislation to provide interstate tuition rates to the children of illegals. Governor Perry of course signed the Texas Dream Act to do exactly that. But what about Governor Perry's argument that it's better to get these kids an education and to get them jobs than to consign them just to being a burden on the state?
ROMNEY: It's an argument I just can't follow. I've got be honest with you, I don't see how it is that a state like Texas -- to go to the University of Texas, if you're an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount. You know how much that is? That's $22,000 a year.
Four years of college, almost $100,000 discount if you are an illegal alien go to the University of Texas. If you are a United States citizen from any one of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000 more. That doesn't make sense to me. And that kind of magnet --
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: That kind of magnet draws people into this country to get that education, to get the $100,000 break. It makes no sense. We have to have -- just as Speaker Gingrich said, and as Michele Bachmann said as well, Congresswoman Bachmann, and that is we have to have a fence, we have to have enough Border Patrol agents to secure the fence, we have to have a system like E-Verify that employers can use to identify who is here legally and illegally.
We have to crackdown on employers that hire people that are here illegally. And we have to turn off the magnet of extraordinary government benefits like a $100,000 tax credit -- or, excuse me, discount for going to the University of Texas. That shouldn't be allowed. It makes no sense at all.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Governor Perry, I'm going to ask you a question, so you don't need to respond to him, because you're going to get a full minute to answer your question, which is on directly this point. You're the candidate whose name, by a wide margin, came up most often in the questions being submitted to all of you candidates about immigration.
Dave Hollenback (ph) of Arizona sent this "To date, it appears that you have not tried to stop the illegals from coming. We have high unemployment and a considerable amount of jobs going to illegals. Are you going to exert an effort to stop the abuse of U.S. citizens by illegals?"
Now, last year, more than 16,000 children of illegals, young people in Texas, took advantage of your in-state tuition rate. Speak to that issue. And just, generally, how do you feel being criticized by a number of these other candidates on the stage for being too soft on immigration, sir?
PERRY: Well, I feel pretty normal getting criticized by these folks, but the fact of the matter is this: there is nobody on this stage who has spent more time working on border security than I have.
For a decade, I've been the governor of a state with a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. We put $400 million of our taxpayer money into securing that border. We've got our Texas Ranger recon teams there now.
I supported Arizona's immigration law by joining in that lawsuit to defend it. Every day I have Texans on that border that are doing their job.
But if you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they've been brought there by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart. We need to be educating these children, because they will become a drag on our society.
I think that's what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature, when this issue came up, only four dissenting votes.
This was a state issue. Texans voted on it. And I still support it greatly.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Senator Santorum --
(BOOING)
SANTORUM: Chris, no one here is suggesting --
WALLACE: Senator Santorum, you don't need to butt in because I was about to ask you a question on this exact issue.
You say that Governor Perry's opposition to building a border along the entire fence shows that he is a "big government moderate."
Question: Is he soft on illegal immigration?
SANTORUM: Governor Perry, no one is suggesting up here that the students that are illegal in this country shouldn't be able to go to a college and university. I think you are sort of making this leap that, unless we subsidize this, the taxpayers subsidize it, they won't be able to go.
Well, most folks who want go to the state of Texas or any other state out of state have to pay the full boat (ph). The point is, why are we subsidizing?
Not that they can't go. They can go. They just have to borrow money, find other sources to be able to go.
And why should they be given preferential treatment as an illegal in this country? That's what we're saying.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: And so, yes, I would say that he is soft on illegal immigration. I think the fact that he doesn't want to build a fence -- he gave a speech in 2001 where he talked about, buy national health insurance between Mexico and Texas. I mean, I don't even think Barack Obama would be for buy national health insurance.
So I think he's very weak on this issue of American sovereignty and protecting our borders and not being a magnet for illegal immigration, yes.
WALLACE: Governor Perry, 30 seconds to respond, sir.
PERRY: I've got one question for him.
Have you ever even been to the border with Mexico?
SANTORUM: Yes.
PERRY: I'm surprised if you have, but you weren't paying attention, because the idea that you --
SANTORUM: Well, the answer is, yes, I have.
PERRY: -- are going to build a wall, a fence for 1,200 miles, and then go 800 miles more to Tijuana, does not make sense. You put the boots on the ground.
We know how to make this work. You put the boots on the ground.
You put the aviation assets --
SANTORUM: But it's not working, Governor.
PERRY: -- in the ground. No, it's not working because the federal government has not --
SANTORUM: But you said we know how it works. Is it working in Texas?
PERRY: The federal government has not engaged in this at all. When I'm the president of the United States, I'll promise you one thing --
SANTORUM: But you're saying you put the assets there. Has it worked in Texas?
PERRY: -- we will put the assets on the ground --
SANTORUM: You said you have.
PERRY: -- the boots on the ground --
BAIER: Senator Santorum, let him finish, please.
PERRY: -- the aviation assets on the ground, and we will stop illegal immigration, we will stop the drug cartels, and we will make America secure.
SANTORUM: Can you answer the question? Is it working?
WALLACE: Well, you know, you asked your question, he gave his answer, sir.
SANTORUM: OK.
