Post by Ayen on Feb 29, 2012 14:56:58 GMT -6
New Hampshire Polls: 1.) Tori Jacobs 4.32%
2.) Gary Johnson 3.96%
3.) Ron Paul 2.52%
4.) Tim Pawlenty 1.08%
5.) Herman Cain 0.72%
6.) Newt Gingrich 0.36%
7.) Michele Bachmann/Mitt Romney/Rick Santorum 0%
The Moderator: Welcome to the Republican Presidential Debate in Iowa State University. We would like to thank Fox News, the Washington Examiner and the Republican Party of Iowa for sponsoring this debate, as well as Ames, Iowa and Iowa State University for being generous hosts and to the participants here tonight for being with us and they are: Kansas City Defense Attorney Tori Jacobs, former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty, Businessman Herman Cain, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania's Senator Rick Santorum and former Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman.
Here is how the debate will work; we will go down the line from Ms. Jacobs to Governor Huntsman. You will have one minute each per question and this time we will allow for thirty seconds follow-up questions if there are any and thirty seconds rebuttals for any direct criticism aimed your way. Now for the first question: Ms. Jacobs, it is no question that many Americans wants to become energy independent. The question then lies in whether or not we should produce our own oil or turn to alternative energy sources like wind farms and solar energy. As President which route would you take for energy produced right here at home?
Tori Jacobs: Well I don't see why it has to be an either or or choice. The energy is available, all we need to do is apply it to the areas where they'll be the most useful. Oil isn't just for getting gasoline into our cars. It's going to be a long time before we're ready as a country, both financially and technologically, to make the complete switch to clean energy resources. Right now oil and coal are more efficient. I wouldn't rule out either, I would instead advocate all available resources of energy to help make America more energy independent.
Let's be honest here, and I know that's a dangerous word to use in politics, but our energy problem doesn't have any quick fixes. There is no absolute plan that is going to bring gasoline prices down and keep them down overnight. Presidents can't control the price of gas, that's supply and demand. When the demand goes up but there are a lack of resources, the prices goes up to make up for it. Here's my problem with that; there shouldn't be a lack of resources to justify the increases in price. We have plenty of oil to go around. So why do oil companies need the money? The truth is they don't. Instead that money should be going to the development of cleaner energy resources so that our children and grandchildren can have the option of clean energy.
Gary Johnson: Private entrepreneurship will solve our energy problems and keep our land, air, and water clean. Small business, not big government, is the solution. Directives from a climate conference in Copenhagen may have an only marginal impact on global CO2 emissions (especially if some developing countries don’t comply), but they would have a tremendous impact on the daily lives of people like you and me. By raising the costs of energy as much as 25% cap and trade schemes would cripple the American economy and break the budgets of families that are already struggling to make ends meet. What do we say to the poor elderly couple in Iowa who would have to choose between food and heat during a deadly cold winter?
Instead of limiting our environmental impact in a way that hurts the finances of American households and businesses, energy entrepreneurs seek to limit our environmental impact by creating value for Americans. The beauty of energy efficiency is that it needs no directive from a government central planner, because energy efficiency is cost efficiency, and Americans already have an incentive to cut costs. In the end, it will be people like you and me who want to save money in our homes and small businesses that will drive a true and lasting revolution in energy efficiency and sustainability.
Ron Paul: We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all. Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.
Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.
Tim Pawlenty: The energy crisis is a serious one and on that front I, alongside Governor Rendell, supported extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and energy research and development for renewable energy. I also encouraged development of locally owned wind energy sources and I also, as governor, signed a letter to Congress to stop harmful EPA regulation of greenhouse emissions so if you need to know what I would do as President you can just look at my record, as Governor of Minnesota, and see what I would do because it's right there for you in black and white. As I have been saying from the beginning; I don't just talk about it I do it and I have done it.
Herman Cain: I support utilizing all available resources in this country. Which one is better isn't the problem we're facing. The problem are environmental regulations that are holding us back. America is a land blessed with abundant natural resources and the capability of the people to obtain them. From the oil-rich states of Louisiana and Alaska to the mighty dams along rivers, the options for many forms of energy are real and plenty. Still, liberals continue to perpetuate the misunderstanding that the high energy consumption of a thriving nation and conservation of our precious planet are at odds with one another.
Because they have perpetuated such a myth, liberals have forced excessive environmental regulations that have stifled our domestic energy production, and instead, forced American consumers to rely far too heavily upon foreign oil. In many cases, this oil comes from Middle Eastern countries, some of whom are not friendly to the US, who end up dictating the prices of our energy consumption. In return, Americans have seen no improvements in our environment or in the cleanliness of our air. We must expand our domestic energy resources by loosening government's grip responsibly.
Newt Gingrich: A sound American energy policy would focus on four areas: basic research to create a new energy system that has few environmental side effects, incentives for conservation, more renewable resources, and environmentally sound development of fossil fuels. The Bush administration has approached energy environmentalism the right way, including using public-private partnerships that balance economic costs and environmental gain.
Hydrogen has the potential to provide energy that has no environmental downside. Conservation is the second great opportunity in energy. A tax credit to subsidize energy efficient cars (including a tax credit for turning in old and heavily polluting cars) is another idea we should support. Renewable resources are gradually evolving to meet their potential: from wind generator farms to solar power to biomass conversion. Continued tax credits and other advantages for renewable resources are a must.
Michele Bachmann: Energy reform is perhaps one of the most critical issues facing Congress as Americans pay high prices at the pump day after day and our dependence on foreign oil continues to threaten our national security. I believe it is imperative we look for real solutions to lower gas prices for American families and find viable ways to increase domestic energy production.
We can achieve these goals by cutting federal regulations that drive up production and processing costs, thereby increasing U.S. capacity to refine crude oil. We can also explore areas that are currently off limits to domestic production like the Alaskan Energy Slope, the oil shale areas of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and the outer-continental shelf.
In addition, we must look beyond our traditional sources of energy to diversify our sources and find innovative solutions to help protect the environment. As a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus (RE&EEC), I am working to raise awareness and educate lawmakers on technologies to improve energy efficiency and explore alternative forms of energy.
Mitt Romney: I don't think it's an either or or choice, I don't think the American people think this is an either or or choice and we shouldn't get distracted with which is better. We can perform offshore drilling and more drilling in ANWR while at the same time develop alternative energy sources such as nuclear power, biodiesel, biofuels, cellulastic and liquefied coal. We can develop these alternatives by investing more in technology. We'll probably have to subsidies like we did with ethanol. But the goal is to become energy independent, not fight over which energy is better. Stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of our country to go buy energy from other nations every year.
I think this president faced a number of easy decisions that he missed, but this one is perhaps either at or near the top of the list: how in the world could he have said to Canada ‘No, don’t bring in that Keystone pipeline, we don’t need your oil. At a time like this, when we’re seeing gas prices like they are, we need to get that energy into this country and as President that what I'll do.
Rick Santorum: I think this is one of the most important discussions we have to have this election. It is vitality important for our economic prosperity and it is vitally important from the standpoint of our national security. Let me just address both, as briefly as I can.
