Post by Ayen on Feb 6, 2012 7:28:21 GMT -6
Read the previous debate here
South Carolina Polls: 1.) Tori Jacobs 3.41%
2.) Gary Johnson 3.1%
3.) Ron Paul 1.86%
4.) Herman Cain/Tim Pawlenty 1.24%
5.) Michele Bachmann/Mitt Romney/Newt Gingrich/Rick Santorum 0%
The Moderator: Welcome one and all to the Republican Candidates Debate live at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. The following debate is sponsored by CNN, WMUR-TV and New Hampshire Union Leader. We thank you for inviting us into your home and to all of those tuning in around the world to watch this debate.
Introducing the candidates; former Senator of Pennsylvania Rick Santorum, former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Kansas City Defense Attorney Tori Jacobs, former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson, former President of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain and finally former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty.
The way this works is we will go down the line from Senator Santorum to Governor Pawlenty, everyone will be asked the same question and each question will be in regards to what you would do as President. You will be given sixty seconds to answer each question, there will be no thirty seconds rebuttals or follow-up questions. When you hear this sound (BUZZ!) that means time is up and we'll move on.
First question: as President what will you do in order to create jobs here in America?
Rick Santorum: As President I would introduce my “Made in America” plan. What we need to do is empower American families and build economic freedom. Let's cut corporate income tax rate in half to make our businesses more competitive, eliminate corporate income tax for manufacturers, spur innovation in America by increasing the Research & Development Tax Credit from 14% to 20% and make it permanent. Tap into America's vast domestic energy resources to power our 21st century economy without picking winners and losers so all American families and businesses can have lower energy cost.
Freeze current non-defense related federal worker pay levels for a year and reduce federal workforce by at least 10% with no compensatory increase in the contract workforce. Secure our border, streamline the legal immigration process to attract highly skilled talent and entrepreneurs from around the world and reform the agriculture worker program so it works for America's farmers. Repeal and Replace Obamacare with market based healthcare innovation and competition to improve America and America's health and create more jobs (BUZZ!) through that.
Mitt Romney: In day one I will submit a jobs package to Congress. This package will involve the American Competitive Act, the Open Market Act, the Domestic Energy Act, the Retraining Reform Act and the Down Payment on Fiscal Security Act and I will use every power at my disposal, as President, to ensure its passage through a divided Congress. On top of that I will issue five executive orders; repeal Obamacare, cut the regulations by the current administration through all agencies that puts a burden on job creation, boost domestic energy production – we're an energy rich nation living like an energy poor nation – sanction China for unfair trade practices and reverse all executive orders by President Obama which favors organized labors. I lived my whole life in the private sector, I know how jobs go and I know how they're made and as President I will use that experience to get the American people back to work (BUZZ!).
Michele Bachmann: It's time to reach for the brass ring of liberty once again. And we can. The signature issue of Barack Obama and his presidency has been the passage of Obamacare. This week, a study said the number-one reason why employers aren't hiring is because of Obamacare. That's why I introduced the bill to repeal Obamacare. And as president of the United States, that's the very first thing I would do, is repeal Obamacare.
3 priorities: Attract jobs by cutting job creator taxes. Keep dollars in private sector by reducing government spending. Simplify tax code for small business: repeal the death tax, increase access to capital by repealing Frank-Dodd, and repeal Obamacare to reduce healthcare costs. Government overregulation is the single biggest jobs killer. The three biggest offenders are the EPA, Obamacare, and Frank-Dodd.
Newt Gingrich: We have a crisis of work in this country and President Obama proposed nothing in the way of policy changes that will get us to robust job creation and dramatic economic growth. Instead, the president described his conviction that his big government is built to last and should be paid for with higher taxes. But bigger government and higher taxes will not lead to jobs and growth. Bigger government and higher taxes will instead lead to more people on food stamps, a situation which the President and his party defend as a fair outcome.
My Jobs and Prosperity Plan: No tax increase, 100% expensing, reduce business tax to 12.5%, eliminate cap gains & death tax; audit and reform the Federal Reserve; repeal Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes Oxley, Community Reinvestment Act; break up Freddie and Fannie; Repeal and replace Obamacare and fully develop American energy. These would all create jobs by REDUCING government.
Ron Paul: Government destroys jobs; the market creates jobs. So the government isn't going to be expected to create the jobs; they have to change the environment. But you can't do that unless you understand where the depression, recessions come from, and you can't understand that unless you know where the bubbles come from. I've been arguing this case for 20 years and warning about bubbles and housing bubbles and NASDAQ bubbles. And a lot of other economists have been doing the same thing. Until we understand that, you can't solve the problem. You have to deal with the Federal Reserve system. You have to deal with free markets. And you have to deal with the tax program and the regulatory system. Then you can get your jobs, because the people will create the jobs, not the government.
Tori Jacobs: What we need to do is stop exporting jobs overseas. That's the first thing really. When I got up this morning and turned on the TV I looked at my remote and saw it was made in China. Got out my cellphone, made in China. Looked at my calculator, made in China. In fact we've lost forty products that was once produced here so we need to look at this and start producing more products here in America instead of just exporting them. That would give us plenty of jobs just to start out with.
Then you have employers hiring illegal immigrants, who know they're illegal, just because there's less money for them. We need to crack down on this too and start penalizing businesses who hire illegal immigrants – it's not the immigrants that are the problem, it's the businesses that hire them that are taking away jobs from American citizens so that's two things I'd crack down on in the oval office; jobs exporting and the hiring of illegal immigrants.
Gary Johnson: I suspect I am not the only American asking, if a trillion dollars’ worth of stimulus didn’t work, why will another $450 billion do the trick? Whether it be jobs created with borrowed and newly-printed dollars, temporary extensions of tax cuts, or sending money to the states to postpone layoffs, none of the President’s proposals will remove the real obstacles to job creation. Government cannot create jobs. Businesses, entrepreneurs and investors can create jobs, and right now, they are simply afraid to do so. And they should be. They are looking at a national debt that is consuming the private economy, more deficit spending with no end in sight, and a regulatory environment that promises only new and costly surprises every day.
