tv Pres. Debate CNN October 18, 2011 11:00pm-1:00am EDT
>> tonight, the fight for the gop presidential nomination comes here, to a region where barack obama made inroads four years ago. to a state that could be decisive in the primary season and the general election. to a city where dreams are made. and crushed. stand by for a las vegas event. the republican presidential contenders on stage and in depth. after a dramatic reshuffling of the pack, herman cain, now among the leaders, surging in recent weeks. >> we put more boots on the ground. >> rick perry trying to get back on track after a meteoric rise. and mitt romney, steady, holding his place in the top tier. they could have the most to win or lose. but newt gingrich, michele bachmann and ron paul could be wildcards.
and rick santorum, eager to beat the odds. the candidates facing tough questions about jobs and the economy, the immigration wars, and other issues that matter to westerners and voters across the nation. now, with nothing less than america's future at stake, the presidential campaign goes west. and welcome to the sands convention center at the venetian in las vegas. the western republican presidential debate. tonight, seven contenders will be on this stage to convince you he or she should be the republican nominee for the president of the united states. i'm anderson cooper. welcome to our viewers in the u.s. and around the world. tonight's debate is airing on
cnn, cnn international, cnn espanol and the american forces network. we want to thank our co-sponsor, the western leadership conference, representing 16 western states and territories. westerners will play a role in tonight's debate. voters here will have a chance to put questions directly to the candidates on this stage. let's meet the 2012 republican presidential contenders. joining us on stage, joining us on stage, minnesota congresswoman michele bachmann. the former speaker of the house, newt gingrich. texas governor rick perry. former massachusetts governor
while the crowd is on its feet. everyone remain standing. it is time for our national anthem performed tonight by tony award winner anthony crivello, starring as the phantom in "phantom las vegas," the las vegas spectacular. please stand for the national anthem. ♪ o say, can you see by the dawn's early light ♪ ♪ what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright
stars through the perilous fight ♪ ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming ♪ ♪ and the rockets' red glare the bombs bursting in air ♪ ♪ gave proof through the night that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ and the home of the brave
>> i'll ask the candidates to please take your podiums. while the candidates are taking their podiums, i just want to tell you more about how tonight's debate is going to work. i'll be the moderator. i'll ask questions on a wide range of issues and i'll work to make sure that each candidate is getting his or her fair share of questions. also, western voters right here in the hall will be asking questions as well. and viewers watching at home can participate also. we're accepting questions for the candidates on twitter. if you send a question for the candidates on twitter, make sure to include #cnndebate on facebook.com/cnnpolitics and cnnpolitics.com. now, each candidate will have about one minute to answer the questions and 30 seconds for follow-ups and rebuttals. i'll make that candidates they get time to respond if they're singled out for criticism. there's no buzzers and bells.
i'll politely inform the candidates when they need to wrap things up. we hope to be more able to we hope to be more able to judge who should be the next president of the united states. all the candidates are going to keep it short. here is an example. i'm anderson cooper. i'm usually anchoring "360" on cnn, but i'm here to host the western republican presidential debate. that would be my introduction. senator santorum, you first. >> i'm rick santorum. my wife karen and i are the parents of seven children. and my little girl, isabella, 3 year old, had some surgery today. she's doing fine. i wanted to say i love you and i'll take the red eye home tomorrow to make sure you're feeling fine. >> i'm congressman ron paul from texas. i'm the champion of liberty. i am the only one that has offered a balanced budget in a sincere method. and also, i present the case for a free society as being the best
defense for peace and prosperity. >> i am businessman herman cain. i've been married to my wife, gloria, for 43 years. and i'm a 42-year businessman, which means i solve problems for a living. >> i'm mitt romney. i was a businessman for 25 years, then i had the fun of getting the chance to help run the olympic winter games in salt lake city next door. and then i had the fun also being governor of massachusetts. i also solve problems, some for a living, some to make things better. and i hope to be your president. thank you. >> good evening. i'm texas governor rick perry, a proven job creator and a man
who is about economic growth. an authentic conservative, not a conservative of convenience. >> i'm newt gingrich. and unlike president obama, i'm glad to be in las vegas. i think it's a great place to have a convention. and when i am president, we're going to replace class warfare with cooperation so all americans can get off food stamps and on to paychecks. >> hi, my name is michele bachmann. i'm thrilled to be able to be with you tonight in las vegas. and this is one night when i hope what happens in vegas doesn't stay in vegas.
>> all right. we'll begin with actually a question in the hall. >> this is for all candidates. what's your position on replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax? >> i'll direct that to congresswoman bachmann. you've been very critical of herman cain's 9-9-9 plan, which calls for 9% sales tax, 9% income tax and 9% corporate tax. you said it would destroy the economy. why? >> well, i'm a former tax litigation attorney. and also, my husband and i are job creators. one thing i know about congress, being a member of congress for five years, is that any time you give the congress a brand-new tax, it doesn't go away. when we got the income tax in 1913, the top rate was 7%. by 1980, the top rate was 70%. if we give congress a 9% sales
tax, how long will it take a liberal president and a liberal congress to run that up to maybe 90%? who knows? what i do know is that we also have to be concerned about the hidden tax of the value-added tax. because at every step and stage of production, you'd be taxing that item 9% on the profit. that's the worry. in my plan -- again, that's a tax plan, it's not a jobs plan. my plan for economic recovery is real jobs right now. i have a tax plan. i have a jobs plan. i have an energy plan and a plan to really turn this country around and create millions of high paying jobs. >> mr. cain, a lot of prominent conservatives are coming around now and saying that your 9-9-9 plan would raise taxes on middle class voters, on lower income voters.
>> the thing that i would encourage people to do before they engage in this kneejerk reaction is read our analysis. it is available at hermancain.com. it was performed by fiscal associates and all of the claims that are made against it. it is a jobs plan, it is revenue neutral, it does not raise taxes on those that are making the least. all of those are simply not true. the reason that my plan -- the reason that our plan is being attacked so much is because lobbyists, accountants, politicians, they don't want to throw out the current tax code and put in something that's simple and fair. they want to be able to continue to be able to manipulate the american people with a 10-million-word mess. let's throw out the 10-million-word mess and put in our plan which will liberate american workers and liberate american businesses. >> senator santorum, will his plan raise taxes? >> herman's well meaning, and i love his boldness, and it's great. but the fact of the matter is, i mean, reports are now out that 84% of americans would pay more
taxes under his plan. that's the analysis. and it makes sense. because when you don't provide a standard deduction, when you don't provide anything for low-income individuals and you have a sales tax and an income tax and, as michele said, a value-added tax, which is really what his corporate tax is, we're talking about major increases in taxes on people. he also doesn't have anything that takes care of the families. i mean, you have a situation where under herman's plan, a single person pays as much in taxes as a man and a woman raising three children. ever since we've had the income tax in america, we've always taken advantage of the fact that we want to encourage people to have children and not have to pay more not only to raise children, but pay the additional taxes. we gave breaks for families. he doesn't do that in this bill. we saw that happen in europe and what happened? birth rates went into the basement. again, it's bold. i give him credit for starting a debate, but it is not good for families.
>> i'll give you 30 seconds to respond. that 84% figure comes from the tax policy center. >> that simply is not true. i invite people to look at our analysis, which we make available. secondly, the point that he makes about is the value-added tax, i'm sorry representative bachmann, it's not a value-added tax, it's a single tax. and i invite every american to do their own math because most of these are kneejerk reactions. and we do provide a provision, if you read the analysis, something we called opportunity zones that will, in fact, address the issue of those making the least. >> i want to bring in congresswoman bachmann since she was referenced by you. >> but anderson, how do you not have a value-added tax? because at every level of production, you have a profit and that profit gets taxed. because you produce one portion at one level, and then you take it to the next supplier or vendor at the next level and you have -- you have an exchange. that is a taxable event. and ultimately, that becomes a
value-added tax. it's a hidden tax. and any time the federal government needs revenue, they dial up the rate and the american people think that it's -- that it is the vendor that creates the tax, but it's the government that creates the tax. >> governor perry, in your state, you have 6 1/4% sales tax. would taxpayers pay more under the 9-9-9 plan? >> herman, i love you, brother, but let me tell you something. you don't need to have a big analysis to figure this thing out. go to new hampshire where they don't have a sales tax and you're fixing to give them one. they're not interested in 9-9-9. what they're interested in is flatter and fairer. at the end of the week, i'm going to be laying out a plan that -- i'll bump plans with you, brother, and we'll see who has the best idea about how you get this country working again. and one of the ways -- right here in nevada, you got 8-plus percent. you want nine cents on top of that and nine cents on a new home or 9% on a new home, 9% on your social security, 9% more?
i don't think so, herman. it's not going to fly. >> mr. cain, 30 seconds. >> this is an example of mixing apples and oranges. the state tax is an apple. we are replacing the current tax code with oranges. so, it's not correct to mix apples and oranges. secondly, it is not a value-added tax. if you take most of the products -- take a loaf of bread. it does have five taxes in it right now. what the 9% does is that we take out those five invisible taxes and replace it with one visible 9%. so, you're absolutely wrong. it's not a value-added tax. now, one other quick thing -- >> your time's up, i'm sorry. you'll have another 30 seconds. trust me. >> tonight? >> yes, i guarantee it. in about a minute. congressman paul, you called his plan dangerous today. >> oh, it is, because it raises revenues, and the worst part about it, it's regressive.
a lot of people that aren't paying any taxes, and i like that, i don't think that we should even things up by raising taxes. so, it is a regressive tax. so it's very, very dangerous. and it will raise more revenues. but the gentlemen asked the question -- he didn't even ask what we're talking about. he asked the question, what are you going to replace the income tax with? and i say nothing. that's what we should replace it with. but i do want to make a point that spending is a tax. as soon as the governments spend money, eventually it's a tax. sometimes we put a direct tax on the people. sometimes we borrow the money and sometimes we print the money. and then when prices go up, like today, the wholesale price index went up 7% rate, and if you look at the free market, prices are going up 9 and 10%. so, that is a tax. spending is the tax. that is the reason i offered the program to cut $1 trillion out of the first year budget that i offer. >> mr. cain, 30 seconds.