WALLACE: Sometimes we are frustrated with all of you answering questions.
(LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: Congressman Paul, I want to ask you a question about a comment you made a couple of weeks ago about a border fence with Mexico. Here's what you said, sir. I want to quote it: "There's capital controls and there's people control. So every time you think of a fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in."
Question, Congressman, do you know a lot of Americans who want to take their money and flee the United States of America?
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: There are -- there are some. All the candidates up here talk about repatriation of dollars. They've already taken them overseas.
We're talking about trying to bring in $1.5 trillion because they leave our country, because we make it uncomfortable, too many regulations, too much taxation. They can't start business; they've lost confidence.
Yes, when countries destroy a currency, they do lead to capital controls and they lead to people control. So I think it is a real concern.
(APPLAUSE)
And, also, once you have these data banks, the data banks means that everybody is going to be in the data bank. You say, oh, no, the data bank's there for the illegals. But everybody's in the data bank.
That's national ID card. If you care about your personal liberty, you'll be cautious when you feel comfortable, blame all the illegal immigrants for everything. What you need to do is attack their
benefits: no free education, no free subsidies, no citizenship, no birth-right citizenship.
(APPLAUSE)
And that would get to the bottom of it a lot sooner. But economically, you should not ignore the fact that, in tough economic times, money and people want to leave the country. That's unfortunate.
WALLACE: Congressman Paul, thank you very much, sir.
BAIER: Chris, thank you. Let's check in now with Shannon Bream.
Shannon?
SHANNON BREAM, FOX NEWS: Well, Bret, one of the really interesting and valuable pieces of information we get from our partner, Google, is looking at search trends. We want to take you through some of those.
They've looked online for people within the U.S. who have been searching for coupons. We've talked about the economy a lot. If you look at the trend, it has been going up, up, up very steadily since 2004 to right now.
Another search compares home loan searches for foreclosure searches. Those have slipped over time. And now more people searching for information about foreclosures than home loans.
And another look, this compares folks searching for the best SUV miles per gallon and also gas prices, and those go together. When people are worried about their pocketbooks, worried about finding a bargain, they're also looking at how they can save on gas and how they can conserve.
We've also been tracking questions that you've been putting to the candidates. We've put them to the folks at home, as well, and we've got some results. This question the same one we asked the candidates. If you had to cut a government department, what would you cut?
This is what the folks at home told us: the Labor Department, 8 percent; the EPA, 12 percent; Housing and Urban Development, 12 percent; Education,
47 percent, easily the majority there; and none, 20 percent.
(APPLAUSE)
Check it all out, YouTube.com/foxnews. Bret, back to you.
BAIER: Thanks, Shannon. We'll check back with you a little later.
Up next, foreign policy, social issues, and health care, after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BAIER: Welcome back to Orlando and the Republican presidential debate. We're parting -- partner -- partnering -- easy for me to say -- with Google and the Florida Republican Party.
Now to the topic of foreign policy. And all night we've been showing you these word clouds. Take a look at this one. All the searches on foreign policy, Israel is the biggest word. These are actually the words used in questions.
And that brings us to our first question. This week, with the Palestinian efforts at the United Nations, the issue of the future of Israel is a big concern to questioners. In fact, Governor Romney, the next question was a top question voted in the foreign policy section from Yigal Marcus in Teaneck, New Jersey.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: As president, how would you approach the new reality in the Middle East, specifically with regards to our ally, Israel, and the existential threats it faces from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and now the Palestinian Authority?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: Very simple. You start off by saying that you don't allow an inch of space to exist between you and your friends and your allies.
(APPLAUSE)
The president went about this all wrong. He went around the world and apologized for America. He -- he addressed the United Nations in his inaugural address and chastised our friend, Israel, for building settlements and said nothing about Hamas launching thousands of rockets into Israel.
Just before Bibi Netanyahu came to the United States, he threw Israel under the bus, tried to negotiate for Israel.
The right course -- if you disagree with an ally, you talk about it privately. But in public, you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with your allies. The right course for us...
(APPLAUSE)
The right course for us is not to try and negotiate for Israel. The right course is to stand behind our friends, to listen to them, and to let the entire world know that we will stay with them and that we will support them and defend them.

And with regards to Iran, which perhaps represents the greatest existential threat to Israel, we have to make it abundantly clear: It is unacceptable -- and I take those -- that word carefully -- it is unacceptable for Iran to become a nuclear nation.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Thank you, Governor Romney.
Mr. Cain, this week, the Palestinian Authority brought their bid for statehood to the United Nations. How would you respond to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state?
CAIN: It starts with an extension of the Reagan philosophy of peace through strength. My philosophy would extend that to peace through strength and clarity. This administration has not made it clear how it stands with Israel.
When I was in Israel last month, I met with the deputy prime minister. And he made it shockingly, chillingly clear that, given everything that's going on, number one, Israel will defend itself, with all of the tensions going on in the Middle East.
And he also made it real clear that he wasn't sure how this administration stood when it came to Israel. I made it clear, which -- and I would also make it clear to all of -- our -- the other people in the world, that if you mess with Israel, you're messing with the United States of America. We will stand solidly behind Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: If in fact it was clear to the Palestinians, where the United States stood, they might have had second thoughts about trying to pull such a move without negotiating with Israel.