We’re seeing obviously the effects of high gasoline prices on the economy right now and obviously on all of lives as we drive – when we have seven kids, I assure you I drive a lot. And we use a lot of gasoline. Not big cars, not because I like big cars, because I can’t put my family in anything other than a big car.
So, having a policy that reduces the price of oil in particular, is essential. What has been the policy of this administration? To shut up, to not drill in ANWR to not drill in deep water, to not drill offshore, to not drill on oil sands – to make it expensive to drill where we do drill and deny permits where we can drill. That’s the policy of this administration.
Jon Huntsman: We've learned some important lessons as this economy has spun out of control. We have learned that subsidies don't work and that we can no longer afford them. I believe that we can move toward renewable energy, but we're going to have to have a bridge product. Everybody wants to draw from the sun and draw from the wind, and I'm here to tell you that eventually that will make sense, but today the economics don't work. We need something like natural gas. It is ours, it's affordable, and we should begin the conversion process.
The Moderator: As President of the United States how would you tackle the issue of education reform in this country? Ms. Jacobs.
Tori Jacobs: The first thing we need to do is stop cutting funding in our schools. Whenever we're talking about the budget what's the first thing to be cut? Education. If we truly want our youth to grow up to be contributing members of society then get them the books they need to read so they can learn. Teachers are asked to do so much while at the same time they are being grossly underpaid. This isn't a new issue, this isn't an issue solely limited to today's generation.
We have people young and old who don't fully understand what our country was founded under or what our Constitution says. Instead of giving our school system the funding they need we're busy cutting it so we can afford to pay for the next war, or to bail out the next big corporation that's bordering on the lines of bankruptcy or to give money to a foreign country so their kids can have a better education. It's time we put a stop to putting public education under the bus and as President that's what I'll do.
Gary Johnson: American education is at a crossroads. We can either choose to continue down the path of higher costs, poorer results, and top-down thinking, or challenge the status quo by using what actually works rather than what we wish would work. The problem is public education in America is now doing less with more. This is unsustainable for our pocketbooks and, most importantly, unfair to our children.
Now, imagine an educational system that not only educates students better, but also does it for less money every year. It would give each American child the opportunity to choose an individualized education to realize his or her dreams. All parents should have an opportunity to know choose which school their children attend. By putting educational funds in the hands of the people who use it gives parents and students a vote as to which schools are best and which need to improve. It's time to free individuals from burdensome federal mandates so they can pursue the right educational strategies.
Ron Paul: If you care about your children, you'll get the federal government out of the business of educating our kids. In 1980, when the Republican Party ran, part of the platform was to get rid of the Department of Education. By the year 2000, it was eliminated, and we fed on to it. Then Republicans added No Child Left Behind. The goal should be set to get the government out completely, but don't enforce this law of No Child Left Behind. It's not going to do any good, and nobody likes it. And there's no value to it. The teachers don't like it, and the students don't like it. But there are other things that the federal government can do, and that is give tax credits for the people who will opt out. We ought to have a right to opt out of the public system if you want.
Tim Pawlenty: We need to properly fund our schools but also hold them accountable for improved student achievement. The state should assess student progress and hold districts accountable for improved results. More rigorous graduation standards for all students need to be implemented statewide. We need performance pay for school staff. Our seniority only salary system is out of date and we should be rewarding teachers for performance. In addition parents need and deserve more options for their children, such as charter schools and home schooling instead of being limited to just the public school system.
Herman Cain: A critical component of improving education in our country is to decentralize the federal government's control over it. Children are best served when the teachers, parents and principals are making the day-to-day decisions, coupled with the leadership of local municipalities, school boards and states. We can put kids first by offering school choice as a real option for educational competition. This means expanding school vouchers and charter schools. Such measures have proven time and time again to best serve the students, many of whom do not have the economic means of attending better schools.
Unbundling education means putting kids first. It means rewarding those teachers who enrich the lives of their students, and it means holding those accountable who do not. It means putting students before union interests, and it means keeping their development paramount. Unbundling education means offering parents choices for their children to create a truly competitive educational system.
Newt Gingrich: I think you need very profound reform of education at the state level. You need to dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education, get rid of virtually all of its regulations. And the truth is, I believe we'd be far better off if most states adopted a program of the equivalent of Pell Grants for K-through-12, so that parents could choose where their child went to school, whether it was public, or private, or home-schooling, and parents could be involved. Florida has a virtual school program that is worth the entire country studying as an example.
Michele Bachmann: In 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned for the presidency on a platform that included abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. Only recently created by President Jimmy Carter as a political favor to the teachers' unions, the department had failed to deliver either better test scores or more rigorous curriculum dedicated to academic excellence. That sounded like a good idea to me, because I have never believed in a federal control of the schools. The vast majority of parents can figure out for themselves how to educate their children and how to provide them with good values. And if some parents can't do so, well, there's most likely someone nearby who can step in. That's what I mean by local control and by the wisdom of letting the fifty states--all those separate laboratories of democracy--chart their own courses on education. The challenge of good schooling, I firmly believe, is best addressed as close to the student as possible.
Mitt Romney: Education has to be held at the local and state level, not at the federal level. We need to get the federal government out of education. And secondly, all the talk about we need smaller classroom size, look that's promoted by the teachers unions to hire more teachers. We looked at what drives good education in our state, what we found is the best thing for education is great teachers, hire the very best and brightest to be teachers, pay them properly, make sure that you have school choice, test your kids to see if they are meeting the standards that need to be met, and make sure that you put the parents in charge. And as president I will stand up to the National Teachers Unions.
I think the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is doing a good thing by saying, you know what, we should insist that teachers get evaluated and that schools have the opportunity to see which teachers exceeding and which ones are failing and that teachers that are not successful are removed from the classroom.
Rick Santorum: 20 years ago, the federal contribution to education was 3%. It's now at 11%, and our schools are doing worse. It's because of the federal government's meddling. The bottom-line problem is that the education system doesn't serve the customer of the education system. And who's the customer? The parents, because it's the parents' responsibility to educate their children--from the moment they were born, they began the education of their children. At some point, the government has convinced parents that it's no longer their responsibility. They force them, in many respects, to turn their children over to the public education system and wrest control from them and block them out of participation of that. That has to change or education will not improve in this country.
Jon Huntsman: This is a key question, because it has so much to do with our nation's competitiveness. I feel like I've run my own clinical trial in my home, raising seven kids. We've seen every option. We've experienced everything out there. But as governor I learned some important things. I signed the second voucher bill in the United States, Carson-Smith. I've actually done something about this. We actually worked on early childhood literacy. If you can lock in the pillars of cognitive development around reading and math before age six, you are giving those kids the best gift possible as they then proceed through education. Finally, you've got to say no to unfunded mandates coming out of Washington. They are totally unacceptable. No one loves their schools more than parents and local school boards, and local elected officials. Localize, localize, localize.
The Moderator: As President where do you stand on Gun Control? Would you support measures to increase it, decrease it, if so why and why not?