>> once again, unfortunately, none of my distinguished colleagues who have attacked me up here tonight understand the plan. they're wrong about it being a value-added tax. we simply remove the hidden taxes that are in goods and services with our plan and replace it with a single rate, 9%. i invite every family to do your own calculations with that arithmetic. >> governor romney, you have your only 59-point plan. in the last debate, mr. cain suggested it was too complicated. is simpler better? >> oftentimes, simpler is better. i know we aren't supposed to ask each other questions, but if you permit. herman, are you saying that the state sales tax would also go away? >> no, that's an apple. we're replacing a bunch of oranges. >> so, then governor perry was right? >> no, he wasn't. he was mixing apples and oranges. >> but will the people in nevada not have to pay nevada sales tax
and in addition pay the 9% tax? >> governor romney, you're doing the same thing that they're doing. you're mixing apples and oranges. no, no, no, you are going to pay the state sales tax no matter what. >> right. >> whether you throw out the existing code and you put in our plan, you are still going to pay that. that's apples and oranges. >> and i'm going to be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it because i've got to pay both taxes. and the people in nevada don't want to pay both taxes. let me make this comment. let's just step back here. we got a lot of people in america that are out of work. we got a lot of people in this state, 13.4% of the people in this state, out of work. we got home prices going down. we've got to talk about how to get america growing again, how to start adding jobs, and tax is part of it. i want to reduce taxes on our employers to make it easier to invest in america. i want to reduce taxes on middle income families. i like your chutzpah on this.
the analysis i did, person by person, return by return, people see higher taxes on your plan. if it's lower for the middle class, that's great. but that's not what i saw. i want to get the burden down on our employers, on our people. i want to make sure the regulations work to encourage the corporate sector as opposed to putting a damper on it. i want to find a way to get our energy resources -- and they're all over the world -- all over this country -- used for us. this is time to get america growing again. that's what this campaign is about. >> speaker gingrich, you have said in recent days that mr. cain's 9-9-9 plan would be a harder sell than he lets on. how so? >> well, you just watched it. i mean -- look, there are -- first of all, i think that herman cain deserves a lot of credit. he's had the courage to go out
and take a specific very big idea at the right level and he has us at least talking about something that matters as opposed to the junk that all too often is masquerading as politic in this country. so, i think that's important. there are two parts to this. the first is, if you take his plan, and i think it's in the interests of the whole country to have serious people take his plan and go through it step by step. there are much more complexities than herman lets on. 9-9-9, when you get into details like you pay it on a new product, you don't pay it on an old product. there's a lot more detail here than he lets on. second, i favor very narrow, focused tax cuts such as zero capital gains, 100% expensing, because i think, as governor romney said, jobs are the number one challenge of the next two or three years. get something you can do very
fast. change on this scale takes years to think through, if you're going to do it right. >> congresswoman bachmann, you also said in the last debate that everyone should pay something. does that mean that you would raise taxes on the 47% of americans who currently don't pay taxes? >> i believe absolutely every american benefits by this magnificent country. absolutely every american should pay something, even if it's a dollar. everyone needs to pay something in this country. that's why with my tax plan, i take a page out of not theory, but what's provable and what works. what is provable and what works was the economic miracle that was wrought by ronald reagan in the 1980s. that's the plan that i look at. i also want to completely abolish the tax code. i want to flatten the tax for all of americans, simplify that tax for all of americans.
and that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have. because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code, but it doesn't end with the tax code. it's the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it's more than that cost. it's jobs that are lost. so we need to repeal obama care, repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as dodd-frank. president obama's plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy and failure. >> thank you. >> i plan to change that with real jobs right now at michelebachmann.com. >> we've been talking about herman cain's plan. let's talk about governor romney's plan. governor perry, you said that governor romney was an abject failure at creating jobs when he was governor. if you've read his plan, has it changed your mind? >> here's the nine that we need to get focused on and it's not 9-9-9, it's not 59. it's 9% unemployment in this country.
and that's where we got to get focused in america is how to create an environment where the men and women get back to work. it's the reason i laid out a plan, newt, this last week, to get this energy that's under our feet -- we've got 300 years of resources right under our feet in this country. yet we've got an administration that is blockading our ability to bring that to the surface, whether it's petroleum, natural gas or coal. and 1.2 million jobs could be put to work. americans who are sitting out there listening to this conversation tonight, somebody wants someone on this stage to say, listen, we got an idea here how to get you to work and take care of your family and have the dignity of a job. and that's exactly what i did with my plan, laid it out where americans understand we don't have to wait on opec any more. we don't have to let them hold us hostage.
america's got the energy. let's have american energy independence. >> governor romney, does governor perry have the answer? >> well, he's absolutely right about getting energy independence and taking advantage of our natural resources here. we're an energy-rich nation that's acting like an energy-poor nation. and that's something i've been talking about for some time, as the governor has. he's absolutely right. but there's also a lot of good jobs we need in manufacturing and high-tech jobs and good service jobs. technology of all kinds. america produces an economy that's very, very broad. and that's why our policy to get america, the most attractive place in the world for investment and job growth encompasses more than just energy. it includes that, but also tax policy, regulatory policy, trade policy, education, training and balancing the federal budget, and that starts with repealing obama care, which is a huge burden on this economy. >> senator santorum, does mitt romney have the answer for jobs? >> i agree with all of what governor romney and governor
perry said. i would add the fact that i put forward the plan that's going to allow for income mobility. that's a new term, but i've been ewing it for a long time, which is people at the bottom part of the income scale being able to rise in society. in western europe, people at the lower parts of the income scale have a better mobility going up the ladder now than in america. and i believe that's because we've lost our manufacturing base. no more stamp made in america is hurting middle america. all the focused real big changes in the tax code at manufacturing, that cut the corporate rate for manufacturing to zero. repeal all regulations affecting manufacturers that cost over 100 million and replace them with something that's friendly they, can work with. repatriate $1.2 million that manufacturers made overseas and allow them to bring it back here if they invest it in plants and equipment. the final point i'd make governor romney, you don't have credibility when it comes to obama care.
your plan was the basis for obama care. your consultants helped obama craft obama care. to say you're going to repeal it, you have no track record on that that we can trust you that you're going to do that. >> governor romney, 30 seconds. >> you don't. >> this is either the eighth or ninth debate. each chance i've had to talk about obama care, i've made it very clear and also in my book. at the time i crafted the plan in the last campaign, i was asked is this something you would have the whole nation do, and i said no. this is something that was crafted for massachusetts. it would be wrong to adopt this for a nation. >> that's not what you -- that's in your book -- >> guys. >> you took it out of your book. let's be honest. >> i tell you what? why don't you let me speak. rick, you had your chance. why don't you let me speak? >> you're out of time. you're out of time.
you're out of time. >> he ate into your time. rick, sorry. >> i haven't had a chance to respond yet because you were interrupting the entire i was trying to speak. let me make it clear. >> i'll give you another 20 seconds. >> look at the fact checks. i was at interviewed in this debate stage with you four years ago, i was asked about the massachusetts plan. was it something i'd impose on the nation and the answer is absolutely not. it was something crafted for a state. and i've said time and again, obama care is bad news. it's unconstitutional. it costs way too much money, a trillion dollars, and if i'm president of the united states, i will repeal it for the american people. >> senator sentorum? >> mitt, the governor of massachusetts is coming forward saying we have to pick up the job left undone by romney care, which is doing something about cutting health care costs. what you did is exactly what barack obama did, focused on the wrong problem. herman always says, you got to find the right problem.