BAIER: Mr. Cain, thank you.
Here's a comparison of searches on Google for Israel, Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past few years. You can see the lines, Israel dominates the searches except for a few critical moments in time for Pakistan.
Which brings us to this, Governor Perry, if you were president, and you go a call at 3 am telling you that Pakistan had lost control of is nuclear weapons, at the hands of the Taliban, what would be your first move?
PERRY: Well obviously, before you ever get to that point you have to build a relationship in that region. That's one of the things that this administration has not done. Yesterday, we found out through Admiral Mullen that Haqqani has been involved with -- and that's the terrorist group directly associated with the Pakistani country. So to have a relationship with India, to make sure that India knows that they are an ally of the United States.
For instance, when we had the opportunity to sell India the upgraded F-16's, we chose not to do that. We did the same with Taiwan. The point is, our allies need to understand clearly that we are their friends, we will be standing by there with them.
Today, we don't have those allies in that region that can assist us if that situation that you talked about were to become a reality.
BAIER: Senator Santorum if the security situation were to fall apart in Iraq in 2012 would you support sending U.S. troops back to the region to stabilize the gains made?
SANTORUM: I'm not for taking them out of the region. I believe we need to listen to our generals, and our generals are being very, very clear that we need to continue to stabilize Iraq, the Iraqi government wants and needs our intelligence in particular, needs force protection.
We need to have anywhere -- I'm hearing numbers of 20,000, 30,000 troops potentially to remain in Iraq, not indefinitely, but to continue to make sure that this is a stable transition.
This is the difference between Congressman Paul, Governor Huntsman, Governor Perry and myself when it comes to this issue. I stand up and say that when we engage in Iraq and Afghanistan, we engage because we want to be successful. We want victory. We want to have accomplished a national security objective for this country to make sure that we are safer.
We are not on a political agenda to withdraw troops. So the first thing is to make sure that we secure success.
To answer the question on Pakistan, which I'm not too sure was answered. The bottom line is, that we should be establishing relationships in Pakistan with allies of ours, folks like relationships with President Musharraf who we had in the past with others in that country so if in fact something like that would occur we could work in concert to make sure that that coup could be overturned and make sure those nuclear weapon do not fall in those hands.
But working with allies at that point is the last thing we want to do. We want to work in that country to make sure the problem is defused.
BAIER: Speaker Gingrich, many of the foreign policy questions we received had directly to do with the U.S. economy as well when it came to the topic of foreign aid.
Butch Russell (ph) had the top voted video question in the section of foreign policy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: When are we gonna get someone in the White House that can stand up to these other countries and say you are not getting any more of our money. This is stupid. We send billions of dollars overseas to countries that hate us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Speaker Gingrich.
GINGRICH: I think -- I actually there's a lot to that. And I've been a strong supporter of international assistance, but I think there are a couple of good reasons to review the whole program.
First of all, I would replace virtually all government to government aid with some kind of investment approach that encouraged American companies to create jobs that made both the United States and the other country wealthier. Our bureaucrats giving their bureaucrats money is a guaranteed step towards corruption.
Second, I think when you have countries that vote against you in the United Nations consistently you really have to ask yourself why are you giving them anything? I mean, if they are not your ally why are...
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: We came out of World War II with the generosity that made perfect sense when we had 50 percent of the world economy. And it was a different world. And we need to understand how different it is.
But I want to go back to your question on Pakistan, because I think people need to understand how real this is. This world is in danger of becoming dramatically more dangerous in the not-too-distant future.
People talk about an Iranian weapon? There may be well over 100 nuclear weapons in Pakistan. And the example you used is not too far-fetched to worry about.
BAIER: Speaker Gingrich, thank you.
Governor Johnson, here in Florida, charter flights from Ft.
Lauderdale to Havana, Cuba, have resumed. Is there a problem with that? And what are your thoughts on U.S.-Cuba policy?
JOHNSON: I think the biggest threat to our national security is the fact that we're bankrupt, so I am promising to submit a balanced budget to Congress in the year 2013, and included in that is a 43 percent reduction in military spending.
I think it's crazy that we have foreign aid to company -- to countries when we're borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar to do that.
(APPLAUSE)
Military alliances -- military alliances are really key to other countries taking up the slack.
With regard to flights to Cuba? You know, I'm -- I'm in favor, I think, of the whole notion that trade promotes friendship, as opposed to not. So I would be inclined to looking at establishing or supporting those kinds of flights.
BACHMANN: Bret? Bret?
BAIER: Governor Johnson, thank you.
Now...
BACHMANN: Excuse me, Bret? Could I weigh in on this?
BAIER: Congresswoman Bachmann?
BACHMANN: I'd like to weigh on this, because according to the State Department's website, there are four nations that are state sponsors of terror. Cuba is one of those nations. We would never have flights between the United States and Cuba. It's a state sponsor of terror.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Thank you, Congresswoman.
Now to my colleague, Megyn Kelly, on the topic of social issues.