Tori Jacobs: I wouldn't mess with the current Gun Control laws in the country. I think the ones we have in place now are efficient, they don't need to be decreased and they certainly don't need to be increased. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, it's clear as day in the Second Amendment and I have said time and time again that as President I will neither propose nor sign any pieces of legislation that violates the US Constitution and that isn't just limited to the Second Amendment. I'll also repeal laws that violate the US Constitution, such as the Patriot Act, NDAA and DOMA. Abraham Lincoln said that the Constitution is the safeguard of our liberties and as they protect our liberties we need to protect that safeguard from anyone who wishes to take our rights away from us.
Gary Johnson: I'm one of those who believe the bumper sticker: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence.
Ron Paul: Gun-control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. But that is simply an impossibility. The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those who wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns.
Paradoxically, gun control clears a path for violence and makes aggression more likely, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government. I don't really believe “gun-free” zones make any difference. If they did, why would the worst shootings consistently happen in gun-free zones such as schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, the antithesis of a gun-free zone. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society. Even if you don't like guns and don't want to own them, you benefit from those who do.
Tim Pawlenty: I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and a strong supporter of training and background checks for citizens to carry firearms, so they'll always be limits but I find these limits to be appropriate. If we're to crack down on anything we need to crack down on illegal gun ownership and as President that is what I'll look into because it is the criminals on the streets who don't go through the proper channels and won't be hurt by tighter gun controls and those are the ones we need to make sure don't have the guns!
Herman Cain: I support the Second Amendment. I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I don't think this is a federal issue. Let each state pass a concealed weapon bill. Empower the states--some states already have it--and not have a federal mandate.
Newt Gingrich: The right to bear arms is not about hunting. It's not about target practice... The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the rights that God has given you, and it was written by people who had spent their lifetime fighting the greatest empire in the world and they knew that if they had not had the right to bear arms, they would have been enslaved. And they did not want us to be enslaved. And that is why they guaranteed us the right to protect ourselves. It is a political right of the deepest importance to the survival of freedom in America.
Michele Bachmann: The Second Amendment states that the people’s right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, and I believe that citizens who are in compliance with the law should not have that guaranteed right taken away. I am a member of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus which is a bipartisan group of nearly 300 U.S. Representatives and Senators committed to fish and wildlife conservation and preserving opportunities to hunt, fish and trap.
Growing up in a home that valued hunting and fishing, the Second Amendment is of equal importance as the other nine Amendments in our Bill of Rights. Since the age of twelve, when I passed my first gun safety class, I’ve enjoyed the privilege afforded us by the right to bear arms. While serving in the Minnesota State Senate I supported and helped pass the Minnesota Personal Protection Act and legislation to protect local shooting ranges. I will fight to uphold our Second Amendment rights.
Mitt Romney: Let me speak very directly and candidly about where I stand. I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It's essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly. I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect their homes and their families and as President, I will vigorously defend that right.
Rick Santorum: I am a firm advocate of a citizen’s right to bear arms. I am also a staunch defender of gun manufacturers, and voted in favor of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which among others, prevents civil suits from being brought against gun manufacturers for criminal acts perpetrated using their weapons. I worked with the NRA on trigger locks and background checks at gun shows, which is something I want to clear up for gun owners.
This was during the Clinton administration, where I voted against the gun ban, voted against the assault weapons ban, voted 100% with the NRA. And this was a piece of legislation that was crafted that the NRA endorsed, they supported, and worked with me to make sure that we'd not have something far worse pass. And so sometimes you have to pass something that can get enough votes to be able to satisfy folks that they won't pass something that's much worse. And so that's what you have to do to make sure that rights aren't taken away. I have a lifetime A-plus record with the NRA. They came to me repeatedly when I was in the Senate to help them and sponsor legislation and work toward making sure in ensuring gun rights.
Jon Huntsman: When people ask, 'Where do you stand on the Second Amendment?' I say, 'With a name like Huntsman, do you think I have a choice? I have always stood firmly for Second Amendment rights, and my record in Utah reflects it. While serving as the Governor of Utah, I endorsed and signed Senate Bill 78 (the right to lawfully transport and store firearms in privately-owned, locked motor vehicles) and House Bill 357 (allowing the presence of a concealed firearm in their own residence, on their own property, or in their place of business without a concealed carry permit). I supported the Second Amendment as Governor and I'll continue to support it if I'm elected President.
The Moderator: How would your religious beliefs, or the lack thereof, affect your decisions as President?
Tori Jacobs: My belief in God is not a filter that removes sound judgment, Mr. Moderator. On the contrary it is anything but. If there is anyone here today who is concerned that my spirituality will lead to favoritism then I welcome you to look at my record. I have extended my support to same-sex couples all around the country by proposing a federal marriage amendment which would grant them all the same rights as heterosexual couples.
I have also opposed government mandates over a person's personal life be it control of a woman's body, what you can put into yours or whatever. The First Amendment is very clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and I will not respect an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy during the 1960 US Presidential Election: I am not a Christian candidate for the presidency. I am a Republican Candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency, who happens to be a Christian.
Gary Johnson: I am a non-practicing Lutheran. You do not have to worry about any of my decisions as President being influence by religion. You can look at my record as Governor of New Mexico and know that.
Ron Paul: Well, my religious beliefs wouldn't affect my presidency. My religious beliefs affect my character in the way I treat people and the way I live. The only thing that would affect me in the way I operate as a president or a congressman is my oath of office and my promises that I've made to the people.
Tim Pawlenty: Our founding fathers relied as much on God as on their own intellect and strength of character. Removing God from our conversations, our plans and our actions is not in the best interest of our country. The separation of church and state means the government may not impose any religion on the people or prohibit the free exercise of religion; it most definitely does not mean that the best path forward for America is to strike God from the equation. People often ask how I reconcile my faith life and my public life and to what extent my Christian faith influences my decision making. Faith is part of my experience, and it is the cornerstone of my value system. It is part of who I am and how I think. But there is a difference between believing in God and presuming God is on my side in matters of public policy.
Herman Cain: We live in a nation where most people have conservative social and economic values and where most people try to live their lives according to the morals and values taught to them in church and by their parents. The majority of the public does not support removing the words “one nation under God” from our Pledge of Allegiance. They do not support removing the words “in God we trust” from our currency. They do not support presidents who carry on extra-marital affairs with interns in the Oval Office of the White House. Democrats simply cannot understand why most people involve their faith in making the big decisions in their lives. They cannot understand why people do not and cannot switch their faith on and off because of a notion of “separation between church and state”--a phrase that does not even appear in our Constitution! For most people, their religious faith, their personal and business lives, and their political views are inextricably intertwined.
Newt Gingrich: I would say that there are three ways in which religion would affect me. The first is, I think anyone who is President is faced with decisions so enormous that they should go to God. They should seek guidance. Because these are decisions beyond the ability of mere mortals to truly decide without some sense of what it is we should be doing. I would say, second, that we have a real obligation to recognize that, if you're truly faithful, it's not just an hour on Sundays or Saturdays or Fridays. It's in fact something that should suffuse your life, to be a part of who you are. And in that sense, it is inextricably tied in with how you behave.