Instead of nibbling around the edges of a job-killing tax code, we need to throw it out. Eliminate income, business and payroll taxes altogether, and replace them with a FAIR tax that will result in millions of jobs. Instead of spending more, balance the budget now. Get the burden of government spending and borrowing off the economy, and it will flourish. And as the government’s chief executive, the President needs to get federal agencies out of the business of managing the economy, and into the business of establishing regulatory certainty. Do those things, and the U.S. will become the job magnet of the world.
Herman Cain: The thing we need to do is to get this economy boosted. This economy is stalled. It's like a train on the tracks with no engine. And the administration has simply been putting all of this money in the caboose. We need an engine called the private sector. That means lower taxes. Uncertainty is killing this economy. This is the only way we're going to get this economy moving, and that's to put the right fuel in the engine, which is the private sector.
Tim Pawlenty: I'd urge the legislature to pass my Jobs Creation Bill that has six vital parts: A 20 percent reduction in the corporate tax rate; A 20 percent exclusion from taxation for small businesses; An angel investment tax credit; A supercharged research and development tax credit; A capital gains exclusion for qualified investments and incentives for companies to invest in Minnesota small businesses.
The Moderator: Second question: what will you do in regards to the current tax code?
Rick Santorum: I want to talk about the tax burden that American families feel today and the drastic need for fundamental and comprehensive reform of our Tax Code. Quite clearly, the tax burden over the past few decades has greatly increased; the inequities of the Code have been exacerbated; and the incentives for savings have largely diminished. I hear the demand for a fairer, simpler tax system and an even greater demand by taxpayers to keep more of what they earn. I strongly believe that Congress must continue to explore comprehensive simplification of our Tax Code. I am pleased today to join Senator Dan Coats as a cosponsor of his legislation to provide not only for middle-class tax relief, but also to encourage increased personal investment and savings while balancing the growth of Federal spending in general.
Mitt Romney: Well, I would like to see our tax rates flatter. I'd like to see our code simpler. I'd like to see the special breaks that we have in the code taken out. That's one of the reasons why I take the corporate rate from 35% down to 25%, is to take out some of the special deals. What I want to do is to take our precious dollars and focus them on the people in this country that have been hurt the most, and that's the middle class. The Obama economy has really crushed middle-income Americans. So what I do is focus a substantial tax break on middle-income Americans. Ultimately, I'd love to see us come up with a plan that simplifies the code and lowers rates for everybody. But right now, let's get the job done first that has to be done immediately. Let's lower the tax rates on middle-income Americans.
Michele Bachmann: I took a job with the IRS. I know it might seem strange for me to find such work, as I am now often called an “antitax activist.” My ultimate goal was to change the tax code, and help people in their fight to keep more of what they earned. So I chose to learn how to change the system from the inside out, to take a reconnaissance mission inside “enemy” lines. Rule one: know the enemy. But the truth is, I am not against taxes per say I agree with the great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. And so, for example, I believe that everyone should pay at least some tax, at least a symbolic amount. We all have a duty to make our union ever more perfect, and see we all need a reminder that the government has no money of its own. It has our money, held in trust. So taxes are necessary. But as the Bachmann corollary to Justice Holmes, if taxes are the price we pay for civilization, then the taxes themselves should be civilized--not confiscatory.
Newt Gingrich: Four out of five Americans would like to have the option of a one-page tax form with a single tax rate. This concept of an optional flat tax rate was developed by Steve Forbes when his flat tax campaign was undermined by criticisms that it would take away popular tax breaks. Forbes proposed giving American taxpayers an opportunity to choose simplicity versus complexity and a single rate over a lot of deductions. They call it the free choice flat tax, and it's an idea whose time has come.
All workers and corporations would have the freedom to choose each year to file their income taxes either under the new free choice flat tax option or under the current US income tax code Rhode Island adopted an optional flat tax, and lawmakers there expect that it will make the state more competitive with neighboring states in attracting new business and entrepreneurs who create jobs.
Ron Paul: It shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out what we should be doing, because we have a lot of problems: we have fiscal and monetary policy problems, foreign policy problems, and deficit problems. Where do they come from? It’s because we don’t follow the rule of law; we don’t follow the Constitution. If we knew and understood and read Article 1, Section 8, believe me this government would be much smaller, we would have a lot less taxes, and we could repeal the 16th amendment and get rid of the income tax.
We have to cut spending. You can’t get rid of the income tax if you don’t get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you’d have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn’t all that bad 10 years ago. There are sources of revenues other than the income tax. You have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there’s still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn’t have it.
Tori Jacobs: We need to remodel the tax code to where the amount of taxes you pay matches up to the amount of money you make. Some say, where the rich are concerned, that's a tax raise and there shouldn't be any tax increases. I have to disagree, it's not so much a tax raise on the wealthy and tax cut for the middle-class as it is correcting a problem that should have been corrected years ago. Right now I pay less in taxes than my secretory down at Jacobs and Co. law office in Kansas City and I think that's wrong.
Gary Johnson: Our problem with the current tax system right now is that it imposes an enormous toll on productively through high marginal rates, absurd complexity, loopholes for the well connected, and incentives for wasteful decisions so my plan would be to eliminate punitive taxation of savings and interests, simplify the tax code; stop using it to reward special interests and control behavior, again I'll say adopt a flat tax on income or consumption and end the corporate tax rate.
Herman Cain: This is what's wrong with the tax code with its unfairness, its complexity and a long list of other anti-free-market and politics-of-envy provisions. The only solution is to replace it, and the Fair Tax is by far the best solution. The Fair Tax--a national consumption tax replacing all existing federal taxes-- eliminates all inconsistencies, stimulates economic growth and liberates the poor and the needy.