well, the right problem is health care costs, which you did with a top-down, government-run program that was focused on the problem of government health care access. you expanded the pool of insurance without controlling cost. you've blown a hole in the budget up there and you authored in obama care, which will blow a hole in this economy. >> i'm sorry, rick, that you find so much to dislike in my plan. but the people of massachusetts like it, by about a 3-1 margin. we dealt with a challenge that we had, a lot of people that were expecting government to pay their way. we said if people have the capacity to care for themselves and pay their own way, they should. now i can tell you this, it's absolutely right that there's a lot that needs to be done and i didn't get the job done in massachusetts in getting the health care costs down in this country is something we have to do at the national level. i intend to do that. what obama has done is impose on the nation a plan that will not work, that must be repealed. when it comes to knowledge about health care and how to get our health care system working, i
may not be a doctor like this one over here, but i sure understand how to bring the cost of health care down and how to also make sure we have a system that works for the american people. >> you didn't do it. >> speaker gingrich. >> you didn't do it. >> speaker gingrich, you've also been very critical of mitt romney's plan, not only on obama care, but his plan to lower the capital gains tax for those earning lower than $200,000. >> i want to stay on health for a moment. let's just focus. "the boston herald" today reported that the state of massachusetts is fining a local small business $3,000 because their $750 a month insurance plan is inadequate, according to the bureaucrats in boston. now, there's a fundamental difference between trying to solve the problems of this country from the top down and trying to create environments in which doctors and patients and families solve the problem from the bottom up.
and candidly, mitt, your plan ultimately philosophically, that's not obama care, that's not a fair charge. but your plan essentially is one more big-government, bureaucratic, high-cost system which, candidly, could not have been done by any other state because no other state had a medicare program as lavish as yours and no one got a grant from the bush administration for this experiment. so not as much as obama care but a heck of a lot more than your campaign has admitted. >> governor romney, 30 seconds. >> actually, newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you. >> that's not true. you got it from the heritage foundation. >> you got it from the heritage foundation and you. >> you just said it's not true. you did not get that from me. you got it from the heritage foundation. >> and you never supported that? >> i agree with them. what he says was plain wasn't true. >> and you supported in the past
an individual mandate? >> i absolutely did with the heritage foundation against hillary care. >> you did. we got the idea from you and the heritage foundation. >> okay. a little broader. >> anderson, anderson, anderson! anderson? >> let me finish. >> he still has time. let him finish. >> i get a little time here. number two, we don't have a government insurance plan. what we do is rely on private insurers and people -- 93% of our people who were already insured, nothing changed. for the people who didn't have insurance, they get private insurance, not government insurance. and the best way to make markets work is for people to be able to buy their own products from private enterprises. what we did was right for our state according to the people in our state. and the great thing about a state solution to a state issue is if people don't like it, they can change it. >> congresswoman bachmann. >> it has to be stated that obama care is so flat-out unpopular that even the obama administration chose to reject part of obama care last friday when they tried to throw out the class act which is the long-term
care function. the secretary sebelius, who is the head of health and human services, reported that the government can't even afford that part and has to throw it out. and now the administration is arguing with itself. when even the obama administration wants to appeal this bill, i think we're going to win this thing. we're going to repeal it. and i will. >> we've got to take a quick break. we'll continue this discussion on the other side. we have a long way to go. we'll be right back. ♪ whoa! hey! [ dog barks, growls ]
a question logged @cnndebate. if obama's health plan is bad for the u.s., what is the alternative and how will you implement it? congressman paul, is there any aspect of obama care that you'd like to keep, whether keeping kids to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 or no pre-existing conditions? >> really not. because he's just adding on more government. there's been a lot of discussion about medicine, but it seems to be talking about which kind of government management is best. but our problem is we have too much. we've had it for 30, 40 years, we have medicare, we have prescription drug programs, we have medicaid. what we need -- i mean, there's a pretty good support up here for getting rid of obama care because it's a democratic proposal. and we want to opt out. i think we'd all agree on this. but if you want better competition and better health care, you should allow the american people to opt out of government medicine. and the way to do this is to not de-emphasize the medical savings account, but let people opt out, pay their bills, get back to the
doctor/patient relationship. there is inflation worked into it. when the government gets involved in an industry, prices always go up. we have tort laws to deal with. and we need more competition in medicine, but most important thing is letting the people have control of their money and getting it out of the hands of the third party. as soon as you go to the government, the lobbyists line up, the drug companies line up, the insurance companies line up, and even with obama care, the industries, the corporations, get behind it and affect the outcome and already insurance premiums are going up. >> herman cain, same question, is there any aspect of obama care that we should keep? >> no. i think we all agree that obama care should be repealed because it is a disaster.
the more we learn about it and the more time goes on, we all see. we're all in agreement with that. but here's where i would start in answering that question. it's called hr-3400. this was introduced back in 2009 but you didn't hear a lot of talk about it. instead of government being imposed on our system, it basically passes market-centered, market-driven, patient-centered reforms to allow association health plans, to allow loser pay laws, to allow insurance products to be sold across state lines and a whole list of other things. so that's a great place to start. it allows the patient and the doctors to make the decisions, not a bureaucrat. i'd start with hr-3400. >> governor perry, in the last debate, governor romney pointed out that texas has one of the highest rates of uninsured children in the country, over 1 million kids. you didn't get an opportunity to respond to that. how do you explain that? >> we've got one of the finest health care systems in the world, in texas. as a matter of fact, the houston medical center, more doctors and
nurses go to work there in the morning than any other place in america. the idea that you can't have access to some of the finest health care in the world, but we have a 1200-mile border with mexico. and the fact is we have a huge number of illegals coming into this country. they're coming into this country because the federal government has failed to secure that border. but they're coming here because there is a magnet. and the magnet is called jobs. and those people that hire illegals ought to be penalized. and mitt, you lose all of your standing from my perspective because you hired illegals in your home and you knew about it for a year. and the idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you're strong on immigration is on its face the height of hypocrisy. >> governor romney? >> rick, i don't think that i've ever hired an illegal in my life. and so, i'm looking forward to finding your facts on that. rick, again. >> you have the -- >> rick, i'm speaking. i'm speaking. i'm speaking.
i'm speaking. >> it is time -- >> you get 30 seconds. this is the way the rules work here is i get 60 seconds and then you get 30 seconds to respond. anderson? would you please wait? are you going to keep talking or are you gonna let me finish what i have to say? look, rick -- >> so tough to follow the rules. >> this has been a tough couple of debates for rick, and i understand that. so you're going to get testy. but let's let -- i'll tell you what. let me take my time, and then you can take your time. >> have at it. >> all right. my time is this, which is i have, in my state, when i was governor, i took the action of empowering our state police to enforce immigration laws. when you were governor, you said, i don't want to build a fence. you put in place a magnet to
draw illegals to the state, which is giving $100,000 of tuition credit to illegals that come into this country and then you have states -- the big states of illegal immigrants are california and florida. over the last ten years, they've had no increase in illegal immigration. texas has had 60% increase in illegal immigrants in texas. if there's someone who has a record as governor with regards to illegal immigration that doesn't stand up to muster, it's you, not me. >> governor perry, you have 30 seconds. >> you stood here in front of the american people and did not tell the truth that you had illegals working on your property. and the newspaper came to you and brought it to your attention. and you still, a year later, had those individuals working for you. the idea that you can sit here and talk about any of us having immigration issue is beyond me. i've got a strong policy. i've always been against amnesty. you on the other hand were for amnesty. >> i've got 30 seconds, then we
move on to another issue. >> you were in the newspaper saying you were open to amnesty. that's number one. number two, >> we hired a lawn company to mow our lawn and they had illegal immigrants that were working there. when that was pointed out to us, we let them go. you have a problem with allowing someone to finish speaking. and i suggest that if you want to become president of the united states, you have to let both people speak. so first, let me speak. so we went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property. i'm running for office, for pete's sake, we can't have illegals. turns out that once question they hired someone who had falsified their documents and therefore we fired them. let me tell you, it is hard in this country as an individual homeowner to knew if people who are contractors working at your home if they hired people that are illegal. if i'm president, we'll put in place an e-verify system, which you oppose, and crack down on
people who come here illegally. >> we'll stay on the topic of immigration. we're going to stay on the topic of immigration. everyone will get a chance to weigh in. this is a question that was left at cnnpolitics.com. as president, will you order completion of the physical border fence along the entire border between the u.s. and mexico? that's from marilyn l. herman cain, over the weekend, you got a lot of headlines by saying you'd have an electrified against. you then later said it was a joke. "it might be electrified. i'm not walking away from that. i just don't want to offend anyone." so, would you build an entire fence along the entire border and would you have it be electrified? >> allow me to give the serious answer. yes, i believe we should secure the border for real and it would