But I would say, third, one of the reasons I am running is there has been an increasingly aggressive war against religion and in particular against Christianity in this country, largely by a secular elite and the academic news media and judicial areas. And I frankly believe it's important to have some leadership that stands up and says, enough; we are truly guaranteed the right of religious freedom, not religious suppression by the state.
Michelle Bachmann: Thomas Jefferson stated it best: the US government should not be a state church. That's really the fundamental of separation of church and state. When Jefferson was asked whether the US would have a national church, he said no, because we believe in freedom of conscience, we believe in freedom of religious liberty, and expression, and speech. That's a foundational principle. But that doesn't mean that we aren't people of faith, and that people of faith shouldn't be allowed to exercise religious liberty in the public square. Of course we should be able to publicly exercise our faith. Whether that expression occurs in a public school or occurs in a public building, we should be able to have freedom for all people to express our belief in God.
Mitt Romney: I would seek the guidance of providence in making critical decisions. And of course, ours is a nation which is based upon Judeo- Christian values and ethics. Our law is based upon those values and ethics. And in some cases, our law doesn't encompass all of the issues that we face around the world.
The conviction that the founders, when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, were writing a document that was not just temporary and not just for one small locale but really something which described the relationship between God and man -- that's something which I think a president would carry in his heart.
So when they said, for instance, that the creator had “endowed us with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” I would seek to assure that those principles and values remain in America and that we help share them with other people in the world, not by conquering them, but by helping them through our trade, through our various forms of soft power, to help bring people the joy and opportunity that exists in this great land.
Rick Santorum: Faith is a very, very important part of my life, but it's a very, very important part of this country. The foundational documents of our country -- everybody talks about the Constitution, very, very important. But the Constitution is the "how" of America. It's the operator's manual.
The “why” of America, who we are as a people, is in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.”
The Constitution is there to do one thing: protect God-given rights. That's what makes America different than every other country in the world. No other country in the world has its rights based in God-given rights, not government-given rights.
And so when you say, well, faith has nothing to do with it, faith has everything to do with it. Which is why I cannot understand how Tori Jacobs can come up here, claim to be a Christian but then turn around and essentially say, “I don't believe in family, I don't believe in the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage.” and at the same time claim she'll protect the Constitution. I just don't.
The Moderator: Ms. Jacobs, I'm going to give you thirty seconds to respond to Santorum.
Tori Jacobs: Thank you. Senator, I do believe in family, the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage but here is where you and I greatly disagree. I do not believe family is “straight couples” only. Many members of the Republican Party has said for a long time that homosexuality is an attack on the sanctity of marriage, well many Americans and I will like to know why? Right now the divorce rate in America is the highest its ever been and all of those are straight couples. There are people who marry solely to stay in the country and those are among straight couples. If anything same-sex marriage would help 'reserve' the sanctity of marriage in this country.
We have children in the system who haven't been adopted because of the status quo that your children should be your own flesh and blood. There are gay couples who wish to share their love with a child but they are denied. Why? Because of some misconception that a child needs both a mother and father to be raised up properly? Why then don't we see a problem with children who are raised by single parents or whole communities. Why also do we claim to be pro-life until the child is born and the mom needs welfare because she isn't fit to raise the baby on her own and because we objected abortions so vocally she couldn't get one.
Mr. Moderator: Senator Santorum, thirty seconds.
Rick Santorum: I think what Tori is failing to understand is that just because “same-sex” marriage, at the moment, could help reserve the sanctity of it because of the high divorce rate doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. It sounds to me like Tori would be for allowing polygamy if it would reserve the sanctity of marriage just because the divorce rate has gone up. Tori, you're a lawyer, like myself, in court we rely on evidence to support our case. Isn't there a whole body of evidence out there, of 5,000 years of civilization, that shows plainly that children need mothers and fathers? That the basic unit of any successful society is moms and dads coming together to raise children?
Additionally, one of the key rights in the Constitution is the right to life. You cannot put a dollar sign on life, to that effect I agree with Tori. But that right to life include the rights of the unborn. So Tori, as President, can't protect the Constitution while at the same time being pro-abortion. We already have a President that doesn't understand this. We need a strong conservative leader who will defend everything the Constitution stands for, not just what's convenient to liberal voters.
Tori Jacobs: If we're going to get into history there is also evidence of homosexuality being institutionalized in societies in the past with no major repercussions to speak of. In places like Africa the Americas, East Asia and Europe. Homosexuality isn't anything new, it has been around for a long time and if it had ill effects on our children it would have been made known many years ago. In fact, the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study has shown on its 24-year long study on families with lesbian parents, finding that not one of the 78 adolescents in the study had reported being sexually or physically abused by their parents. This compares to 26% of American adolescents overall who report parent or caregiver physical abuse. 8.3% report sexual abuse.
Santorum, you talk about “evidence” in your views that children should be raised solely by heterosexual couples. But you conveniently forget that there is no evidence that life starts at conception, how then can the Constitution protect what has not been proven to be life? Show me decisive evidence that life begins at conception and I will reevaluate my stance but until then the government has no right to mandate a woman's body when they can't even support that the embryo at the time is in fact a life. The burden of proof falls solely on pro-life advocates not pro-choice, and by the way Santorum I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice, there is a difference.
The Moderator: Back to the original question, Governor Huntsman.
Jon Huntsman: I was raised a Mormon, Mary Kaye was raised Episcopalian, our kids have gone to Catholic school, I went to a Lutheran school growing up in Los Angeles. I have an adopted daughter from India who has a very distinct Hindu tradition, one that we would celebrate during Diwali. So you kind of bind all this together. So I'm not biased when it comes to my home, I wasn't biased in that aspect when it came to my Governor position and I wouldn't be biased if I win the presidency.
The Moderator: In closing, I'd like each of you to tell the American people here right now what are the key issues of your campaign. Ms. Jacobs.
Tori Jacobs: The three key issues of my campaign is the Economy, Education and Healthcare. We need to get the Economy back on track, we need to get jobs being made here in America and stop exporting to other countries. We need an Education reform plan that gives schools what they need to properly teach the next generation of Americans instead of punishing schools with a law so broken it's not even being enforced by anyone and we need a Healthcare plan that is clear in what it's trying to do and give people choices, with one of those choices of course being able to opt out of it.
Gary Johnson: The key issues facing our nation today is the size and cost of government and the deficits and debt, which unlike the wars we're pledging in the Middle East and Libya, are real threats to our nation's National Security and as President I'll work to get the size of government down, so the cost of government will go down.
Ron Paul: As the Champion of Liberties my key issues will always be defending the Constitution by fighting all things unconstitutional. I will work to remove the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education, get the government out of affairs that should be left up to the states and pass a Balanced Budget amendment.
Tim Pawlenty: This country has gotten off track thanks to the policies of this current administration and I'm here today to get us back on track as your President. In Minnesota I got, as governor, government spending under control. We did healthcare reform the right way, without any government mandates like the current administration is proposing with Obamacare and these are going to be the key issues of my campaign. I believe in a 5% growth rate for this Economy per year, and America has the power to do it.