KELLY: Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: Just one issue. I just want to respond to my friend, Rick Santorum, here. Is the microphone working?
BAIER: It is.
HUNTSMAN: Thank you. We do have a difference of opinion here in terms of overall foreign policy. And I think, you know, as the only one on stage with any hands-on foreign policy experience, having served -- having lived overseas four different times, we're at a critical juncture in our country. We don't have a foreign policy, and we don't project the goodness of this country in terms of liberty, democracy, open markets, and human rights, with a weak core.
And right now in this country, our core, our economy, is broken.
And we don't shine that light today. We're 25 percent of the world's GDP. The world is a better place when the United States is strong. So guiding anything that we talk about from a foreign policy standpoint needs to be fixing our core.
But, second of all, I believe that, you know, after 10 years of fighting the war on terror, people are ready to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, Rick.
(APPLAUSE)
They're ready to bring our troops home. This country -- this country has given its all.
KELLY: Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: What remains behind, some element to collect intelligence, special forces capability, and we're going to have to do that in every corner of the world. But we need to fix this core and get serious about what the rest of the 21st century holds for this country.
BAIER: Senator Santorum, very quickly?
SANTORUM: Just because our economy is sick does not mean our country is sick, and it doesn't mean our values are sick. And we're going to stand up for those values every opportunity...
(APPLAUSE)
... and to do so to make sure that our country is safe. The bottom line is -- that you just mentioned is -- is -- is we should be fighting wars to win, not fighting wars for politics.
(APPLAUSE)
And this president is fighting a war in Afghanistan -- in Afghanistan with one hand tied behind our generals, not giving the troops they need, not giving the authority, the rules of engagement to allow us to be successful. And unless we change those rules of engagement and make sure that our folks can win, then we are going to play politics with our military.
(APPLAUSE)
HUNTSMAN: This -- this may -- this may not come as a huge revelation. We've been talking about Pakistan here. But at the end of the day, folks, only Pakistan can save Pakistan. Only Afghanistan can save Afghanistan.
(APPLAUSE)
All that I want right now at this point in history is for America to save America. We've got to fix our core and...
(CROSSTALK)
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Thank you very much. Now, as I originally said, Megyn Kelly on social issues.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLY: And now I'm moving on from you, Governor Huntsman, to you, Congresswoman Bachmann. In 2006, you said that public schools are, quote, "teaching children that there is separation of church and state,"
and said, quote, "I am here to tell you that's a myth."
Do you believe that there is a limit...
(APPLAUSE)
... on government's ability to inject religion into the public square? And if so, what is that limit?
BACHMANN: Well, I think that Thomas Jefferson stated it best. He was the author of the -- the religious liberty that he valued so much, and that's the -- the United States government should not be a state church. That's really what the fundamental was of separation of church and state.
And when Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists, the Danbury Baptists wanted to know, will you have a national church in the United States? He said no, because we believe in freedom of conscience, we believe in freedom of religious liberty, and expression, and speech.
That's a foundational principle in the United States. But that doesn't mean that we aren't people of faith and that people of faith shouldn't be allowed to exercise religious liberty in the public square. Of course we should be able to...
(APPLAUSE)
... (inaudible) exercise our faith. And -- and whether that expression occurs in a public school or occurs -- occurs in a public building, we should be able to allow -- to have freedom for all people to express our belief in God.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Senator Santorum, this question stirred up a whole lot of controversy online, and it comes from Stephen Hill, who is a soldier serving in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier, and I didn't want to lose my job.
My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BOOING)
SANTORUM: Yeah, I -- I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- to -- and removing "don't ask/don't tell" I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.
We need to give the military, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform.
(APPLAUSE)
And I believe this undermines that ability.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: So what -- what -- what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill? I mean, he's -- now he's out. He's -- you know, you saw his face on camera. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face on camera. Now he's out. So what would you do as president?
SANTORUM: I think it's -- it's -- it's -- look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation with -- with our military right now. And that's tragic.
I would -- I would just say that, going forward, we would -- we would reinstitute that policy, if Rick Santorum was president, period.
That policy would be reinstituted. And as far as people who are in -- in -- I would not throw them out, because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration, but we would move forward in -- in conformity with what was happening in the past, which was, sex is not an issue. It is -- it should not be an issue. Leave it alone, keep it -- keep it to yourself, whether you're a heterosexual or a homosexual.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Congressman Paul, you have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?
PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances...

(APPLAUSE)
There are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant, you don't even know if there's a disease, but if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know where -- how you're going to police it.
So I don't think you should create -- we have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? It doesn't make any sense to me in a practical matter.
So I would say that nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Governor Perry, you and our former president, George W.
Bush, have a lot in common. You're both Republicans from Texas. You both ran on the same ticket for the statehouse. You both share a deep religious faith.
Now, you've made a point of saying, well, we went to different colleges, Texas A&M and Yale, and point out that you have a different approach from President Bush when it comes to government spending. But what are the other differences that you can cite between you and President Bush? And what say you about these reports that there is some bad blood between the two of you?
PERRY: Well, let me address the first -- or the last issue first.