But the bureaucrats and career politicians want to keep the current system. The tax code gives them a means by which to encourage certain behaviors, and a means by which they can award tax favors to one group over another. The current system hides a plethora of sneak-a-taxes that may never be exposed. The insanity and inconsistencies in the tax code are not new revelations, but some of us have got to continue to sound the alarm. That is, until we have leaders who will embrace the will of the people over the will of politics. That would be a break for all of us.
Tim Pawlenty: Let's reduce tax rates, and eliminate the taxation of savings. My current plan is aimed at producing average annual growth of 5% over 10 years, compared with average growth of 1.7% during the past decade. Five percent economic growth over 10 years would generate $3.8 trillion in new tax revenues. With that, we would reduce projected deficits by 40%, all before we made a single cut.
Some people don't think we can have 5% annual growth in that amount of time. Like President Obama. Our President is a declinist. He views America as one of equals around the world. We're not the same as Portugal; we're not the same as Argentina. And this idea that we can't have 5% growth in America is hogwash. It's a defeatist attitude. If China can have 5% growth and Brazil can have 5% growth, then the U.S can have 5% growth. I don't accept this notion that we're going to be average or anemic.
The Moderator: The Obama Administration has repealed Don't Ask/Don't Tell which allows homosexuals to openly serve in the U.S military. As President would you work to reverse this decision made by the previous administration or would you keep it as it is?
Rick Santorum: The job of the United States military is to protect and defend the people of this country. It is not for social experimentation. It should be repealed. And the commanders should have a system of discipline in place that punishes bad behavior.
Mitt Romney: When I first heard of the “Don’t ask/Don’t Tell” policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly. I didn’t think that would be very effective. And I turned out to be wrong. It’s been the policy now in the military for what, 10, 15 years, and it seems to be working. This is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on. I would reinstate it at this point. We can look at it again down the road. But it does seem to me that we have much bigger issues as a nation we ought to be talking about than that policy right now.
Michele Bachmann: I would keep the “Don't Ask/Don't Tell” policy.
The Moderator: … You still have some time left, anything else?
Michelle Bachmann: I would also want to confer with our commanders-in-chief and with--also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because I'd want to know how it was being implemented and if it has--had had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come.
The Moderator: Speaker Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich: Well, I think it's very powerful that both the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing it, that their recommendation was against changing it. And if as President--I've met with them and they said, you know, it isn't working, it is dangerous, it's disrupting unit morale, and we should go back, I would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women that they are, in fact, trying to protect.
Ron Paul: I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.
Tori Jacobs: I was never a supporter of the “Don't ask/Don't Tell” policy. Heterosexual men and women serve openly in the military, how is this any different? Just because they can serve openly doesn't mean that they're going to flaunt it. It's not the same thing. I think they should be allowed to serve their country openly and they should be allowed to be open about their sexuality, should it even come up, no matter where they work or even if they're running for a public office. Don't flaunt it, but don't force them to hide who they are.
Gary Johnson: I wouldn't mess with it. Through the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell America joined the overwhelming majority of modern nations by allowing gay Americans to enlist and serve in the military without having to live lies and deny who they are. That is long overdue, and good news. The idea that our professional service men and women could not serve effectively with gay colleagues has long been unfair, and just wrong. Over the past several years, we have lost thousands of volunteer defenders of freedom to a policy that, on its face, ran counter to the American principles of equality and, yes, freedom. One of those Americans who was unjustly discharged from the military is Daniel Choi, who has been an important voice in this entire debate. He says it best: ‘This is not a victory for one party or another. This is a victory for every individual protected under the Constitution and every individual that raises their right hand to protect the Constitution.'
Herman Cain: If I had my druthers, I never would have overturned “Don't Ask/Don't Tell” in the first place. Now that they have changed it, I wouldn't create a distraction trying to turn it over as President. Our men and women have too many other things to be concerned about rather than have to deal with that as a distraction.
Tim Pawlenty: I have been a public and repeat supporter of maintaining Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. There’s a lot of reasons for that, but if you look at how the combat commanders and the combat units feel about it, the results of those kinds of surveys were different than the ones that were mostly reported in the newspaper and that is something I think we need to pay attention to. But I have been a public supporter of maintaining Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and I would support reinstating it as well.
The Moderator: As President would you do anything to repeal the current laws regarding drugs and prostitution?
Rick Santorum: No. I don't think it's morally ethical or would be a responsible decision for a President to make, nor would it be beneficial for the country. As a matter of fact as Senator I voted yes on increasing penalties on drugs related crime and spending international funds on drug control. As for prostitution, what example would we be setting to young women and most of all children if we allowed a practice based around exchanging a person's body, mainly women bodies, for sex? These are not things that should be legalized in America and I would not sign any bill that suggested either idea.
Mitt Romney: I oppose the legalization of recreational or medical marijuana – now I endorse the use of synthetic pot but as I said in my book “No Apology” this whole movement to legalize drugs, marijuana in particular can be attributed to the passion and zeal of those members of the pleasure-seeking generation that never grew up. As for prostitution, I would give that power to the states. It's legal in Nevada, it's clear that's what Nevada wants and if another state wants the same I won't oppose their right to it.
Michele Bachmann: I support the war on drugs and will continue to support the war on drugs as President of the United States. I also signed a “moral pledge” and on that moral pledge mentioned prostitution and I intend to stick to that moral pledge and will not support any legislation that would try to put forth prostitution in our great country!
Newt Gingrich: I would not repeal any of the current drugs law, look, legalizing drugs would tear America apart. Every place drugs are legalized the next effect is more people on welfare, more people who are dependent, more people with bad health care outcomes, fewer people who are able workers able to pay attention on the job and a drain of money into illegality. As for prostitution, no I would not.
Ron Paul: I think it's a matter of civil liberties and if drugs and prostitution were legalized tomorrow how many people here would do either? I doubt very many people would if they were legal but the mindset is, “Oh yeah, I don't want to do heroine or prostitution so I need these laws!” But that's not true it would go down to the individual's choice and I think it should be left up to the states to decide what's right for them.