be a combination of a fence, technology, as well as possibly boots on the ground for some of the more dangerous areas. i don't apologize at all for wanting to protect our american citizens and our agents on the border, no. secondly -- the second thing that i would do, see, i believe in let's solve the whole problem. we must shut the back door so people can come in the front door. secondly, promote the existing path to citizenship by cleaning up the bureaucracy in washington, d.c. thirdly, enforce the laws, the immigration laws that are already on the books. and here's another one of these bold ideas by the nonpolitician up here. empower the states to do what the federal government is not doing in terms of enforcing those laws. >> governor perry, your state has the longest border with
mexico. is it possible -- to the question, is it possible to build a fence across the entire border? >> sure. you can build a fence, but it takes between 10 and 15 years and $30 billion. there's a better way. and that's to build a virtual defense zone, if you will, along that border, which not unlike what herman's talking about and you can do it with strategic fencing in the obvious places where it matters. but the way you really stop the activities along that border that are illegal whether the drug cartels or bringing in illegal weapons or whether it's illegal immigrants that are coming in is to put boots on the ground. i will tell you, herman, you put a lot of boots on the ground. you use predator drones that are being trained right up here in the air force base in nevada to use that realtime information to give those boots on the ground that information. and they can instantly move to those areas and that is the way to shut that border down, to secure that border and really
make america safe from individuals like those iranians that are using the drug cartels to penetrate this country. >> congresswoman bachmann, do you agree with governor perry? >> the person who really has a problem with illegal immigration in the country is president obama. it's his uncle and his aunt who are illegal aliens who have been allowed to stay in this country despite the fact that they're illegal. this last saturday, i was the very first candidate that signed a pledge that said that by a date certain, i will build a double-walled fence with an area of security neutrality in between. i will build that. because this is what we know. this is an economics issue and a jobs issue. >> you would say you would build a fence along the entire border? >> i'll build it on the entire border, and i'll tell you why. every year, it costs this country $113 billion in the costs that we put out to pay for illegal aliens. it costs the state and local government of that amount 82 billion. for every household of an american citizen, it costs us $1,000 a year. we are robbing the household of
americans who can't afford that. i will build the fence. i will enforce english as the official language of the united states government and every person that comes into this country will have to agree that they will not receive taxpayer subsidized benefits of any american citizen -- >> time. >> thank you. >> governor perry, does that make sense? she says she can build the fence along the entire border? >> as i said, you can build that fence, but by the time that fence gets built -- >> she's also talking about your taxpayer subsidized benefits. >> but my point is by the time that fence gets built, there is a lot better way than to stand here and to play to some group of people somewhere and say, we're going to build a fence and then wipe our hands of it. i've been dealing with this border for ten years as the governor. and the reason that we have this issue is because the federal government has failed miserably to defend and secure that
border. you know, for someone that's been in the united states congress, to lecture me on the issues that are going on on that border is not right. let me tell you, we've had to deal with that issue in the state of texas. we've had to deal with the impact on our state. and i put $400 million on that border of texas taxpayers' money, texas ranger recon teams there. we know how to secure the border. i showed you how to do it. you put the boots on the ground, the aviation assets in the air and you secure that border. >> anderson, can i respond? >> it wasn't directed at you. >> he did respond. >> i think it's important for us as republicans on this stage to say something which hasn't been said. i think that every single person here loves legal immigration. we respect people who come here legally. and the reason we're so animated about stopping illegal immigration is there are 4.5
million people who want to come here who are in line legally and we want that to happen in an orderly and legal way. to secure the border, you have a fence, you have enough border patrol agents and you turn off the magnets. and that employers who hire people that are here illegally. that's why you have an e-verify system, so they can know that. number two, you turn off the magnets like tuition breaks or other breaks that draw people into this country illegally. it is not that hard. we have to have the political will to get the job done. governor perry, you have the experience, you say it's a bit like saying the college coach that has lost 40 games in a row has the experience to go to the nfl. but the truth is -- i'll say it again, california and florida have both have no increase in illegal immigration and yours is up 60%. >> time. >> over the last ten years. >> governor perry, 30 seconds to respond. >> well, the bottom line is that we have a federal government that has failed. there is a clear problem here. and he hit the nail on the head
a while ago. he said there was a magnet of people that will hire illegals. and you are number one on that list, sir. and people need to understand that. you're one of the problems, mitt. >> i think we've been down that road. we've been down that road sufficiently. sounds like the audience agrees with me. >> continuing on immigration. we have a question in the audience -- >> good evening. thank you for the opportunity to ask my question. we have 50 million latinos and not all of us are illegal. what is the message from you guys to our latino community? >> speaker gingrich? president obama got in 67% of the latino vote last time around. >> look, i think that there's a very clear message to americans of all backgrounds. latinos, korean americans, vietnamese americans, there are hundreds of different groups who come to america. as governor romney said, i think anybody who understands america has to be proud of our record as
the country which has been the most open in history to legal immigration. but the truth is most latinos in the united states aren't immigrants. most latinos in the united states now have been born in the united states. the fact is they want virtually everything that everyone else wants. they want an economy is growing. they want a job that has take home pay and access to insurance they can afford. they want a chance to get educated that is actually useful and worthwhile. they want to know their family will grow up in safety and their country will work to give their grandchildren a better future. i think we have to have the same message for every american of every ethnic background, that we want to make america work again. you'll know it's working because you will have a job and you'll have a chance to take care of your family. congressman paul -- congressman paul, there's some latino voters who believe that some of the strong
some of the strong anti-immigration laws, anti-immigration laws are actually anti-latino laws. what do you say to them? >> i think some people do believe that. i think a fence is symbolic of that. i can understand why somebody might look at that. but we should look at the incentives or the mandates from the federal government saying that you must educate and you must give them free education. you have to remove these incentives. but i don't think the answer is a fence whatsoever. but in order to attract latino votes, i think, you know, too long this country has always put people in groups, penalize people because they're in groups, then they reward people because they're in groups. but following up on what newt was saying, we need a healthy economy and we wouldn't be talking about this. we need to see everybody as an individual. and to me, seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals and they're treated that way and they're never penalized that way. if you have a free and prosperous society, all of a sudden this group mentality melts away.
as long as there's no abuse, one place where there's still a lot of discrimination in this country is in our court systems. i think the minorities come up with a short hand in our court system. >> herman cain, the 14th amendment allows that anybody born in the united states is an american citizen. should that change? >> i want to go back and answer this question first, okay? and that is my message to latinos, blacks, whites and all americans is that we must first start with significantly boosting this economy, which is on life support. this is why i have put forth a very bold plan, and i'm not afraid to try and sell it to the american people. i'm not afraid to fight for it when i become president of the united states of america. so that's my message. if we have this economy growing, people will be able to take care of their families and go after their american dream. and until we boost this economy, all of us are going to suffer for a long time. >> then let me ask the question
of governor perry. the 14th amendment allows anybody, a child of illegal immigrants who is born here is automatic an american citizen. should that change? >> let me address herman's issue -- >> i'd rather you ask the question and answer that question. >> i understand that. you get to ask the questions. i get to answer like i want to. herman talked about -- >> that's actually a response, that's not an answer, but go ahead. >> the issue of how we go ahead and get this country back working. and truly, the plan that i laid out last week, where we talk about the energy industry and this treasure trove that we have under this country, and we need to recognize that the administration that we have today is blocking mining that could be going on in the state of nevada. i talked to brian sandoval before i came in here today. you have an administration that is killing jobs because they want to move us to a green energy. you have a secretary of energy who has basically said he wants to see gas prices up close to the european model.
that the president himself said electricity rates are necessarily going to skyrocket. that's what we've got to stop. that's the reason we got to have a president of the united states that understands that if you get americans working and it addresses these issues that we have in this country and the fastest way to do it is open up these federal -- to pull back those regulations. >> time. >> and get america working again. >> to the question on the 14th amendment, do you support repealing the 14th amendment? >> no. >> no, you do not? >> i do not. >> congresswoman bachmann, do you support it? >> i think there's a very real issue with magnets in this country. and i think the issue that you're referring to is the issue of anchor babies. and that's an issue that i was just in arizona this last weekend. and the state is very concerned because when someone comes illegally across the border specifically for the purpose of utilizing american resources for having a baby here, then all the welfare attaches to that baby. this is an issue that we don't have to deal with with the constitution.