And we got a great rapport. I talk to the president from time to time, call him on his birthday, wish him happy birthday, talk to him on a relatively regular basis. I highly respect the president and his public service.
What we have in -- in -- in difference is probably as much as in style as in substance on various issues. For instance, you know, I was very vocal in my disagreement with him on Medicaid Part D that the federal government should be involved in that very expensive program.
And I was also vocal against No Child Left Behind.
It gets back to the federal government has no business telling the states how to educate our children.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Thank you, Meagan (ph).
We've been showing you these word clouds throughout the night. Take a look at this one, all of the questions on health care. You can see the big word there, Obamacare.
Chris has the questions on health care.
WALLACE: And we'll get right to that question of Obamacare.
Mr. Cain, you are a survivor of stage 4 colon and liver cancer. And you say, if Obamacare had been...
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: ...and we all share in the happiness about your situation. But, you say if Obamacare had been in effect when you were first being treated, you would dead now. Why?
CAIN: The reason I said that I would be dead under Obamacare is because my cancer was detected in March of 2006. From March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy, go -- get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months. If we had been under Obamacare and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan that would have delayed by treatment.
My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable and not the government's timetable that's what saved my life, because I only had a 30 percent chance of survival. And now I'm here five years cancer free, because I could do it on my timetable and not a bureaucrat's timetable.
This is one of the reasons I believe a lot of people are objecting to Obamacare, because we need get bureaucrats out of the business of trying to micromanage health care in this nation.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Governor Huntsman, you say President Obama's health care plan is a trillion dollar bomb dropping -- dropped on taxpayers and job creation. But I want to show you the top voted question on YouTube that was submitted on health care. And it comes from Ian McDonald of Michigan who says he has a health problem. Watch it, sir.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Hi, I'm a student. And I have a chronic heart condition. So for me, and those like me, the Democrats' health care reform, allowing us to stay on our parents' insurance longer was a godsend.
If were you elected, would you work as is the stated position of your party to repeal this reform? And if so, are we supposed to pray really hard that our ailments don't prevent us from going to class?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Governor, what about provisions that Ian talks about? For instance, the one that allows kids to stay on their parents' policies until they were 26, or not limiting coverage for preexisting conditions. President Obama says the only way that insurance companies can afford to provide those kinds of reforms is with the individual mandate where they get a lot of new customers.
HUNTSMAN: When I hear this discussion, I think of my daughter Elizabeth who is sitting on the front row who suffers from juvenile diabetes. And I also am reminded that we are fundamentally approaching health care reform the wrong way.
This one trillion dollar bomb that Obamacare means to this country over 10 years is creating such uncertainty in the marketplace that businesses aren't willing to hire, they're not willing to deploy capital into the marketplace. It everyone it has gummed up our system.
So you say what do we do? I say we go out to the states and let the states experiment and find breakthroughs in how we address health care reform. Health care reform, it's is a three trillion dollar industry.
It's the size of the GDP of France. It's large. It's complicated. All I want to do is do the kind of thing we did in the state of Utah.
In direct response, we need affordable insurance policies. We don't have affordable insurance policies today. We got one in Utah a stripped down bare bones catastrophic coverage policy that young people can finally afford.And then you can start whittling down the high percentage of the people who are uninsured in this country because they have an affordable policy. That's number one.
Number two, we have to deal with cost containment measures like harmonizing medical records. We were the first state to do that. So let's forget federal fixes in solutions and turn to the states where we're going to find real breakthroughs and real answers to this terribly difficult and complicated problem.
WALLACE: Thank you, governor.
Congresswoman Bachmann, in the last debate you criticized Governor Perry for his executive order mandating that 6th graders get the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Then afterward, you suggested that the vaccine was linked to mental retardation and you said that it could be, quote, "potentially be a very dangerous drug."
But the American Academy of Pediatrics has looked at it and says that the HPV vaccine has an excellent safety record. So my question to you is, do you stand by your statement that the HPV vaccine is potentially dangerous? And if not, should you be more careful when you're talking about public health issue?
BACHMANN: Well, first I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement. Immediately after the debate, a mother came up to me and she was visibly shaken and heart broken because of what her daughter had gone through. I so I only related what her story was.
But here's the real issue, Governor Perry mandated a health care decision on all 12-year-old little girls in the state of Texas. And by that mandate, those girls had to have a shot for a sexually transmitted disease. That is not appropriate to be a decision that a governor makes.
It is appropriate that parents make that decision in consultation with their doctor.
But here's the even more important point, because Governor Perry made a decision where he gave parental rights to a big drug company.
That big drug company gave him campaign contributions and hired his former chief of staff to lobby him to benefit the big drug company.
That's what was wrong with that picture.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Governor Perry, obviously 30 seconds to respond.
PERRY: Thank you.
I got lobbied on this issue. I got lobbied by a 31-year-old young lady who had stage 4 cervical cancer. I spent a lot of time with her.
She came by my office talked to me about in program.
I readily admitted we should have had an opt-in, in this program.
But, I don't know what part of opt-out most parents don't get. And the fact is, I erred on the side of life and I will always err on the side of life as a governor as the president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Governor Perry, I now have a question for you. Texas has the most uninsured residents of any state in the country, 25 percent.