Tori Jacobs: I don't think either should be a criminal offense. I don't think it's right that drug users and prostitutes are being thrown in prison alongside murderers, rapists and thieves. I think if a person has an addiction to drugs then they should be given help not thrown in prison so yes I would put an end to the war on drugs and that way you can regulate it, tax it and on the prostitution front we should legalize brothels so we can regulate that too and if it's regulated these women can be checked, everything would be much safer than it is now, the power of pimps are completely thrown out the window and you need people to build these brothels so there's some more jobs right there.
Gary Johnson: Given that prostitution takes place, the question is, 'Are you safer engaging a prostitute in Nevada or New Mexico?' I think you are clearly safer engaging one in Nevada in a licensed prostitution establishment. Half of what we spend on law enforcement, courts, and the prisons is drug related. And to what end? Well, we spend $70 billion per year, we're arresting 1.8 million people per year, in this country and we now have 2.3 million people behind bars. We have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Treat it first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. These are people that we know. These are people that we actually care about.
Herman Cain: If states wanted to legalize medical marijuana I would not stand in their way with a “one-size-fix-all” approach but for the other things you've mentioned I wouldn't repeal any laws concerning them I think we have a bigger problems in this country right now to focus on then these two things.
Tim Pawlenty: I think on both issues it's unneeded and unwise to propose legalizing them. In Minnesota I opposed a bill in 2006 that would have legalized marijuana in Minnesota for medical uses. I don't think it's a civil liberty issue and I don't think the war on drugs is a lost cause like some other candidates in this election do. What I did in Minnesota was sign a crime bill which included tougher penalties for meth offenders, more resources to enforce meth laws and aggressive restrictions on methamphetamine-making materials plus strict new standards to clean up meth sites. Combined and strengthened the Gang and Drug Strike Forces and introduced America’s most secure, tamper-resistant driver’s licenses.
The Moderator: Ever since Rode v. Wade the nation has been split on the subject of abortion into pro-life and pro-choice. What is your stance on the debate and as President what would you do in regards to the issue of abortion?
Rick Santorum: You know, the U.S Supreme Court on a recent case said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, could not be subject to the death penalty, yet the child conceived as a result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn't have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. It is an innocent human life. It is genetically human from the moment of conception. And it is a human life. And we in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations who've been traumatized already. To put them through another trauma of an abortion I think is too much to ask. And so I would absolutely stand and say that one violence is enough.
Mitt Romney: People have had a chance to look at my record and look at what I've said. I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life. I will support justices who believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. And I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end.
Michele Bachmann: I am 100% pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, and I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life. Our Declaration of Independence said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is, is on the genuine issue of taking an innocent human life.
Newt Gingrich: I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting “the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,” and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise. I recognize that in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well; leaving the death of an innocent child as an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing.
If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge, (BUZZ!) I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human being at every stage of development are person with the unalienable right to life.
Ron Paul: In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.
It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states. I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that. The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position (BUZZ!) allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.
Tori Jacobs: I'm pro-choice. I support Rode v. Wade and would oppose any measures to repeal it. I think a woman should have the right to terminate their pregnancy during the first trimester if they choose to and the government has no right to tell them that they can't. Abortion is not an easy decision for anyone, be them pro-life or pro-choice. The problem here is not abortion the problem is unwanted pregnancies. You want to stop that then stop putting so much taboo on sex. Promote safe sex, promote contraceptives but don't outlaw abortions completely. Currently only 1% of all abortions are done in cases of incest, rape and threat to the mother's life. I believe in time if we focus more on sex education we can one day bring abortions down to just that 1% and the people who want children will have them. It won't happen overnight but I believe if we focus less on banning abortions and more on that we can one day decrease it (BUZZ!) to that common ground.
Gary Johnson: It should be left up to the woman. If my daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman. I think the decision can be made at an earlier stage. That's why I don't support partial birth abortions. I realize it's a fine line, but I generally come down on a woman's right to decide. I believe that parents ought to know. Where that can't occur, there needs to be a process in place, which we have in New Mexico.
Herman Cain: I believe that life begins at conception, period. And that means that I will have to see enough evidence that someone I would appoint shares that same view. I believe that the current Supreme Court is leaning too much to the liberal side. I'm a Christian, I've been a Christian all my life. I've been a believer in the Bible since I was 10 years old. I'm very active in my church, and there is no way I would compromise my religious beliefs about the sanctity of life.
And so it starts with, will they have demonstrated, in some of their other rulings, if they come from the federal judge bench, whether or not they also share that. Because I believe that the principles that our Founding Fathers cherished, when they founded this country, and wrote the Declaration of Independence which inspired the Constitution, they were based upon biblical principles. I want to get back to those principles as President, if I'm elected--not rewrite those documents.
Tim Pawlenty: This is a great example where we can look at our records. The National Review Online, which is a conservative publication, said based on results-- not just based on words--I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race. As governor, I appointed to the Supreme Court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. We passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state, which I proposed and signed, including women's right to know, including positive alternatives to abortion legislation, and many others. I'm solidly pro-life. And I haven't just talked about these things; I've done it.
The Moderator: We have reached the end of tonight's debate, I'd like to thank you are for attending and Saint Anselm College for being a generous host. We'll see you all again in August. Thank you and goodnight.
South Carolina Polls: 1.) Tori Jacobs 3.41%
2.) Gary Johnson 3.1%
3.) Ron Paul 1.86%
4.) Herman Cain/Tim Pawlenty 1.24%
5.) Michele Bachmann/Mitt Romney/Newt Gingrich/Rick Santorum 0%
The Republican Candidates Debate
Date: June 13, 2011
Location: Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH
Sponsor: CNN, WMUR-TV and New Hampshire Union Leader
Participants: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Tori Jacobs, Gary Johnson
Date: June 13, 2011
Location: Saint Anselm College in Manchester, NH
Sponsor: CNN, WMUR-TV and New Hampshire Union Leader
Participants: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Tori Jacobs, Gary Johnson
The Moderator: Welcome one and all to the Republican Candidates Debate live at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire. The following debate is sponsored by CNN, WMUR-TV and New Hampshire Union Leader. We thank you for inviting us into your home and to all of those tuning in around the world to watch this debate.