we can deal with it legislatively. there are a lot of americans that would like us to deal with this issue of anchor babies legislatively. >> senator sentorum? >> i'd like to address the issue that the gentleman brought up, what will we say to the latino community. not one person addressed family, faith, marriage. this is a community that's faithful community, the familiar is at the center of that community. i disagree with congressman paul who says the country is founded on the individual. the basic building block is not an individual. it's the family. that's the basic unit of society. and the latino community understands that. they understand the importance of faith and marriage. they understand that bond that builds that solid foundation and that inculcation of faith and religious freedom. and i think the latino community knows that's at stake in this country. there's a lot going on that's
eroding our religious freedom right now. that's eroding the traditional values of marriage and family. and there's one candidate up here that consistently sounds that theme. look, i'm for job, too. i have an economic plan, i agree with everything that's said. but we keep running roughshod over the fact that family in america and faith in america is being crushed by the courts and by our government and someone has stand up and fight. >> congressman paul, you were referenced directly. 30 seconds. >> well, i would like to explain that rights don't come in bunches. rights come as individuals, they come from a god, and they come as each individual has a right to life and liberty. but i might add about the border control and the latino vote is we lack resources there. i think we should have more border guards on it, a more orderly transition and run it much better, but where are our resources? you know, we worry more about
the border between afghanistan and pakistan. we need to bring the guard units home and the units back here so we can have more personnel on our border. >> we have a question in the audience. >> my question for you is do you support opening the national nuclear repository at yucca mountain? with you. >> look, we worked on this when i was speaker. i think that it has to be looked at scientifically. but i think at some point we have to find a safe method of taking care of nuclear waste, and today, because this has been caught up in a political fight, we have small units of nuclear waste all over this country in a way that is vastly more dangerous to the united states than finding a method of keeping it in a very, very deep place that would be able to sustain 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 years of geological safety. >> is yucca mountain that place? >> i'm not a scientist. yucca mounten was picked by the scientific community as one of the safest places in the united
states. it's always had depot position for it here in nevada. >> you were for it in congress. >> there was time for scientific studies, but we have to find some method of finding a very geologically stable place. and most geologists believe that yucca mountain is that. >> congressman paul, you oppose this? >> yes, i've opposed this. we've had votes in the congress. there was a time when i voted with two other individuals, the two congressmen from nevada. and i approach it from a state's rights position. what right does 49 states have to punish one state and say we're going to put our garbage in your state. i think that's wrong. i think it's very serious. but quite frankly, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidiing any form of energy and nuclear energy is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies, then we as politicians and the bushs get involved in this. and involved with which state will get stuck with the garbage.
the more the free market handles this and you deal with property rights and so subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved. >> governor romney, where do you stand on this? >> congressman paul was right on that. i don't always agree with him, but i do on that. the idea that 49 states can tell nevada, we want to give you our nuclear waste doesn't make a lot of sense. the people of nevada ought to have the final say. for someone to say yes to that someone has to offer them a pretty good deal as opposed to having the federal government jam it down their throat. if nevada says, we don't want it, let other states take bids. we'll take it. here's the site, here's the compensation for taking it. you want you electric companies using nuclear field to compensate us a certain amount per kilowatt hour, a certain amount for ton of this stuff that comes. let the free market work. and on that basis the places that are geologically safe according to science and where people say the deal's a good one will decide where we put this
stuff. that's the right course for america. >> governor perry? >> you know, from time to time, mitt and i don't agree. but on this one, he's hit it -- the nail right on the head. i'll just add that when you think about france who gets over 70% of their energy from nuclear power, the idea that they deal with this issue, that their classification and innovation and congressman paul, you're correct whint comes to allows the states to compete with each other. that is the answer with this. we need to have a discussion in this country about our tenth amendment and the appropriately of it as it's been eroded by washington, d.c., for all these many years, weather health care or education or energy. we don't need to be subsidiing
energy. some state out there will see the economic issue and they will have it in their state. >> we're going to move on to an issue very important here in the state of nevada and throughout the west. we have a question from the hall. >> my question is those of us who own property here in nevada have been devastated by the real estate bubble. what would you do as president to help fix the overall problem of real estate and foreclosures in america? >> senator santorum, nevada has the highest rate of foreclosure. >> yeah, it's a situation right now where obviously the market has been decimated. now you're looking at how do you repair. the problem is in first place, several people up here, the so-called businesspeople supported the t.a.r.p., perry, romney. >> no. >> you wrote a letter on the day of the vote, you wrote a letter on the day of the vote, governor, to say vote for the plan. >> no, i didn't. >> yes, you did, governor. >> let him finish.
>> you supported it, governor romney, you and herman cain all supported the t.a.r.p. program. >> not all of it. >> i mean, you guys explain with governor romney flip flopping. look at what's going on here. the bottom line is you all supported it, you all started this ball rolling when the government injected itself in trying to make -- trying to fix the market with the government topdown trying to do it in managed decline. and what happened was people who did things that were wrong invested in things, took risks bailed out and the folks who acted responsibly are being hurt because the houses are going down in value. we need to let the market work. >> you have 30 seconds. >> the fact is rick just has that wrong. we wrote a letter to congress asking them to act. what we meant by acting was cut the regulatioregulations, cut the taxation, not passing t.a.r.p. there's clearly a letter out of
our office that says that, i'll get you a copy so you understand it. >> hold on. i need to respond to that. he sent a letter the day of the vote on the floor of the house saying, pass economic plan. there was only one plan. and that was the plan that was voted on the floor. it was t.a.r.p. you sent a letter on that day saying, vote for that plan. now, you can send a letter later saying i didn't mean it. but when you said it, it was the only plan that was in play, and that was the t.a.r.p. plan. >> do you want to respond, governor perry? >> i'm just telling you i know what we sent, i know what the intention was, you can read it any way you want. the fact of the matter i wasn't for t.a.r.p. and have talked about it for years since then. >> there's an effort on the part of people in washington to think somehow they know better than markets, how to rebalance america's economy. and the idea of the federal government running around saying, hey, we're going to give you some money for trading in
your old car or $3,000 for buying a new house or we'll keep banks from foreclosing if you can't make your payments, these kind of actions on the part of government haven't worked. the right course is to let markets work. in order to get markets to work and to help people the best that we can do is to get the economy going. and that's why the fundamental restructuring is essential to help homeowners and people across this country. >> mr. cain, 30 seconds. >> i have said before that we were in a crisis at the end of 2008 with this potential financial meltdown. i supported the concept of t.a.r.p., but when this administration used discretion and did a whole lot of things that the american people didn't like, i was then against it. so yes, i'm owning up to that. now, getting back to the gentleman's question in terms of what we need to do, we need to get government out of the way. it starts with making sure we can boost this economy. then reform dodd/frank and reform a lot of the regulations that have gotten in the way.
>> time. >> and do it just like mitt has talked about. >> congresswoman bachmann, does the federal government have a role in keeping people in their homes in the state of nevada? >> that was the question that was initially asked. what i want to say is this, every day i'm out somewhere in the united states of america and most of the time i'm talking to moms across this country. when you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you're talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they're losing their nest for their children and for their family. there are women all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job and they can't keep that house. and there are women who are losing that house. i'm a mom. i want to say one thing to moms all across america tonight. this is a real issue. it's got to be solved. president obama has failed you
on this issue of housing and foreclosures. i will not fail you on this issue. i will turn this country around. we will turn the economy around. we will create jobs. that's how you hold on to your house. hold on, moms out there. it's not too late. >> we have another question. this one is a twitter question. how do you explain the occupy wall street movement happening across the country and how does it relate with your message? herman cain, i got to ask you, you said, quote -- two weeks ago, don't blame wall street, don't blame the big banks. if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. that's two weeks ago, the movement has grown. do you still say that? >> yes, i do still say that. and here's why -- i still stand by my statement. and here's why. they might be frustrated with wall street and the bankers, but they're directing their anger at the wrong place. wall street didn't put in failed economic policies. wall street didn't spend a
trillion dollars that didn't do any good. wall street isn't going around the country trying to sell another $450 billion. they ought to be over in front of the white house taking out their frustration. >> congressman paul -- congressman paul you've been critical of governor romney for holding fund-raisers with wall streeters. do you think he understands what the protest is about? do you understand? >> i think mr. cain has blamed the victims. there's a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. we can't blame the victims. but we also have to point -- i'd go to washington as well as wall street, but i'd go over to the federal reserve. they create the financial bubbles. and you have to understand that you can't solve these problems if you don't understand where these bubbles come from. but then when the bailout came and supported by both party, you have to realize oh, hey,
republicans were still in charge. the bailouts came from both parties. guess who they bailed out? the big corporations of peel who were ripping off the people in the derivatives market. they said the world will come to an end unless we bail out all the banks. so the banks were involved and the federal reserve was involved. but who got stuck? the middle class got stuck. they lost their jobs and they lost their houses. if you had to give money out you should have given it to people who were losing their mortgages, not to the banks. >> mr. cain, do you want to respond? >> he referenced you. so if you want to respond, you have 30 seconds. >> all i want to say is that representative paul is partly right, but he's mixing problems here. it's more than one problem. look, the people, yes, the banks and the businesses on wall street, yes. the way that was administered was not right. but my point is this, what are the people who are protesting want from bankers on wall street to come downstairs and write them a check?