In the last debate, you blamed it on restrictions imposed by the federal government. But we checked about that, sir, in fact the feds treat Texas like they do all the other big states. On its own, on its own, Texas has imposed some of the toughest eligibility rules for Medicaid of any state in the country. In fact, you rank 49th in Medicaid coverage of low income residents.
So the question is, isn't Texas' uninsured problem because of decisions made by Texas?
PERRY: Well, I disagree with your analysis there, because we've had a request in for the federal government so that we could have a Medicaid waiver for years. And the federal government has stopped us from having that Medicaid waiver. Allowing the state of Texas, or for that matter the other states that we're making reference to here, that have waivers give them more options to be able to give the options, there's a menu of options that we could have, just like Jon Huntsman talked about. That is how we go forward with our health care.
Each state deciding how they're going to deliver that health care.
Not one size fits all. And I think this whole concept of not allowing the states to come up with the best ideas about how to deliver health care in their state. And the fact is, people continue to move to the state of Texas. Some of the highest rates in the country, because we've created a state where opportunity is very much the word of the day there, if you will, for finding work and what have you.
And our health care is part of that. Our education is part of that. And we are proud of what we put together in the state of Texas.
WALLACE: Governor Romney, the other day Governor Perry called Romneycare socialized medicine. He said it has failed in western Europe and in Massachusetts. And he warns that Republicans should not nominate his words, Obama-lite.
How do you respond to Governor Perry?
ROMNEY: I don't think he knows what he was talking about in that -- in that regard.
Let me tell you this about our system in Massachusetts: 92 percent of our people were insured before we put our plan in place. Nothing's changed for them. The system is the same. They have private market-based insurance.
We had 8 percent of our people that weren't insured. And so what we did is we said let's find a way to get them insurance, again, market-based private insurance. We didn't come up with some new government insurance plan.
Our plan in Massachusetts has some good parts, some bad parts, some things I'd change, some things I like about it. It's different than Obamacare.
And what you -- what you heard from Herman Cain is one absolutely key point, which is Obamacare intends to put someone between you and your physician. It must be repealed. And if I'm president of the United States, on my first day in office, I will issue an executive order which directs the secretary of health and human services to provide a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states. That law is bad; it's unconstitutional; it shall not stand.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Governor -- Governor Perry, 30 seconds to respond.PERRY: I think Americans just don't know sometimes which Mitt Romney they're dealing with. Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment?
Was it -- was before he was before the social programs, from the standpoint of he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against Roe v. Wade? He was for Race to the Top, he's for Obamacare, and now he's against it. I mean, we'll wait until tomorrow and --
and
-- and see which Mitt Romney we're really talking to tonight.
WALLACE: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: I'll use the same term again: Nice try.
(LAUGHTER)
Governor, I'm -- I wrote a book two years ago, and I laid out in that book what my views are on a wide range of issues.
I'm a conservative businessman. I haven't spent my life in politics. I spent my life in business. I know how jobs come, how jobs go. My positions are laid out in that book. I stand by them.
Governor Perry, you wrote a book six months ago. You're already retreating from the positions that were in that book.
PERRY: Not an -- not an -- not an inch, sir.
ROMNEY: Yeah, well, in that book, it says that Social Security was forced upon the American people. It says that, by any measure, Social Security is a failure. Not to 75 million people. And you also said that -- that Social Security should be returned to the states.
Now, those are the positions in your book. And simply, in my view, I'm stand by my positions. I'm proud of them.
There are a lot of reasons not to elect me, a lot of reasons not to elect other people on this stage, but one reason to elect me is that I know what I stand for, I've written it down. Words have meaning, and I have the experience to get this country going again.
(APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Gentlemen, thank you both.
Bret?
BAIER: Coming up, we return to issue number one: jobs.
Stay tuned.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BAIER: Welcome back to the Orange County Convention Center here in Orlando, Florida, and the Republican presidential debate.
Now a question for all of the candidates. Independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently fretted over the possibility of the unemployed rioting in the streets. Ohio's Republican Governor John Kasich recently said, quote, "For the first time in my life, I'm worried about this country." And recently, a liberal columnist wrote this, quote, "We've lost our mojo."
You know, President Obama promised hope and change. And according to many polls, fewer and fewer Americans believe he's delivered.
Now, I'm not asking for your jobs plan here. What I'm asking for is, how are you going to turn this country around? We'll go down the row, 30 seconds each.
Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: First of all, let me say that this is a human tragedy playing out, with 15 million unemployed, so many million beyond who are so dispirited, they've absolutely given up.
Sheriff Hardy, who's a great sheriff in Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, talks about foreclosures, that his folks are now handing out first time ever to the middle class.
I would drop three things on the doorstep of Congress to change and turn the situation around: one, my tax reform package, endorsed by the Wall Street Journal; two, serious regulatory reform, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare repealed; three, energy independence. Boone Pickens had some great ideas in terms of converting to natural gas. It's a 500,000 job creator over five years. It would get the engines of growth going like nothing else I can think of.
BAIER: Mr. Cain?