Introducing the candidates; former Senator of Pennsylvania Rick Santorum, former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Kansas City Defense Attorney Tori Jacobs, former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson, former President of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain and finally former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty.
The way this works is we will go down the line from Senator Santorum to Governor Pawlenty, everyone will be asked the same question and each question will be in regards to what you would do as President. You will be given sixty seconds to answer each question, there will be no thirty seconds rebuttals or follow-up questions. When you hear this sound (BUZZ!) that means time is up and we'll move on.
First question: as President what will you do in order to create jobs here in America?
Rick Santorum: As President I would introduce my “Made in America” plan. What we need to do is empower American families and build economic freedom. Let's cut corporate income tax rate in half to make our businesses more competitive, eliminate corporate income tax for manufacturers, spur innovation in America by increasing the Research & Development Tax Credit from 14% to 20% and make it permanent. Tap into America's vast domestic energy resources to power our 21st century economy without picking winners and losers so all American families and businesses can have lower energy cost.
Freeze current non-defense related federal worker pay levels for a year and reduce federal workforce by at least 10% with no compensatory increase in the contract workforce. Secure our border, streamline the legal immigration process to attract highly skilled talent and entrepreneurs from around the world and reform the agriculture worker program so it works for America's farmers. Repeal and Replace Obamacare with market based healthcare innovation and competition to improve America and America's health and create more jobs (BUZZ!) through that.
Mitt Romney: In day one I will submit a jobs package to Congress. This package will involve the American Competitive Act, the Open Market Act, the Domestic Energy Act, the Retraining Reform Act and the Down Payment on Fiscal Security Act and I will use every power at my disposal, as President, to ensure its passage through a divided Congress. On top of that I will issue five executive orders; repeal Obamacare, cut the regulations by the current administration through all agencies that puts a burden on job creation, boost domestic energy production – we're an energy rich nation living like an energy poor nation – sanction China for unfair trade practices and reverse all executive orders by President Obama which favors organized labors. I lived my whole life in the private sector, I know how jobs go and I know how they're made and as President I will use that experience to get the American people back to work (BUZZ!).
Michele Bachmann: It's time to reach for the brass ring of liberty once again. And we can. The signature issue of Barack Obama and his presidency has been the passage of Obamacare. This week, a study said the number-one reason why employers aren't hiring is because of Obamacare. That's why I introduced the bill to repeal Obamacare. And as president of the United States, that's the very first thing I would do, is repeal Obamacare.
3 priorities: Attract jobs by cutting job creator taxes. Keep dollars in private sector by reducing government spending. Simplify tax code for small business: repeal the death tax, increase access to capital by repealing Frank-Dodd, and repeal Obamacare to reduce healthcare costs. Government overregulation is the single biggest jobs killer. The three biggest offenders are the EPA, Obamacare, and Frank-Dodd.
Newt Gingrich: We have a crisis of work in this country and President Obama proposed nothing in the way of policy changes that will get us to robust job creation and dramatic economic growth. Instead, the president described his conviction that his big government is built to last and should be paid for with higher taxes. But bigger government and higher taxes will not lead to jobs and growth. Bigger government and higher taxes will instead lead to more people on food stamps, a situation which the President and his party defend as a fair outcome.
My Jobs and Prosperity Plan: No tax increase, 100% expensing, reduce business tax to 12.5%, eliminate cap gains & death tax; audit and reform the Federal Reserve; repeal Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes Oxley, Community Reinvestment Act; break up Freddie and Fannie; Repeal and replace Obamacare and fully develop American energy. These would all create jobs by REDUCING government.
Ron Paul: Government destroys jobs; the market creates jobs. So the government isn't going to be expected to create the jobs; they have to change the environment. But you can't do that unless you understand where the depression, recessions come from, and you can't understand that unless you know where the bubbles come from. I've been arguing this case for 20 years and warning about bubbles and housing bubbles and NASDAQ bubbles. And a lot of other economists have been doing the same thing. Until we understand that, you can't solve the problem. You have to deal with the Federal Reserve system. You have to deal with free markets. And you have to deal with the tax program and the regulatory system. Then you can get your jobs, because the people will create the jobs, not the government.
Tori Jacobs: What we need to do is stop exporting jobs overseas. That's the first thing really. When I got up this morning and turned on the TV I looked at my remote and saw it was made in China. Got out my cellphone, made in China. Looked at my calculator, made in China. In fact we've lost forty products that was once produced here so we need to look at this and start producing more products here in America instead of just exporting them. That would give us plenty of jobs just to start out with.
Then you have employers hiring illegal immigrants, who know they're illegal, just because there's less money for them. We need to crack down on this too and start penalizing businesses who hire illegal immigrants – it's not the immigrants that are the problem, it's the businesses that hire them that are taking away jobs from American citizens so that's two things I'd crack down on in the oval office; jobs exporting and the hiring of illegal immigrants.
Gary Johnson: I suspect I am not the only American asking, if a trillion dollars’ worth of stimulus didn’t work, why will another $450 billion do the trick? Whether it be jobs created with borrowed and newly-printed dollars, temporary extensions of tax cuts, or sending money to the states to postpone layoffs, none of the President’s proposals will remove the real obstacles to job creation. Government cannot create jobs. Businesses, entrepreneurs and investors can create jobs, and right now, they are simply afraid to do so. And they should be. They are looking at a national debt that is consuming the private economy, more deficit spending with no end in sight, and a regulatory environment that promises only new and costly surprises every day.