this is what we don't understand. go and get to the source of the problem is all i'm saying. >> i'll give you 30 seconds, then two to governor romney. >> yes, the argument is that the program was okay, but it was mismanaged. but i work on the assumption that government is not very capable of managing almost anything, so you shouldn't put that much trust in the government. you have to trust the marketplace. when the government gets involved, they have to deal with fraud. how many people have gone to jail either in the government, fannie mae or freddie mac that participated in this? and nobody suffers the consequences. all these investigations and yet the people who lose their jobs and lose their houses, it's their fault. that's why they're on wall street. and we can't blame them. we have to blame the business cycle. >> time. >> and the economic policies that led to this disaster. >> governor romney, you originalliy called the protests dangerous. you said it was class warfare. you recently sounded more sympathetic. where do you stand now? >> we can spend our time talking
about three years ago and what the cause is of our collapse. over the last three years we've had a president responsible for this economy for the last three years and he's failed us. he's failed us in part because he has no idea how the private sector works or how to create jobs. on every single issue he's made it harder for our economy to reboot. as a result, we have 25 million americans out of work or stopped looking for work or part time work and can't get full time employed. home values going down. you have median income in america that in the last three years has dropped by 10%. americans are hurting across this country. and the president's out there campaigning. why isn't he governing? he doesn't understand -- he doesn't have a jobs plan even now. this is a critical time for america. and i can tell you that this is time to have someone who understands how the economy works, who can get america working again. instead of dividing and blaming, as this president is, let's grow america again and have jobs that
[ melissa ] i hit the water and everything changed. ♪ i saw what my life could be... and found the strength to make it happen. ♪ i lost my leg serving my country. now i serve in a new uniform. [ male announcer ] helping people achieve without limits. at the hartford it's what we do... and why we're the founding partner of the u.s. paralympic team. show your support at facebook.com/thehartford. the western republican presidential debate live from the convention center in las vegas. send us your comments and questions for the candidates on twitter. use the #cnndebate. when we come back, the right to bear arms and should a candidate's faith matter? [ husband ] you ready for this?
i just signed the whole family up for unlimited mobile to mobile minutes. you're kidding. no. where's that money coming from, steve? did it even cross your mind to ask your wife before signing us up for something so expensive? my mother was right; i should have married john clarke. they were free. i got them when i signed us up for unlimited messaging. [ male announcer ] get more value from at&t. buy an unlimited messaging plan, and call any u.s. mobile phone free. at&t. two of the most important are energy security and economic growth. north america actually has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. a large part of that is oil sands. this resource has the ability to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. at our kearl project in canada, we'll be able to produce these oil sands with the same emissions as many other oils and that's a huge breakthrough.
welcome back to the cnn gop debate live from the venetian in las vegas. an e-mail question that came from cnnpolitics.com. mike richards says with the controversy surrounding robert jeffress, is it enough to let a candidate's faith shape the debate? this is in reference to a baptist pastor after introducing governor rick perry said that mitt romney is not a christian and that mormonism is a cult. those were his words. should voters pay attention to a candidate's religion? >> i think they should pay attention to the candidate's
values, what the candidate stands for. that's what's at play. and the person's faith -- and you look at that fooit and what the faith teaches with respect to morals and values that are reflected in that person's belief structure. those are important things. i'm a catholic, catholic has social teachings, catholic has teachings as to what's right and what's wrong. those are legitimate things for voters to look at if you're a faithful catholic, fall short all the time, but i try to be and what the teachings of that faith are with respect to how you live your life and how you'd govern this country. with respect to what is the road to salvation, that's a whole different story. that's not applicable to the role of being a president or senator or any other job. >> speaker gingrich, you agree with that? >> well, i think if the question is does faith matter?
absolutely. how can you have a country which is founded on truths which begins we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights? how can you have the ordinance which says religion, morality and knowledge being important, education matters. that's the order. religion, morality and knowledge. now, i happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way they approach god. and i think that all of us up here i believe would agree. but i think all of us would also agree that there's a very central part of your faith and how you approach public life. and i frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments because then i'd wonder how can you have judgment if you have no faith and how can i trust you with power if you don't pray? who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to god is
between you and god, but the notion that you're endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by american. >> governor perry, mitt romney asked you to repudiate the comments of that pastor who made the comments on the stage -- he didn't make the statements on the stage. he made them afterwards. will repudiate that? >> i can no more refute my faith than i can from a tenant farmer. are we going to be individuals who stand by our faith? i have said i didn't agree with that individual's statement. and our founding fathers truly understood and had an understanding of freedom of religion. and this country is based on, as newt talked about, these values that are so important as we go forward. and the idea that we should not have our freedom of religion to
be taken away by any means, but we also are a country that is free to express our opinions. that individual expressed an opinion. i didn't agree with it, mitt, and i said so. but the fact is americans understand faith. what they've lost faith in is the current resident of the white house. >> governor romney, is that acceptable to you? >> with regards to the disparaging comments about my faith, i've heard worse. so i'm not going to lose sleep over that. what i actually found was most troubling in what the reverend said in the introduction was he said, in choosing our nominee, we should inspect his religion and someone who is a good moral person is not someone we should select, instead we should choose someone who subscribes to our religious belief. that idea that we should choose people based upon their religion for public office is what i find
to be most troubling. because the founders of this country went to great length to make sure -- and even put in the constitution -- that we would not choose people who represent us in government based upon their religion, that this would be a nation that recognized and respected other faiths, where there's a plurality of faiths, where there's tolerance for other people and faiths. that's bedrock principle. and it's that principle that i wanted to be say no, that's wrong, reverend jeffress, knock the ball out of the park. reverend jeffress, you got that wrong, we should select people not based on their faith. i wouldn't expect you to distance yourself from your faith any more than i would. but to select people based on the church or synagogue they go to is an enormous departure from the principles of our constitution. >> would you still like him to say that? >> i'm sorry? >> would you still like the governor to say that or is that someone --
>> i'll let him as his choice. >> do you want to respond to that, governor perry? >> i have. i said i did not agree with pastor jeffress remarks. i don't agree with them. i can't apologize any more than that. >> that's fine. >> we've got a question from the audience. >> currently there's a deficit reduction measure to cut defense spending by $500 billion. would you support such a reduction in defense spending and if elected president how will you provide a strong national defense? >> congresswoman bachmann, should defense be cut? >> well, $500 billion is the amount that the questioner had mentioned. and don't forget this was a historic week when it came to american foreign policy. we saw potentially an international assassination attempt from iran on american soil. that says something about iran, that they disrespect the united states so much that they would attempt some sort of heinous act like that.
then we saw the president of the united states engage american troops in a fourth conflict in a foreign land. this is historic. then on sunday we heard the reports that now that in iraq, the 5,000 troops that were going to be left there won't even be granted immunity by iraq. this is how disrespected the united states is in the world today, and it's because of president obama's failed policies. he's taken his eyes off the number one issue in the world. that's an iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. that makes all of us much danger. and the president of iran is a genocidal maniac. we need to stand up against iran -- >> congresswoman. >> -- and as president of the united states, i will. we will be respected again in the world. >> the question was about budget cuts. and is everything on the table in terms of cutting the budget? >> absolutely everything. >> so defense spending would be on the table, should be.
>> defense spending is on the table, but again, anderson, now with the president, he put us in libya. he's now putting us in africa. we already were stretched too thin and he put our special operations forces in africa. >> i want to make sure. >> it's on the table but we can't cut it by $500 billion. we can't do that to the brave men and women on the ground fighting for us. >> if you want to understand how totally broken washington is, look at this entire model of the supercommittee which has now got a magic number to achieve and if it doesn't achieve the magic number, then we'll all have to shoot ourselves in the head so that when they come back with a really dumb idea to merely cut off our right leg, we'll all be grateful that they're only semistupid instead of being totally stupid. a bunch of historically illiteral politicians trying to make a numerical decision about the size of the defense budget tells you everything you need to
know about the bankrupt of the elite in this country in both parties. the fact is we should figure out what threaten us, figure out what strategies respond to that, figure out what structures we need for those strategies. we should then cost them. i helped to fund the military caucus. i'm a hawk, but i'm a cheap hawk. the fact is to say i'm going to put the security of the united states up against some arbitrary budget number is suicidally stupid. >> congressman paul, you've proposed -- >> congressman paul, you just proposed eliminating the departments of commerce, education, energy, interior, housing and urban development. you say it will save a trillion dollars in one year. you're proposing a 15% cut to the defense department. can you guarantee national security will not be hurt by that?