CAIN: Obviously starts with economic growth. And, yes, I've already laid out how I would do that with my 999 plan. But what Americans are looking for in order to build their confidence is leadership. There is a severe deficiency of leadership in Washington, D.C. And once we fill that void, I believe the American people will begin to develop some confidence again.
In terms of believing in this nation, Ronald Reagan was the one who said that we are a shining city on a hill. We've slid down the side of that hill.
(LAUGHTER)
Americans want somebody who's going to lead them back up to the top of that hill. That's how we turn this country around.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Congresswoman Bachmann?
BACHMANN: I agree. It's time to reach for the brass ring of liberty once again. And we can. The signature issue of Barack Obama and his presidency has been the passage of Obamacare. This week, a study came out from UBS that said the number-one reason why employers aren't hiring is because of Obamacare.
That's why I introduced the bill to repeal Obamacare. And as president of the United States, that's the very first thing I would do, is repeal Obamacare.
BAIER: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: All across America, you've got families sitting across from their -- sitting in their living rooms and their kitchens, sitting at that kitchen table, with a calculator and a checkbook, seeing if they have enough money to make ends meet for the month or the week.
You've got people who are sitting at that same table filling out job application forms, knowing that there are hundreds of other people that are doing the same thing for the same job.
These are tough times for a lot of people in this country, but we are a patriotic people. We place our hand over our heart during the playing of the national anthem. No other people on Earth do that. And if we're led by a leader who draws on that patriotism, who tells the truth, who lives with integrity, and who knows how to lead, America will remain the hope of the Earth and the strongest nation in the world.
I'll do it.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Governor Perry?
PERRY: Americans -- Americans want a leader who's got a proven record of job creation. Number one, we get rid of Obamacare. Secondly, we pull back all of those regulations that are job-killing today, whether it's Dodd-Frank or whether it's the EPA.
And then we sit with Congress and we lower those corporate tax rates, we lower those personal tax rates, and then we put our plan to make America energy independent, and that is the way you get America working again.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Congressman Paul?
PAUL: Government destroys jobs; the market creates jobs. So the government isn't going to be expected to create the jobs; they have to change the environment. But you can't do that unless you understand where the depression, recessions come from, and you can't understand that unless you know where the bubbles come from.
I've been arguing this case for 20 years and warning about bubbles and housing bubbles and Nasdaq bubbles. And a lot of other economists have been doing the same thing.
Until we understand that, you can't solve the problem. You have to deal with the Federal Reserve system. You have to deal with free markets. And you have to deal with the tax program and the regulatory system.
(APPLAUSE)
Then you can get your jobs, because the people will create the jobs, not the government.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Waiting for the applause.
Speaker Gingrich?
GINGRICH: Thirty-two years ago, we were in the same place. We had a failing president. He gave a speech on malaise. People wrote about the presidency being too big, nobody could do it. The Soviet Union was on offense.
And a leader came along. He said, when your brother-in-law is unemployed, it's a recession. When you're unemployed, it's a depression. When Jimmy Carter's unemployed, it's a recovery.
(APPLAUSE)
Nothing -- nothing will turn America around more than Election Night, when Barack Obama loses decisively.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: The last words Ronald Reagan said as president of the United States in his farewell address, he was concerned about the future of our country because we were forgetting who we were, didn't remember what America was really all about.
I think that's what's the problem right now, is we have a president who doesn't understand what America is all about.
America is a great country because we are a country that believes in God-given rights to every single man, woman and child in America...
(APPLAUSE)
... and that we built this country from the bottom up, believing in free people, to have that responsibility to live their lives in service to themselves, their family, their community, and their god, and in so doing, we transformed the world.
We had a leader in Reagan who believed in you. President Obama is the new King George III, who believes in things being dictated from on high. We need to replace him with someone who believes in the American people again.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Governor Johnson?
JOHNSON: My next-door neighbor's two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this current administration.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
Balance the federal budget now, not 15 years from now, not 20 years from now, but now. And throw out the entire federal tax system, replace it with a fair tax, a consumption tax, that by all measurements is just that. It's fair. It does away with corporate income tax. If that doesn't create tens of millions of jobs in this country, I don't know what does.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: You just made your neighbor's dog very famous.
(LAUGHTER)
When we come back in just one minute -- one minute -- the final round. We'll be talking about the Republican ticket. We're back from Orlando, Florida.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BAIER: Welcome back to Orlando for our final round, our final question from YouTube. Our wildcard question comes from Darrell Owens in Richmond, Virginia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: If you had to choose one of your opponents on the stage tonight to be your running mate in the 2012 election, who would you choose, and why? And why would this person help you make the country better?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: Again, if you had to choose a running mate, one of the people on the stage with you, who would you choose and why? Thirty seconds down the row.
Governor Johnson?
JOHNSON: Well, that would be the guy three down, Congressman Paul.
And that would be...
(APPLAUSE)
And that would be the notion that this country is about liberty and freedom and that right now we are facing an extraordinary crisis that, if we do not address it now, we're going to find ourselves in a monetary crisis that is going to leave us all with nothing. And if we want to look at an example of that, that would be Russia that experienced a monetary collapse, that in our lifetimes may never acquire (ph). We need to avoid that now.