Instead of nibbling around the edges of a job-killing tax code, we need to throw it out. Eliminate income, business and payroll taxes altogether, and replace them with a FAIR tax that will result in millions of jobs. Instead of spending more, balance the budget now. Get the burden of government spending and borrowing off the economy, and it will flourish. And as the government’s chief executive, the President needs to get federal agencies out of the business of managing the economy, and into the business of establishing regulatory certainty. Do those things, and the U.S. will become the job magnet of the world.
Herman Cain: The thing we need to do is to get this economy boosted. This economy is stalled. It's like a train on the tracks with no engine. And the administration has simply been putting all of this money in the caboose. We need an engine called the private sector. That means lower taxes. Uncertainty is killing this economy. This is the only way we're going to get this economy moving, and that's to put the right fuel in the engine, which is the private sector.
Tim Pawlenty: I'd urge the legislature to pass my Jobs Creation Bill that has six vital parts: A 20 percent reduction in the corporate tax rate; A 20 percent exclusion from taxation for small businesses; An angel investment tax credit; A supercharged research and development tax credit; A capital gains exclusion for qualified investments and incentives for companies to invest in Minnesota small businesses.
The Moderator: Second question: what will you do in regards to the current tax code?
Rick Santorum: I want to talk about the tax burden that American families feel today and the drastic need for fundamental and comprehensive reform of our Tax Code. Quite clearly, the tax burden over the past few decades has greatly increased; the inequities of the Code have been exacerbated; and the incentives for savings have largely diminished. I hear the demand for a fairer, simpler tax system and an even greater demand by taxpayers to keep more of what they earn. I strongly believe that Congress must continue to explore comprehensive simplification of our Tax Code. I am pleased today to join Senator Dan Coats as a cosponsor of his legislation to provide not only for middle-class tax relief, but also to encourage increased personal investment and savings while balancing the growth of Federal spending in general.
Mitt Romney: Well, I would like to see our tax rates flatter. I'd like to see our code simpler. I'd like to see the special breaks that we have in the code taken out. That's one of the reasons why I take the corporate rate from 35% down to 25%, is to take out some of the special deals. What I want to do is to take our precious dollars and focus them on the people in this country that have been hurt the most, and that's the middle class. The Obama economy has really crushed middle-income Americans. So what I do is focus a substantial tax break on middle-income Americans. Ultimately, I'd love to see us come up with a plan that simplifies the code and lowers rates for everybody. But right now, let's get the job done first that has to be done immediately. Let's lower the tax rates on middle-income Americans.
Michele Bachmann: I took a job with the IRS. I know it might seem strange for me to find such work, as I am now often called an “antitax activist.” My ultimate goal was to change the tax code, and help people in their fight to keep more of what they earned. So I chose to learn how to change the system from the inside out, to take a reconnaissance mission inside “enemy” lines. Rule one: know the enemy. But the truth is, I am not against taxes per say I agree with the great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that taxes are the price we pay for civilization. And so, for example, I believe that everyone should pay at least some tax, at least a symbolic amount. We all have a duty to make our union ever more perfect, and see we all need a reminder that the government has no money of its own. It has our money, held in trust. So taxes are necessary. But as the Bachmann corollary to Justice Holmes, if taxes are the price we pay for civilization, then the taxes themselves should be civilized--not confiscatory.
Newt Gingrich: Four out of five Americans would like to have the option of a one-page tax form with a single tax rate. This concept of an optional flat tax rate was developed by Steve Forbes when his flat tax campaign was undermined by criticisms that it would take away popular tax breaks. Forbes proposed giving American taxpayers an opportunity to choose simplicity versus complexity and a single rate over a lot of deductions. They call it the free choice flat tax, and it's an idea whose time has come.
All workers and corporations would have the freedom to choose each year to file their income taxes either under the new free choice flat tax option or under the current US income tax code Rhode Island adopted an optional flat tax, and lawmakers there expect that it will make the state more competitive with neighboring states in attracting new business and entrepreneurs who create jobs.
Ron Paul: It shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out what we should be doing, because we have a lot of problems: we have fiscal and monetary policy problems, foreign policy problems, and deficit problems. Where do they come from? It’s because we don’t follow the rule of law; we don’t follow the Constitution. If we knew and understood and read Article 1, Section 8, believe me this government would be much smaller, we would have a lot less taxes, and we could repeal the 16th amendment and get rid of the income tax.
We have to cut spending. You can’t get rid of the income tax if you don’t get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you’d have about as much revenue as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn’t all that bad 10 years ago. There are sources of revenues other than the income tax. You have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there’s still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn’t have it.
Tori Jacobs: We need to remodel the tax code to where the amount of taxes you pay matches up to the amount of money you make. Some say, where the rich are concerned, that's a tax raise and there shouldn't be any tax increases. I have to disagree, it's not so much a tax raise on the wealthy and tax cut for the middle-class as it is correcting a problem that should have been corrected years ago. Right now I pay less in taxes than my secretory down at Jacobs and Co. law office in Kansas City and I think that's wrong.
Gary Johnson: Our problem with the current tax system right now is that it imposes an enormous toll on productively through high marginal rates, absurd complexity, loopholes for the well connected, and incentives for wasteful decisions so my plan would be to eliminate punitive taxation of savings and interests, simplify the tax code; stop using it to reward special interests and control behavior, again I'll say adopt a flat tax on income or consumption and end the corporate tax rate.
Herman Cain: This is what's wrong with the tax code with its unfairness, its complexity and a long list of other anti-free-market and politics-of-envy provisions. The only solution is to replace it, and the Fair Tax is by far the best solution. The Fair Tax--a national consumption tax replacing all existing federal taxes-- eliminates all inconsistencies, stimulates economic growth and liberates the poor and the needy.
But the bureaucrats and career politicians want to keep the current system. The tax code gives them a means by which to encourage certain behaviors, and a means by which they can award tax favors to one group over another. The current system hides a plethora of sneak-a-taxes that may never be exposed. The insanity and inconsistencies in the tax code are not new revelations, but some of us have got to continue to sound the alarm. That is, until we have leaders who will embrace the will of the people over the will of politics. That would be a break for all of us.