Herman Cain: We need to get fuel back into the engine of our Economy, and we need to get politicians who have been working on a broken system out of Washington because they've been there too long. We need strong leadership and a bold plan to move forward. That's why I propose taking out the current tax code, get fuel back into the engine with 9-9-9, get our own energy up out of the ground and empower the states to do what they do with no “one-size-fix-all” approaches. Our key issue this election needs to be about bringing America back on top by reviving this Economy. Let get a business problem solver in the White House.
Newt Gingrich: What we have now in DC is the biggest food stamps President ever to be seen in American history. My goal is to get the American people off of food stamps and bring this country back around to the hard-working America that it was when I was a boy and I would do it by not increasing the role of Government as President Obama has. People say, “How do you manage that?” My Jobs and Prosperity Plan: No tax increase, 100% expensing, reduce business tax to 12.5%, eliminate cap gains and 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.
Michele Bachmann: Our number one priority in our campaign is Obamacare, and that should be the number one priority of everyone; to repeal Obamacare because we want to create jobs and Obamacare will kill jobs. It is a job killer. And an executive order isn't going to be enough to stop it, we need a strong conservative voice in the Senate, we have one already in the House, but we need it in the Senate as well so we can properly repeal and replace Obamacare.
Mitt Romney: I work my whole life in the private sector, I've seen how jobs come and I've seen how jobs go. This President, he's a nice guy but he doesn't know how the Economy works, I do. When I became Governor of Massachusetts I looked to use my experience as a worker of the private sector into government. And as Governor we created jobs in Massachusetts, we did healthcare the right way. Obama's healthcare plan wants to raise taxes and increase government spending by 500 billion. We didn't do that in Massachusetts. We lowered taxes, we decreased government spending and as President I'll use that same experience to help create jobs here in America and provide a healthcare system that doesn't increase spending. Thank you.
Rick Santorum: We have a moral obligation to this country to make sure that our values, and the founding principals of our Founding Fathers aren't toppled on by big government, aren't toppled on by special interest groups or people trying to redefine what the Constitution says. Right now we have a President who doesn't understand how America works and who doesn't understand what this country was founded under. Who doesn't understand what the Constitution says and who is right now this moment abusing the executive order to make laws without going through Congress and what we need is a strong leader who doesn't sacrifice their morals based on what's convenient and as President that is what I'll do and that is what my campaign is focused on. Bringing America back to the values that has made us the number one country in the world.
Jon Huntsman: The key issue of my campaign can be seen in my campaign's slogan: country first. We need to put our country first and foremost and to do that we need to focus on our Economy, we need to focus on Jobs creation and decrease our presence in foreign affairs. Let stand by our allies but at the same time let's get out of places we don't need to be now like Afghanistan and Iraq and extend our support to friends like Israel who face a nuclear threat in Iran. As Governor of Utah we've created nearly 60,000 new jobs, a historic high for our state. Our job growth reached 5%, more than the national average. Our unemployment rate of 2.5% reached unprecedented levels and was among the lowest in the nation. And Utah was recognized as America's sixth fastest growing state. I did it in Utah, I have the background to prove it, this is what I'll do if elected President.
The Moderator: And that's all the time we have for tonight's debate. I'll like to thank the candidates and all those here at attendance live and around the world for being here. We hope our time here has been beneficial for you and your vote, thank you and goodnight.
2.) Gary Johnson 3.96%
3.) Ron Paul 2.52%
4.) Tim Pawlenty 1.08%
5.) Herman Cain 0.72%
6.) Newt Gingrich 0.36%
7.) Michele Bachmann/Mitt Romney/Rick Santorum 0%
The Republican Candidates Debate
Date: August 11, 2011
Location: Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa
Sponsor: Fox News, The Washington Examiner and the Republican Party of Iowa
Participants: Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson, Tori Jacobs
Date: August 11, 2011
Location: Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa
Sponsor: Fox News, The Washington Examiner and the Republican Party of Iowa
Participants: Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson, Tori Jacobs
The Moderator: Welcome to the Republican Presidential Debate in Iowa State University. We would like to thank Fox News, the Washington Examiner and the Republican Party of Iowa for sponsoring this debate, as well as Ames, Iowa and Iowa State University for being generous hosts and to the participants here tonight for being with us and they are: Kansas City Defense Attorney Tori Jacobs, former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty, Businessman Herman Cain, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, former Pennsylvania's Senator Rick Santorum and former Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman.
Here is how the debate will work; we will go down the line from Ms. Jacobs to Governor Huntsman. You will have one minute each per question and this time we will allow for thirty seconds follow-up questions if there are any and thirty seconds rebuttals for any direct criticism aimed your way. Now for the first question: Ms. Jacobs, it is no question that many Americans wants to become energy independent. The question then lies in whether or not we should produce our own oil or turn to alternative energy sources like wind farms and solar energy. As President which route would you take for energy produced right here at home?
Tori Jacobs: Well I don't see why it has to be an either or or choice. The energy is available, all we need to do is apply it to the areas where they'll be the most useful. Oil isn't just for getting gasoline into our cars. It's going to be a long time before we're ready as a country, both financially and technologically, to make the complete switch to clean energy resources. Right now oil and coal are more efficient. I wouldn't rule out either, I would instead advocate all available resources of energy to help make America more energy independent.
Let's be honest here, and I know that's a dangerous word to use in politics, but our energy problem doesn't have any quick fixes. There is no absolute plan that is going to bring gasoline prices down and keep them down overnight. Presidents can't control the price of gas, that's supply and demand. When the demand goes up but there are a lack of resources, the prices goes up to make up for it. Here's my problem with that; there shouldn't be a lack of resources to justify the increases in price. We have plenty of oil to go around. So why do oil companies need the money? The truth is they don't. Instead that money should be going to the development of cleaner energy resources so that our children and grandchildren can have the option of clean energy.
Gary Johnson: Private entrepreneurship will solve our energy problems and keep our land, air, and water clean. Small business, not big government, is the solution. Directives from a climate conference in Copenhagen may have an only marginal impact on global CO2 emissions (especially if some developing countries don’t comply), but they would have a tremendous impact on the daily lives of people like you and me. By raising the costs of energy as much as 25% cap and trade schemes would cripple the American economy and break the budgets of families that are already struggling to make ends meet. What do we say to the poor elderly couple in Iowa who would have to choose between food and heat during a deadly cold winter?
Instead of limiting our environmental impact in a way that hurts the finances of American households and businesses, energy entrepreneurs seek to limit our environmental impact by creating value for Americans. The beauty of energy efficiency is that it needs no directive from a government central planner, because energy efficiency is cost efficiency, and Americans already have an incentive to cut costs. In the end, it will be people like you and me who want to save money in our homes and small businesses that will drive a true and lasting revolution in energy efficiency and sustainability.
Ron Paul: We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all. Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.
Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.