>> i think it would be enhanced. i don't want to cut any defense. and you have to get it straight. there's a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn't do any good for our defense. how does it help us to keep troops in korea all these years? we're broke. we have to borrow this money. why are we in japan? why do we subsidize germany and they subsidize their socialized system over there because we pay for it. we're broke. and this whole thing that this can't be on the table. i'll tell you what? this debt bubble is the thing you better really worry about because it's imploding on us right now. it's worldwide. we are no more removed from this man the man in the moon. it's going to get much worse. and to cut military spending is a wise thing to do. we would be safer if we weren't in so many places. we have an empire. we can't afford it. the empires always bring great nations down. we spread ourselves too thinly around the world. this is what happens all throughout history. the most recent to fail was an
empure that went into all places of afghanistan, they went broke. where are we in? afghanistan. i say it's time to come home. >> time. >> we have a twitter question. given that israel has just negotiated with palestine for a soldier, would any of you negotiate for a hostage? herman cain, let me ask this to you. a few hours ago you were asked by wolf blitzer if al qaeda had a soldier in custody, and you were asked to release everybody at guantanamo bay, would you release them, you said i can see myself authorizing such a release. >> my statement after that, was you would have to consider the entire situation. i would have policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists. we have to lay that principle down first. then you have to look at each individual situation and consider all the facts. the point that i made about this particular situation is that i'm sure prime minister benjamin
netanyahu had to consider a lot of things before he made that. so on the surface, i don't think we can say he did the right thing or not. a responsible decisionmaker would have considered everything. >> but you're saying, in your words, you said that i could see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer. isn't that negotiating with, in this case, al qaeda? >> i don't recall him saying that it was al qaeda-related. >> yeah, he did. >> no, don't -- my policy would be we cannot negotiate with terrorists. that's where we have to start as a fundamental principle. >> senator santorum? >> absolutely not. you can't negotiate with terrorists, period. to address congressman paul's answer and the other answer on military spending, i would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending. the first order of the federal government, the only thing the federal government can do that no other level of government can do is protect us. it's the first duty of the
president of the united states is to protect us. we should have all the resources in place to make sure that we can defend our border, make sure that we engage in foreign countries, we do so to succeed. that's been the problem in this administration. we've had political objectives instead of objectives for success. and that's why we haven't succeeded. as michele said and correctly said, the central threat right now is iran. the disrespect, yes, but it's more than that. they sent a message. the two countries that they went after was the leader of the islamic world, saudi arabia and the leader of the, quote, secular world, the united states. this was a call by iran to say we are the ones who are going to be the supreme leader of the islamic world. >> time. >> we are going to be the supreme leader of the secular world. that's why they attacked here. and they did it in coordination. >> time. >> the central and southern americans which i have been writing about and talking about for ten years. >> congressman paul, you were
referenced in that answer. 30 seconds. >> on the economic side we're not even willing to look at the overseas expen did i tur turs. 150 different countries. we have enough weapons to blow up the world about 25 times. we have more weapons than all the other countries put together essentially and we want to spend more and more. you can't cut a penny? this is why we're at an impasse. i want to hear somebody up here willing to cut something. something real. this budget is in bad shape and the financial calamity is going to be much worse than anybody ever invading this country. which country are they going to invade this country? they can't even shoot a missile? >> the question in the hall. on foreign aid? yes, ma'am. >> the american people are suffering in our country right now. why do we continue to send foreign aid to other countries when we need all the help we can
get for ourselves? >> governor perry, what about that? >> absolutely. i think it's time for this country to have a very real debate about foreign aid. clearly there are places. as a matter of fact, i think it's time for us to have a very serious discussion about defunding the unit. when you think about -- when you think about the palestinian authority circumventing those oslo accords and going to new york to try to create the conflict and to have themselves approved as a state without going through the proper channels is a travesty. and i think it's time not only to have that entire debate about all of our foreign aid, but in particular the u.n. why are we funding that organization?
>> governor romney, should foreign aid be eliminated? >> foreign aid has several elements. one of those elements is defense, is to make sure that we are able to have the defense resources we want in certain places of the world. that probably ought to fall under the department of defense budget rather than a foreign aid budget. part of it is humanitarian aid around the world. it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to borrow money from the chinese to give it to another country for humanitarian aid. we ought to get the chinese to take care of the people. and finally there's a portion of our foreign aid that allows us to carry out our activities in the world such as what's happening in pakistan where we're supplying our troops in afghanistan through pakistan. but let me tell you, we're spending more on foreign aid than we ought to be spending. congressman paul asked us to cut the budget. we get rid of obama-care. number three we take medicaid, turn it back to the states. grow it 1 to 2% a year. number four, rather, we cut
federal employment by 10% through attrition. and finally we say to federal employees, you won't make more money than the people in the private sector who are paying for you. >> congressman paul? >> on foreign aid, that should be the easiest thing to cut. it's not authorized in the constitution that we can take money from you and give it to particular countries around the world. to me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to reach people in poor countries. and no matter how well motivated it is -- >> would you cut aid to israel? >> i would cut all foreign aid. i would treat everybody fairly. i don't think aid helps them. we're on a bankruptcy course. and look at what's the result of all that foreign aid we gave to egypt? i mean, their dictator that we pumped up, we spent all these billions of dollars. now there's a more hostile
regime in egypt. that's what's happening all around israel. that foreign aid makes israel dependent on us. it softens them for their own economy. they should have their sovereignty back. >> should we cut foreign aid to israel? >> no, we should not be cutting foreign aid to israel. israel is our greatest ally. the biggest problem is the fact that the president -- the biggest problem with this administration in foreign policy is that president obama is the first president since israel declared their sovereignty put daylight between the united states and israel. that heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the middle east region. cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. we should look to iraq and libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations. now, i need to add something on this issue of negotiating for
hostages. this is a very serious issue. for any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the united states, and what we do in our policy. that's naive. we cannot do that. the united states has done well because we have an absolute policy. we don't negotiate. >> herman cain, i've got to give you 30 seconds because she was basically saying you were naive or if that is what you were suggesting. >> no, i said that i believe in the philosophy of we don't negotiate with terrorists. i would never agree to letting hostages in guantanamo bay go, no, that wasn't the intent at all. but let me go back to the question about foreign aid. my approach is an extension of the reagan approach, peace
through strength and clarity. if we clarify who our friends are, clarify who our enemies are and stop giving money to our enemieses, then we ought to continue to give money to our friends like israel. >> you have 30 seconds. >> i don't want to make a statement. i want to ask a question. are you all willing to cut down on ald reagan for exchanging weapons out of iran. we all know that was done. >> iran was a sovereign country. it was not a terrorist organization, that's number one. >> they were our good friends. >> they're a sovereign country just like the palestinian authority is not the good friends of israel. >> he negotiated for hostages. >> there's a role -- we negotiated with hostages at the soviet union. we've negotiated with hostages depending on the scale. but there's a difference between releasing terrorists from guantanamo bay and -- >> they're all suspects, they're not terrorists. you haven't convicted them of anything. >> thaen than negotiating with other countries. and that's a proper role for the united states.
>> i do want to give speaker gingrich 30 seconds. >> just very straightforward. we did a film on ronald reagan. a very painful moment in the film when he looks in the camera and says, i didn't think we did this. i'm against doing it. i went back and looked. the truth is we did. it was an enrmous mistake. and he thought the iranian deals with a terrible mistake. >> we're going to take a short break. our debate continues on the other side of the break. stay tuned. when we return, which candidate has the best chance to beat barack obama and should it matter in your vote? we're america's natural gas
and here's what we did today: supported nearly 3 million steady jobs across our country... ... scientists, technicians, engineers, machinists... ... adding nearly 400 billion dollars to our economy... we're at work providing power to almost a quarter of our homes and businesses... ... and giving us cleaner rides to work and school... and tomorrow, we could do even more. cleaner, domestic, abundant and creating jobs now. we're america's natural gas.
let's talk about probably the most important issue to everybody on this stage and probably just about everybody in this room which is who can beat president barack obama in this next election. in today's new cnn poll 41% of republican voters think that governor romney has the best chance of beating the president. to senator santorum, you got 1%. why shouldn't republican voters go with the candidate they feel can best beat president obama? >> pooh poll last week asked how many people in this country can name any of us. less than 50% can come up with even one. this isn't relevant to people not pays close to this debate isn't relevant. what is relevant is look at the track record. no one in this field has won a swing state. pennsylvania is a swing state. you win pennsylvania you win the election. i won it twice. i defeated a democratic
incumbent. the only senator to win a state who was a conservative that george bush lost. bush lost it by 5, i won it by 6. you've got someone who has been matched up against three democratic incumbents. i'm 3-0. no one has won a swing state except me as a conservative. i didn't run as a democrat in texas when it was popular one and win there, and didn't run as a liberal in 1994. i ran in 1994 the same year mitt did in massachusetts. he ran as a liberal to the left of kennedy and lost. i ran as a conserative against james carville and begala and i won. in 2002 he ran as a moderate. he ran as a moderate in massachusetts. i ran for re-election having sponsored and passed welfare reform, having authored the partial abortion ban. >> time.