Tim Pawlenty: Let's reduce tax rates, and eliminate the taxation of savings. My current plan is aimed at producing average annual growth of 5% over 10 years, compared with average growth of 1.7% during the past decade. Five percent economic growth over 10 years would generate $3.8 trillion in new tax revenues. With that, we would reduce projected deficits by 40%, all before we made a single cut.
Some people don't think we can have 5% annual growth in that amount of time. Like President Obama. Our President is a declinist. He views America as one of equals around the world. We're not the same as Portugal; we're not the same as Argentina. And this idea that we can't have 5% growth in America is hogwash. It's a defeatist attitude. If China can have 5% growth and Brazil can have 5% growth, then the U.S can have 5% growth. I don't accept this notion that we're going to be average or anemic.
The Moderator: The Obama Administration has repealed Don't Ask/Don't Tell which allows homosexuals to openly serve in the U.S military. As President would you work to reverse this decision made by the previous administration or would you keep it as it is?
Rick Santorum: The job of the United States military is to protect and defend the people of this country. It is not for social experimentation. It should be repealed. And the commanders should have a system of discipline in place that punishes bad behavior.
Mitt Romney: When I first heard of the “Don’t ask/Don’t Tell” policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly. I didn’t think that would be very effective. And I turned out to be wrong. It’s been the policy now in the military for what, 10, 15 years, and it seems to be working. This is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on. I would reinstate it at this point. We can look at it again down the road. But it does seem to me that we have much bigger issues as a nation we ought to be talking about than that policy right now.
Michele Bachmann: I would keep the “Don't Ask/Don't Tell” policy.
The Moderator: … You still have some time left, anything else?
Michelle Bachmann: I would also want to confer with our commanders-in-chief and with--also with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because I'd want to know how it was being implemented and if it has--had had the detrimental effects that have been suggested that will come.
The Moderator: Speaker Gingrich.
Newt Gingrich: Well, I think it's very powerful that both the Army and the Marines overwhelmingly opposed changing it, that their recommendation was against changing it. And if as President--I've met with them and they said, you know, it isn't working, it is dangerous, it's disrupting unit morale, and we should go back, I would listen to the commanders whose lives are at risk about the young men and women that they are, in fact, trying to protect.
Ron Paul: I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.
Tori Jacobs: I was never a supporter of the “Don't ask/Don't Tell” policy. Heterosexual men and women serve openly in the military, how is this any different? Just because they can serve openly doesn't mean that they're going to flaunt it. It's not the same thing. I think they should be allowed to serve their country openly and they should be allowed to be open about their sexuality, should it even come up, no matter where they work or even if they're running for a public office. Don't flaunt it, but don't force them to hide who they are.
Gary Johnson: I wouldn't mess with it. Through the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell America joined the overwhelming majority of modern nations by allowing gay Americans to enlist and serve in the military without having to live lies and deny who they are. That is long overdue, and good news. The idea that our professional service men and women could not serve effectively with gay colleagues has long been unfair, and just wrong. Over the past several years, we have lost thousands of volunteer defenders of freedom to a policy that, on its face, ran counter to the American principles of equality and, yes, freedom. One of those Americans who was unjustly discharged from the military is Daniel Choi, who has been an important voice in this entire debate. He says it best: ‘This is not a victory for one party or another. This is a victory for every individual protected under the Constitution and every individual that raises their right hand to protect the Constitution.'
Herman Cain: If I had my druthers, I never would have overturned “Don't Ask/Don't Tell” in the first place. Now that they have changed it, I wouldn't create a distraction trying to turn it over as President. Our men and women have too many other things to be concerned about rather than have to deal with that as a distraction.
Tim Pawlenty: I have been a public and repeat supporter of maintaining Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. There’s a lot of reasons for that, but if you look at how the combat commanders and the combat units feel about it, the results of those kinds of surveys were different than the ones that were mostly reported in the newspaper and that is something I think we need to pay attention to. But I have been a public supporter of maintaining Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and I would support reinstating it as well.
The Moderator: As President would you do anything to repeal the current laws regarding drugs and prostitution?
Rick Santorum: No. I don't think it's morally ethical or would be a responsible decision for a President to make, nor would it be beneficial for the country. As a matter of fact as Senator I voted yes on increasing penalties on drugs related crime and spending international funds on drug control. As for prostitution, what example would we be setting to young women and most of all children if we allowed a practice based around exchanging a person's body, mainly women bodies, for sex? These are not things that should be legalized in America and I would not sign any bill that suggested either idea.
Mitt Romney: I oppose the legalization of recreational or medical marijuana – now I endorse the use of synthetic pot but as I said in my book “No Apology” this whole movement to legalize drugs, marijuana in particular can be attributed to the passion and zeal of those members of the pleasure-seeking generation that never grew up. As for prostitution, I would give that power to the states. It's legal in Nevada, it's clear that's what Nevada wants and if another state wants the same I won't oppose their right to it.
Michele Bachmann: I support the war on drugs and will continue to support the war on drugs as President of the United States. I also signed a “moral pledge” and on that moral pledge mentioned prostitution and I intend to stick to that moral pledge and will not support any legislation that would try to put forth prostitution in our great country!
Newt Gingrich: I would not repeal any of the current drugs law, look, legalizing drugs would tear America apart. Every place drugs are legalized the next effect is more people on welfare, more people who are dependent, more people with bad health care outcomes, fewer people who are able workers able to pay attention on the job and a drain of money into illegality. As for prostitution, no I would not.
Ron Paul: I think it's a matter of civil liberties and if drugs and prostitution were legalized tomorrow how many people here would do either? I doubt very many people would if they were legal but the mindset is, “Oh yeah, I don't want to do heroine or prostitution so I need these laws!” But that's not true it would go down to the individual's choice and I think it should be left up to the states to decide what's right for them.