Tim Pawlenty: The energy crisis is a serious one and on that front I, alongside Governor Rendell, supported extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and energy research and development for renewable energy. I also encouraged development of locally owned wind energy sources and I also, as governor, signed a letter to Congress to stop harmful EPA regulation of greenhouse emissions so if you need to know what I would do as President you can just look at my record, as Governor of Minnesota, and see what I would do because it's right there for you in black and white. As I have been saying from the beginning; I don't just talk about it I do it and I have done it.
Herman Cain: I support utilizing all available resources in this country. Which one is better isn't the problem we're facing. The problem are environmental regulations that are holding us back. America is a land blessed with abundant natural resources and the capability of the people to obtain them. From the oil-rich states of Louisiana and Alaska to the mighty dams along rivers, the options for many forms of energy are real and plenty. Still, liberals continue to perpetuate the misunderstanding that the high energy consumption of a thriving nation and conservation of our precious planet are at odds with one another.
Because they have perpetuated such a myth, liberals have forced excessive environmental regulations that have stifled our domestic energy production, and instead, forced American consumers to rely far too heavily upon foreign oil. In many cases, this oil comes from Middle Eastern countries, some of whom are not friendly to the US, who end up dictating the prices of our energy consumption. In return, Americans have seen no improvements in our environment or in the cleanliness of our air. We must expand our domestic energy resources by loosening government's grip responsibly.
Newt Gingrich: A sound American energy policy would focus on four areas: basic research to create a new energy system that has few environmental side effects, incentives for conservation, more renewable resources, and environmentally sound development of fossil fuels. The Bush administration has approached energy environmentalism the right way, including using public-private partnerships that balance economic costs and environmental gain.
Hydrogen has the potential to provide energy that has no environmental downside. Conservation is the second great opportunity in energy. A tax credit to subsidize energy efficient cars (including a tax credit for turning in old and heavily polluting cars) is another idea we should support. Renewable resources are gradually evolving to meet their potential: from wind generator farms to solar power to biomass conversion. Continued tax credits and other advantages for renewable resources are a must.
Michele Bachmann: Energy reform is perhaps one of the most critical issues facing Congress as Americans pay high prices at the pump day after day and our dependence on foreign oil continues to threaten our national security. I believe it is imperative we look for real solutions to lower gas prices for American families and find viable ways to increase domestic energy production.
We can achieve these goals by cutting federal regulations that drive up production and processing costs, thereby increasing U.S. capacity to refine crude oil. We can also explore areas that are currently off limits to domestic production like the Alaskan Energy Slope, the oil shale areas of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and the outer-continental shelf.
In addition, we must look beyond our traditional sources of energy to diversify our sources and find innovative solutions to help protect the environment. As a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus (RE&EEC), I am working to raise awareness and educate lawmakers on technologies to improve energy efficiency and explore alternative forms of energy.
Mitt Romney: I don't think it's an either or or choice, I don't think the American people think this is an either or or choice and we shouldn't get distracted with which is better. We can perform offshore drilling and more drilling in ANWR while at the same time develop alternative energy sources such as nuclear power, biodiesel, biofuels, cellulastic and liquefied coal. We can develop these alternatives by investing more in technology. We'll probably have to subsidies like we did with ethanol. But the goal is to become energy independent, not fight over which energy is better. Stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of our country to go buy energy from other nations every year.
I think this president faced a number of easy decisions that he missed, but this one is perhaps either at or near the top of the list: how in the world could he have said to Canada ‘No, don’t bring in that Keystone pipeline, we don’t need your oil. At a time like this, when we’re seeing gas prices like they are, we need to get that energy into this country and as President that what I'll do.
Rick Santorum: I think this is one of the most important discussions we have to have this election. It is vitality important for our economic prosperity and it is vitally important from the standpoint of our national security. Let me just address both, as briefly as I can.
We’re seeing obviously the effects of high gasoline prices on the economy right now and obviously on all of lives as we drive – when we have seven kids, I assure you I drive a lot. And we use a lot of gasoline. Not big cars, not because I like big cars, because I can’t put my family in anything other than a big car.
So, having a policy that reduces the price of oil in particular, is essential. What has been the policy of this administration? To shut up, to not drill in ANWR to not drill in deep water, to not drill offshore, to not drill on oil sands – to make it expensive to drill where we do drill and deny permits where we can drill. That’s the policy of this administration.
Jon Huntsman: We've learned some important lessons as this economy has spun out of control. We have learned that subsidies don't work and that we can no longer afford them. I believe that we can move toward renewable energy, but we're going to have to have a bridge product. Everybody wants to draw from the sun and draw from the wind, and I'm here to tell you that eventually that will make sense, but today the economics don't work. We need something like natural gas. It is ours, it's affordable, and we should begin the conversion process.
The Moderator: As President of the United States how would you tackle the issue of education reform in this country? Ms. Jacobs.
Tori Jacobs: The first thing we need to do is stop cutting funding in our schools. Whenever we're talking about the budget what's the first thing to be cut? Education. If we truly want our youth to grow up to be contributing members of society then get them the books they need to read so they can learn. Teachers are asked to do so much while at the same time they are being grossly underpaid. This isn't a new issue, this isn't an issue solely limited to today's generation.
We have people young and old who don't fully understand what our country was founded under or what our Constitution says. Instead of giving our school system the funding they need we're busy cutting it so we can afford to pay for the next war, or to bail out the next big corporation that's bordering on the lines of bankruptcy or to give money to a foreign country so their kids can have a better education. It's time we put a stop to putting public education under the bus and as President that's what I'll do.
Gary Johnson: American education is at a crossroads. We can either choose to continue down the path of higher costs, poorer results, and top-down thinking, or challenge the status quo by using what actually works rather than what we wish would work. The problem is public education in America is now doing less with more. This is unsustainable for our pocketbooks and, most importantly, unfair to our children.
Now, imagine an educational system that not only educates students better, but also does it for less money every year. It would give each American child the opportunity to choose an individualized education to realize his or her dreams. All parents should have an opportunity to know choose which school their children attend. By putting educational funds in the hands of the people who use it gives parents and students a vote as to which schools are best and which need to improve. It's time to free individuals from burdensome federal mandates so they can pursue the right educational strategies.
Ron Paul: If you care about your children, you'll get the federal government out of the business of educating our kids. In 1980, when the Republican Party ran, part of the platform was to get rid of the Department of Education. By the year 2000, it was eliminated, and we fed on to it. Then Republicans added No Child Left Behind. The goal should be set to get the government out completely, but don't enforce this law of No Child Left Behind. It's not going to do any good, and nobody likes it. And there's no value to it. The teachers don't like it, and the students don't like it. But there are other things that the federal government can do, and that is give tax credits for the people who will opt out. We ought to have a right to opt out of the public system if you want.
Tim Pawlenty: We need to properly fund our schools but also hold them accountable for improved student achievement. The state should assess student progress and hold districts accountable for improved results. More rigorous graduation standards for all students need to be implemented statewide. We need performance pay for school staff. Our seniority only salary system is out of date and we should be rewarding teachers for performance. In addition parents need and deserve more options for their children, such as charter schools and home schooling instead of being limited to just the public school system.