>> i was a fiscal convt attive and got elected in a state that hasn't elected a republican since 1998. >> i think the people of america are looking for someone who can beat president obama and get the country on the right track. i believe they recognized that if they elect someone who has spent their life in politics they won't post up well against president obama and i believe having spent my life in the private sector, having actually created jobs is what allows me to have the kind of support that's going to allow me to replace president obama and get the country on the right track again. that for me is a distinguishing feature that's going to get me elected as the president of the united states. >> governor perry, was he referring to you? >> if you want to know how someone's going to act in the future, look how they act in the past. i mean, so mitt, while you were
the governor of massachusetts in that period of time, you were 47th in the nation in job creation. during that same period of time, we created 20 times more jobs. as a matter of fact, you created 40,000 jobs total in your four years. last two months we created more jobs than that in texas. what we need is someone who will draw a bright contrast between themselves and president obama. and let me tell you one thing, i will draw that bright contrast. >> i got to give you 30 seconds. governor romney? >> with regards to track record in the past, governor, you were the chairman of al gore's campaign. all right? and there was a fellow texan named george bush running. so if we're looking at the past, i think we know where you were. secondly our unemployment rate i got down to 4.7%. pretty darn good. i think people would be happy with that 4.7%. and with regards to the record in texas, you probably out to tell people that if you look over the last several years, 40%, almost half the jobs created in texas were created
for illegal ilyen, illegal immigrants. >> that's an absolute falsehood on its face. >> it's actually -- >> that's absolutely incorrect, sir. >> take a look at the study. >> there's been a third party -- take a look at that study and it is absolutely incorrect. the fact is that texas has led the nation in job creation. ebay and facebook and caterpillar didn't come there because there weren't jobs and there wasn't an environment to be created. that's what americans are looking for. they're looking for somebody that they trust, that knows has the executive governing experience. you failed as the governor of massachusetts. >> governor romney -- >> i'm very proud of the fact -- actually, during the four years we were both governor, my employment rate in massachusetts was lower than your unemployment rate in texas. that's number one. getting it down to 4.7 i'm pretty happy with. did the best to balance our budget, put in place a rainy day fund $2 billion by the time i was finished. the american people would be happy for an individual who can lead the country who's actually
created jobs, not just watching them get created by others, but someone who knows how the economy work because he's been in it. i have. i've created jobs. i'll use that skill to get america works again. that's what we want. >> herman cain, you're tied with governor romney in some of the polls for the top leadership position right now. are they the ones -- either governor perry or romney, are they the ones who should be president? >> no, i should be president. governor romney has a very distinguished career and i would agree with much of what he has said. and there's one difference between the two of us in terps of our experience, with all due respect, his business executive experience has been more wall street oriented. mine has been more main street. i have managed small companies. i have actually had to clean the parking lot. i have worked with groups of businesses, et cetera. as far as contrasting me with
president obama, if i am fortunate enough to become the republican nominee it is going to be the problem solver who fixes stuff versus the president who hasn't fixed anything in this country. [ applause ] >> governor romney, you have 30 seconds. >> i appreciate that and probably the fact that we are doing as well as we are, we both have a private sector background that probably helps. i want to set the record straight on my record. one was a financial services company. that was the startup. a consulting company that is a mainstream business. the olympics that is certainly mainstream. of course, the state of massachusetts. in all those settings, i learn,000 to create jobs. >> your campaigns are telling us we have to end. oh, no, no no, anderson, anderson -- >> your campaigns. if you wanted to fire your campaigns. go ahead, congresswoman bachmann. 30 seconds. >> the good news is the cake is
baked. barack obama will be a one-term president. there's no question about this. now the question we need to listen to ronald reagan who said no pastels, bold colors. i am the most different candidate from barack obama than anyone on this stage. >> speaker gingrich. >> we can't settle in this race. >> let me point out a second that maximizing bickering is probably not the road to the white house. [ applause ] and the technique you have used maximizes going back and forth over and over again. i want to say two things. i think that i will be the strongest candidate because of shared substance, newton okay and look at the 21st century contract with america. as the nominee, i will challenge obama to meet the meet the lincoln douglas standard of seven three-hour debate no time cue, no moderator, only a timekeeper. i believe we can defeat him decisively to a point we re-establish a conservative america on our values and i think that is a key part of thinking about next year.
>> love to host those on cnn. i want to thank all the candidates, gop candidates tonight. i want it to thank all the candidates for a spirited debate on the the stage and our co-sponsors, the western republican leadership conference, our host, the venetian, our coverage of america's choice 2012 continues right now here on cnn. and welcome to a special edition of "360," just joining us, welcome to las vegas, seven republican presidential hopefuls have just wrapped up especially fiery debate, eighth so far, their fifth since labor day n that time, we have seen one from the runner after another, you can see them all right now on the stage.
congresswoman michele bachmann, governor mitt romney, governor rick perry, they have all had their moment he is tonight, expected to be herman cain's big moment to prove he is more than just a bump in the polls, how well he can stand up to serious scrutiny. took plenty on his tax plan tonight. expecting him to join us shortly. rick perry, the pressure on him after a string of lang luster performances and debates. mitt romney trying to win over conservatives in some cases cannot seem to fully warm up to him. how did they do? what were the key moments? had ho had the facts on his or her side? brazilele, former bush spokesman, ari fleisher. join him at ari fleisher on twitter. and david gergen and gloria borger, also john king, host of "john king, usa," all with us here as well. gloria what did you make of tonight? >> it was kind of an angry debate, anderson. these were -- remember ronald reagan's 11th commandment, thou shall not speak ill of another
republican. tonight, we he all expected herman cain to be on the hot seat, i must say, mitt romney really got it from rick perry and also from rick santorum. he was attacked for having no credibility by santorum on health care, attacked for being a hypocrite on immigration by rick perry. perry clearly knew that he had to turn in a sharp debate performance. he clearly had a lot more energy during this debate. but i'm not quite sure he did what he came to do, which was to kind of land blows, really, against mitt romney. >> ari fleisher, you have watched a lot of these debate what did you make of it? >> the first stage are over, we don't have another for a month. after the half-dozen debates, what happened in the republican field is mitt romney is in first and opening up his lead. rick perry really was good and feisty tonight but i don't think it was enough. he needs to do even more of t herman cain remains strong, herman cain is remaining in contention to be the
anti-romney, the guy who will go mano-a-mano against mitt romney if romney keeps up what's doing. he is much stronger than he was four years ago it played to his strengths it showed up. >> david gergen, your thoughts? >> bring boxing took las vegas, anderson, they have these debates, for television audience, fisticuffs quite entertaining, but i have to tell you, i think that newt gingrich, right tend of the debate, had it right. this kind of bickering is not the road to the white house. among the people on the stage, i felt that mitt romney acquitted himself very well as he was assaulted from right and left and that clearly does not like rick perry no love lost between those two i thought overall, again, appeared the most presidential, but there was another winner. i can tell you that the obama team looking at this tonight would be celebrating. >> donna brazile, your thought? >> i thought it was a fiery debate, anderson. look, these republicans know what it takes to win the republican nomination.
they appeal to their base. herman cane who is the front runner and many of the republican polls came in to defend his 9-9-9 plan. he did it by not giving us the adding and subtraction is of it the fruit bowl, vegetable bowl, apples and oranges. rick perry, who i thought had a lot to do tonight came in ready to defend his policies. he was more robust than ever before and i think going into what i call the preseason, when voters are ready to choose a champion on republican side, this is going to become a three-man race. >> gloria, for you, gloria, what were some of the key moments tonight? >> well, first of all, starting out with all the attacks on herman cain on 9-9-9. one thing i learn wend people were attacking herman cain is why voters like him. he responded to all the attacks with a lot of good humor, talked about apples and oranges an awful lot, anderson, but he really acquitted himself well.
the interesting attack was from rick santorum on mitt romney, directly saying to mitt romney, do you not have the credibility as a republican presidential candidate to take on barack obama on health care. and then, of course, rick perry raising the issue again of mitt romney's alleged employment of illegal immigrants as part of his lawn care team. he raised that. that was around in the last campaign. answered called mitt romney a hypocrite on illegal immigration. very, very strong attack and didn't give up on him. >> ari fleisher, for you what key moments really stand out? >> what i really liked in this debate was the big focus on fundamental tax reform, cain's 9-9-89, sparked a real debate, going to have major change in markers you need major scrutiny, major debate, cain has to make his case.
we do need, in my opinion, fundamental structural change in washington and this is what presidential campaigns should be about. big ideas, big changes, let it out. let it get vetted, let it get debated, let the pros and the cons emerge this is really to how our democracy is supposed to detes, big, woy tough subjects. frankly this is defines the economic future. do we have a tax code that will allow the economic growth or continue to mean we are stagnant in many ways and jobs don't get created? i like big ideas and campaigns, hearing this cycle. >> if you miss any key portions of the debate, we are going to be showing you at 10 p.m. eastern on "360" which starts in a few minutes, showing you some of the key exchanges that occurred. david gergen, for you, there was a moment that really stood out? >> what surprised me throughout, how personal the exchanges became, the insults, the personal insults, the one moment
that i think come back to something that was just said was when rick perry turned on mitt romney and accused him of hiring illegal immigrants, said he was a total hypocrite on that mitt romney turned right back to him and said, rick, you just had a couple of bad debates. that was very personal. that kind of animosity you see up there i think is a -- can be a real problem down the road trying to run a united republican campaign. i think it also diminishes the candidates to a degree to the american people watching this. i continue to believe that cain did not have such a good night to i thought rick perry was better. mitt romney stood his ground when he was attacked. time and time again, toad stand his ground, i thought did he that well. >> donna, for some of these candidates this maybe the last debate, the next debate is not until november. some may drop out by then. >> as you know, anderson is, several of the candidates are likely to not have the resources necessary to file their papers to getth