Tori Jacobs: I don't think either should be a criminal offense. I don't think it's right that drug users and prostitutes are being thrown in prison alongside murderers, rapists and thieves. I think if a person has an addiction to drugs then they should be given help not thrown in prison so yes I would put an end to the war on drugs and that way you can regulate it, tax it and on the prostitution front we should legalize brothels so we can regulate that too and if it's regulated these women can be checked, everything would be much safer than it is now, the power of pimps are completely thrown out the window and you need people to build these brothels so there's some more jobs right there.
Gary Johnson: Given that prostitution takes place, the question is, 'Are you safer engaging a prostitute in Nevada or New Mexico?' I think you are clearly safer engaging one in Nevada in a licensed prostitution establishment. Half of what we spend on law enforcement, courts, and the prisons is drug related. And to what end? Well, we spend $70 billion per year, we're arresting 1.8 million people per year, in this country and we now have 2.3 million people behind bars. We have the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Treat it first as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. These are people that we know. These are people that we actually care about.
Herman Cain: If states wanted to legalize medical marijuana I would not stand in their way with a “one-size-fix-all” approach but for the other things you've mentioned I wouldn't repeal any laws concerning them I think we have a bigger problems in this country right now to focus on then these two things.
Tim Pawlenty: I think on both issues it's unneeded and unwise to propose legalizing them. In Minnesota I opposed a bill in 2006 that would have legalized marijuana in Minnesota for medical uses. I don't think it's a civil liberty issue and I don't think the war on drugs is a lost cause like some other candidates in this election do. What I did in Minnesota was sign a crime bill which included tougher penalties for meth offenders, more resources to enforce meth laws and aggressive restrictions on methamphetamine-making materials plus strict new standards to clean up meth sites. Combined and strengthened the Gang and Drug Strike Forces and introduced America’s most secure, tamper-resistant driver’s licenses.
The Moderator: Ever since Rode v. Wade the nation has been split on the subject of abortion into pro-life and pro-choice. What is your stance on the debate and as President what would you do in regards to the issue of abortion?
Rick Santorum: You know, the U.S Supreme Court on a recent case said that a man who committed rape could not be killed, could not be subject to the death penalty, yet the child conceived as a result of that rape could be. That to me sounds like a country that doesn't have its morals correct. That child did nothing wrong. That child is an innocent victim. To be victimized twice would be a horrible thing. It is an innocent human life. It is genetically human from the moment of conception. And it is a human life. And we in America should be big enough to try to surround ourselves and help women in those terrible situations who've been traumatized already. To put them through another trauma of an abortion I think is too much to ask. And so I would absolutely stand and say that one violence is enough.
Mitt Romney: People have had a chance to look at my record and look at what I've said. I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life. I will support justices who believe in following the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. And I believe in the sanctity of life from the very beginning until the very end.
Michele Bachmann: I am 100% pro-life. I've given birth to five babies, and I've taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life. Our Declaration of Independence said it's a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is, is on the genuine issue of taking an innocent human life.
Newt Gingrich: I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting “the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,” and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”
I believe that in order to properly protect the right to life of the vulnerable among us, every human being at every stage of development must be recognized as a person possessing the right to life in federal and state laws without exception and without compromise. I recognize that in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well; leaving the death of an innocent child as an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing.
If elected President, I will work to advance state and federal laws and amendments that recognize the unalienable right to life of all human beings as persons at every stage of development, and to the best of my knowledge, (BUZZ!) I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human being at every stage of development are person with the unalienable right to life.
Ron Paul: In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.
It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states. I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that. The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position (BUZZ!) allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.
Tori Jacobs: I'm pro-choice. I support Rode v. Wade and would oppose any measures to repeal it. I think a woman should have the right to terminate their pregnancy during the first trimester if they choose to and the government has no right to tell them that they can't. Abortion is not an easy decision for anyone, be them pro-life or pro-choice. The problem here is not abortion the problem is unwanted pregnancies. You want to stop that then stop putting so much taboo on sex. Promote safe sex, promote contraceptives but don't outlaw abortions completely. Currently only 1% of all abortions are done in cases of incest, rape and threat to the mother's life. I believe in time if we focus more on sex education we can one day bring abortions down to just that 1% and the people who want children will have them. It won't happen overnight but I believe if we focus less on banning abortions and more on that we can one day decrease it (BUZZ!) to that common ground.
Gary Johnson: It should be left up to the woman. If my daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman. I think the decision can be made at an earlier stage. That's why I don't support partial birth abortions. I realize it's a fine line, but I generally come down on a woman's right to decide. I believe that parents ought to know. Where that can't occur, there needs to be a process in place, which we have in New Mexico.
Herman Cain: I believe that life begins at conception, period. And that means that I will have to see enough evidence that someone I would appoint shares that same view. I believe that the current Supreme Court is leaning too much to the liberal side. I'm a Christian, I've been a Christian all my life. I've been a believer in the Bible since I was 10 years old. I'm very active in my church, and there is no way I would compromise my religious beliefs about the sanctity of life.
And so it starts with, will they have demonstrated, in some of their other rulings, if they come from the federal judge bench, whether or not they also share that. Because I believe that the principles that our Founding Fathers cherished, when they founded this country, and wrote the Declaration of Independence which inspired the Constitution, they were based upon biblical principles. I want to get back to those principles as President, if I'm elected--not rewrite those documents.
Tim Pawlenty: This is a great example where we can look at our records. The National Review Online, which is a conservative publication, said based on results-- not just based on words--I was probably the most pro-life candidate in this race. As governor, I appointed to the Supreme Court a conservative court for the first time in the modern history of my state. We passed the most pro-life legislation anytime in the modern history of the state, which I proposed and signed, including women's right to know, including positive alternatives to abortion legislation, and many others. I'm solidly pro-life. And I haven't just talked about these things; I've done it.
The Moderator: We have reached the end of tonight's debate, I'd like to thank you are for attending and Saint Anselm College for being a generous host. We'll see you all again in August. Thank you and goodnight.