BAIER: Senator Santorum, who would you choose?
SANTORUM: I would pick someone who would do what I have articulated I would do as president of the United States. That's what you -- that's what a vice president should be, someone who would follow through on what you promise the American public to do.
BAIER: You have eight to choose.
SANTORUM: And -- and I -- and I would say that, you know, right now that, you know, the guy that I'm agreeing with most up on stage is probably the guy to my left. So I would say that Newt Gingrich would be the guy that I would -- I would pick as someone who -- who would follow through with what I'm saying.
BAIER: Speaker Gingrich?
GINGRICH: Yeah, I'm going to disappoint those in the audience who want this to be a Hollywood game. I don't have any idea who I would pick as the vice presidential nominee. What I do know is, it would have to be a person capable of being president of the United States, and that would be the first criteria. These are all good friends of mine. I couldn't imagine hurting any of their feelings by choosing one tonight.
(LAUGHTER)
BAIER: Congressman Paul, hurt away.
PAUL: I don't plan to make a choice at the moment, because I am on national polls. It seems like I'm in third place now. I think it would be inappropriate.
(APPLAUSE
As soon as -- as soon as I'm one of the two top tier, then I will start thinking along that line. But right now, I'm going to defer, and just work very hard, and make sure that I stay in the top tier and then eventually be one of the top two contenders.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Governor Perry, how do you answer Darrell Jones?
PERRY: Well, staying with the game show idea here, I don't know how you would do this, but if you could take Herman Cain and mate him up with Newt Gingrich, I think you would have a couple of really interesting guys to work with.
(LAUGHTER)
I don't know how you'd do it.
BAIER: Governor Romney, Darrell Owens would like an answer.
ROMNEY: There are a couple of images I'm going to have a hard time getting out of my mind.
(LAUGHTER)
That's one, and Gary Johnson's dogs are the other, I'll tell you.
(LAUGHTER)
I'm -- I'm going to go with Newt on this, meaning I'm going to subscribe to his same view. I know I'm going to disappoint.
But my view is, if you pick a vice president, if you're lucky enough to become the nominee of this party, picking a vice president would be something you give a lot of thought to, a lot of evaluation to, and you want someone who without question could become the president of the United States.
These people could all fill that -- that position. Any one of them would be a better president than what we have now.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Governor Romney, I hate to follow up here, but you called Governor Perry unelectable based on his Social Security...
ROMNEY: Actually, I -- actually, I didn't use that term, but the newspaper did. That happens now and then. But the point is still, I think, that there are some problems that exist in each of our backgrounds that make it harder for us to get elected. I hope we get elected. I hope one of us gets to that White House. I think we will, because I think this president has failed miserably.
But I'll tell you one thing. I -- look, Governor Perry and I disagree on some issues. I think I probably disagree with everybody -- we all have differing views on different issues. But one thing's for
sure: We all agree that President Obama needs to be former President Obama, and we're going to make that happen.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Congresswoman Bachmann, back to the original question?
BACHMANN: Obviously, we need to have a strong constitutional conservative, and that's what I would look for in a vice president.
But I want to say this, as well. Every four years, conservatives are told that we have to settle, and it's anybody but Obama. That's what we're hearing this year.
I don't think that's true. I think if there's any year -- President Obama has the lowest public approval ratings of any president in modern times. He hasn't gone to the basement yet. It'll be a lot lower than what it is now. That's why we need to choose a candidate who represents conservatives and constitutional conservative positions.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Mr. Cain?
CAIN: This is a game, and it is hypothetical. I'll play the game.
(LAUGHTER)
If -- if Governor Romney would throw out his jobs growth plan and replace it with 999, he has a shot.
(LAUGHTER)
If he does not, I would probably go with Speaker Gingrich, who I have the greatest admiration for, in all seriousness, because of his history and because of his depth of knowledge. I could go on because I have respect for everybody up here. But it's a game.
(LAUGHTER)
BAIER: It is a YouTube question.
Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: You know, I'm tempted to say that, when all is said and done, the two guys standing in the middle here, Romney and Perry, aren't going to be around, because they're going to bludgeon each other to death.
(LAUGHTER)
But -- but I'm also reminded of about four years ago, we had two frontrunners in similar situations, one by the name of Rudy Giuliani, I think, and the other by the name of Fred Thompson. They seemed to disappear altogether; I can't remember where they went.
But I would have -- I would have to say, since Chris Wallace doesn't qualify as somebody on the stage, so I can't -- I can't pick one of you, that Herman Cain, because of his selection of ties, the fact that -- the fact that we both -- we both apparently agree with the gold standard, wearing the yellow ties here tonight. And because of the good neighbor policy, 999, mixed with my tax policy, would be the most competitive thing this nation could ever achieve. I'd have to say Herman's my man.
(APPLAUSE)
BAIER: Candidates, thank you very much. That is it for our debate tonight. Our thanks to the candidates and their staffs. A big thank you to our debate partner, Google, and the Florida Republican Party, to all the great people here in the Orange County Convention Center and, of course, the state of Florida. They could not have been more hospitable.