Herman Cain: A critical component of improving education in our country is to decentralize the federal government's control over it. Children are best served when the teachers, parents and principals are making the day-to-day decisions, coupled with the leadership of local municipalities, school boards and states. We can put kids first by offering school choice as a real option for educational competition. This means expanding school vouchers and charter schools. Such measures have proven time and time again to best serve the students, many of whom do not have the economic means of attending better schools.
Unbundling education means putting kids first. It means rewarding those teachers who enrich the lives of their students, and it means holding those accountable who do not. It means putting students before union interests, and it means keeping their development paramount. Unbundling education means offering parents choices for their children to create a truly competitive educational system.
Newt Gingrich: I think you need very profound reform of education at the state level. You need to dramatically shrink the federal Department of Education, get rid of virtually all of its regulations. And the truth is, I believe we'd be far better off if most states adopted a program of the equivalent of Pell Grants for K-through-12, so that parents could choose where their child went to school, whether it was public, or private, or home-schooling, and parents could be involved. Florida has a virtual school program that is worth the entire country studying as an example.
Michele Bachmann: In 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned for the presidency on a platform that included abolishing the U.S. Department of Education. Only recently created by President Jimmy Carter as a political favor to the teachers' unions, the department had failed to deliver either better test scores or more rigorous curriculum dedicated to academic excellence. That sounded like a good idea to me, because I have never believed in a federal control of the schools. The vast majority of parents can figure out for themselves how to educate their children and how to provide them with good values. And if some parents can't do so, well, there's most likely someone nearby who can step in. That's what I mean by local control and by the wisdom of letting the fifty states--all those separate laboratories of democracy--chart their own courses on education. The challenge of good schooling, I firmly believe, is best addressed as close to the student as possible.
Mitt Romney: Education has to be held at the local and state level, not at the federal level. We need to get the federal government out of education. And secondly, all the talk about we need smaller classroom size, look that's promoted by the teachers unions to hire more teachers. We looked at what drives good education in our state, what we found is the best thing for education is great teachers, hire the very best and brightest to be teachers, pay them properly, make sure that you have school choice, test your kids to see if they are meeting the standards that need to be met, and make sure that you put the parents in charge. And as president I will stand up to the National Teachers Unions.
I think the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is doing a good thing by saying, you know what, we should insist that teachers get evaluated and that schools have the opportunity to see which teachers exceeding and which ones are failing and that teachers that are not successful are removed from the classroom.
Rick Santorum: 20 years ago, the federal contribution to education was 3%. It's now at 11%, and our schools are doing worse. It's because of the federal government's meddling. The bottom-line problem is that the education system doesn't serve the customer of the education system. And who's the customer? The parents, because it's the parents' responsibility to educate their children--from the moment they were born, they began the education of their children. At some point, the government has convinced parents that it's no longer their responsibility. They force them, in many respects, to turn their children over to the public education system and wrest control from them and block them out of participation of that. That has to change or education will not improve in this country.
Jon Huntsman: This is a key question, because it has so much to do with our nation's competitiveness. I feel like I've run my own clinical trial in my home, raising seven kids. We've seen every option. We've experienced everything out there. But as governor I learned some important things. I signed the second voucher bill in the United States, Carson-Smith. I've actually done something about this. We actually worked on early childhood literacy. If you can lock in the pillars of cognitive development around reading and math before age six, you are giving those kids the best gift possible as they then proceed through education. Finally, you've got to say no to unfunded mandates coming out of Washington. They are totally unacceptable. No one loves their schools more than parents and local school boards, and local elected officials. Localize, localize, localize.
The Moderator: As President where do you stand on Gun Control? Would you support measures to increase it, decrease it, if so why and why not?
Tori Jacobs: I wouldn't mess with the current Gun Control laws in the country. I think the ones we have in place now are efficient, they don't need to be decreased and they certainly don't need to be increased. The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, it's clear as day in the Second Amendment and I have said time and time again that as President I will neither propose nor sign any pieces of legislation that violates the US Constitution and that isn't just limited to the Second Amendment. I'll also repeal laws that violate the US Constitution, such as the Patriot Act, NDAA and DOMA. Abraham Lincoln said that the Constitution is the safeguard of our liberties and as they protect our liberties we need to protect that safeguard from anyone who wishes to take our rights away from us.
Gary Johnson: I'm one of those who believe the bumper sticker: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The first people who are going to be in line to turn in their guns are law-abiding citizens. Criminals are going to be left with guns. I believe that concealed carry is a way of reducing gun violence.
Ron Paul: Gun-control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. But that is simply an impossibility. The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those who wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns.
Paradoxically, gun control clears a path for violence and makes aggression more likely, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government. I don't really believe “gun-free” zones make any difference. If they did, why would the worst shootings consistently happen in gun-free zones such as schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, the antithesis of a gun-free zone. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society. Even if you don't like guns and don't want to own them, you benefit from those who do.
Tim Pawlenty: I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and a strong supporter of training and background checks for citizens to carry firearms, so they'll always be limits but I find these limits to be appropriate. If we're to crack down on anything we need to crack down on illegal gun ownership and as President that is what I'll look into because it is the criminals on the streets who don't go through the proper channels and won't be hurt by tighter gun controls and those are the ones we need to make sure don't have the guns!
Herman Cain: I support the Second Amendment. I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I don't think this is a federal issue. Let each state pass a concealed weapon bill. Empower the states--some states already have it--and not have a federal mandate.
Newt Gingrich: The right to bear arms is not about hunting. It's not about target practice... The right to bear arms is a political right designed to safeguard freedom so that no government can take away from you the rights that God has given you, and it was written by people who had spent their lifetime fighting the greatest empire in the world and they knew that if they had not had the right to bear arms, they would have been enslaved. And they did not want us to be enslaved. And that is why they guaranteed us the right to protect ourselves. It is a political right of the deepest importance to the survival of freedom in America.
Michele Bachmann: The Second Amendment states that the people’s right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, and I believe that citizens who are in compliance with the law should not have that guaranteed right taken away. I am a member of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus which is a bipartisan group of nearly 300 U.S. Representatives and Senators committed to fish and wildlife conservation and preserving opportunities to hunt, fish and trap.
Growing up in a home that valued hunting and fishing, the Second Amendment is of equal importance as the other nine Amendments in our Bill of Rights. Since the age of twelve, when I passed my first gun safety class, I’ve enjoyed the privilege afforded us by the right to bear arms. While serving in the Minnesota State Senate I supported and helped pass the Minnesota Personal Protection Act and legislation to protect local shooting ranges. I will fight to uphold our Second Amendment rights.
Mitt Romney: Let me speak very directly and candidly about where I stand. I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It's essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly. I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect their homes and their families and as President, I will vigorously defend that right.
Rick Santorum: I am a firm advocate of a citizen’s right to bear arms. I am also a staunch defender of gun manufacturers, and voted in favor of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which among others, prevents civil suits from being brought against gun manufacturers for criminal acts perpetrated using their weapons. I worked with the NRA on trigger locks and background checks at gun shows, which is something I want to clear up for gun owners.
This was during the Clinton administration, where I voted against the gun ban, voted against the assault weapons ban, voted 100% with the NRA. And this was a piece of legislation that was crafted that the NRA endorsed, they supported, and worked with me to make sure that we'd not have something far worse pass. And so sometimes you have to pass something that can get enough votes to be able to satisfy folks that they won't pass something that's much worse. And so that's what you have to do to make sure that rights aren't taken away. I have a lifetime A-plus record with the NRA. They came to me repeatedly when I was in the Senate to help them and sponsor legislation and work toward making sure in ensuring gun rights.
Jon Huntsman: When people ask, 'Where do you stand on the Second Amendment?' I say, 'With a name like Huntsman, do you think I have a choice? I have always stood firmly for Second Amendment rights, and my record in Utah reflects it. While serving as the Governor of Utah, I endorsed and signed Senate Bill 78 (the right to lawfully transport and store firearms in privately-owned, locked motor vehicles) and House Bill 357 (allowing the presence of a concealed firearm in their own residence, on their own property, or in their place of business without a concealed carry permit). I supported the Second Amendment as Governor and I'll continue to support it if I'm elected President.
The Moderator: How would your religious beliefs, or the lack thereof, affect your decisions as President?
Tori Jacobs: My belief in God is not a filter that removes sound judgment, Mr. Moderator. On the contrary it is anything but. If there is anyone here today who is concerned that my spirituality will lead to favoritism then I welcome you to look at my record. I have extended my support to same-sex couples all around the country by proposing a federal marriage amendment which would grant them all the same rights as heterosexual couples.
I have also opposed government mandates over a person's personal life be it control of a woman's body, what you can put into yours or whatever. The First Amendment is very clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof and I will not respect an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy during the 1960 US Presidential Election: I am not a Christian candidate for the presidency. I am a Republican Candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency, who happens to be a Christian.
Gary Johnson: I am a non-practicing Lutheran. You do not have to worry about any of my decisions as President being influence by religion. You can look at my record as Governor of New Mexico and know that.
Ron Paul: Well, my religious beliefs wouldn't affect my presidency. My religious beliefs affect my character in the way I treat people and the way I live. The only thing that would affect me in the way I operate as a president or a congressman is my oath of office and my promises that I've made to the people.
Tim Pawlenty: Our founding fathers relied as much on God as on their own intellect and strength of character. Removing God from our conversations, our plans and our actions is not in the best interest of our country. The separation of church and state means the government may not impose any religion on the people or prohibit the free exercise of religion; it most definitely does not mean that the best path forward for America is to strike God from the equation. People often ask how I reconcile my faith life and my public life and to what extent my Christian faith influences my decision making. Faith is part of my experience, and it is the cornerstone of my value system. It is part of who I am and how I think. But there is a difference between believing in God and presuming God is on my side in matters of public policy.
Herman Cain: We live in a nation where most people have conservative social and economic values and where most people try to live their lives according to the morals and values taught to them in church and by their parents. The majority of the public does not support removing the words “one nation under God” from our Pledge of Allegiance. They do not support removing the words “in God we trust” from our currency. They do not support presidents who carry on extra-marital affairs with interns in the Oval Office of the White House. Democrats simply cannot understand why most people involve their faith in making the big decisions in their lives. They cannot understand why people do not and cannot switch their faith on and off because of a notion of “separation between church and state”--a phrase that does not even appear in our Constitution! For most people, their religious faith, their personal and business lives, and their political views are inextricably intertwined.
Newt Gingrich: I would say that there are three ways in which religion would affect me. The first is, I think anyone who is President is faced with decisions so enormous that they should go to God. They should seek guidance. Because these are decisions beyond the ability of mere mortals to truly decide without some sense of what it is we should be doing. I would say, second, that we have a real obligation to recognize that, if you're truly faithful, it's not just an hour on Sundays or Saturdays or Fridays. It's in fact something that should suffuse your life, to be a part of who you are. And in that sense, it is inextricably tied in with how you behave.
But I would say, third, one of the reasons I am running is there has been an increasingly aggressive war against religion and in particular against Christianity in this country, largely by a secular elite and the academic news media and judicial areas. And I frankly believe it's important to have some leadership that stands up and says, enough; we are truly guaranteed the right of religious freedom, not religious suppression by the state.
Michelle Bachmann: Thomas Jefferson stated it best: the US government should not be a state church. That's really the fundamental of separation of church and state. When Jefferson was asked whether the US would have a national church, he said no, because we believe in freedom of conscience, we believe in freedom of religious liberty, and expression, and speech. That's a foundational principle. But that doesn't mean that we aren't people of faith, and that people of faith shouldn't be allowed to exercise religious liberty in the public square. Of course we should be able to publicly exercise our faith. Whether that expression occurs in a public school or occurs in a public building, we should be able to have freedom for all people to express our belief in God.
Mitt Romney: I would seek the guidance of providence in making critical decisions. And of course, ours is a nation which is based upon Judeo- Christian values and ethics. Our law is based upon those values and ethics. And in some cases, our law doesn't encompass all of the issues that we face around the world.
The conviction that the founders, when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, were writing a document that was not just temporary and not just for one small locale but really something which described the relationship between God and man -- that's something which I think a president would carry in his heart.
So when they said, for instance, that the creator had “endowed us with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” I would seek to assure that those principles and values remain in America and that we help share them with other people in the world, not by conquering them, but by helping them through our trade, through our various forms of soft power, to help bring people the joy and opportunity that exists in this great land.
Rick Santorum: Faith is a very, very important part of my life, but it's a very, very important part of this country. The foundational documents of our country -- everybody talks about the Constitution, very, very important. But the Constitution is the "how" of America. It's the operator's manual.
The “why” of America, who we are as a people, is in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.”
The Constitution is there to do one thing: protect God-given rights. That's what makes America different than every other country in the world. No other country in the world has its rights based in God-given rights, not government-given rights.
And so when you say, well, faith has nothing to do with it, faith has everything to do with it. Which is why I cannot understand how Tori Jacobs can come up here, claim to be a Christian but then turn around and essentially say, “I don't believe in family, I don't believe in the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage.” and at the same time claim she'll protect the Constitution. I just don't.
The Moderator: Ms. Jacobs, I'm going to give you thirty seconds to respond to Santorum.
Tori Jacobs: Thank you. Senator, I do believe in family, the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage but here is where you and I greatly disagree. I do not believe family is “straight couples” only. Many members of the Republican Party has said for a long time that homosexuality is an attack on the sanctity of marriage, well many Americans and I will like to know why? Right now the divorce rate in America is the highest its ever been and all of those are straight couples. There are people who marry solely to stay in the country and those are among straight couples. If anything same-sex marriage would help 'reserve' the sanctity of marriage in this country.
We have children in the system who haven't been adopted because of the status quo that your children should be your own flesh and blood. There are gay couples who wish to share their love with a child but they are denied. Why? Because of some misconception that a child needs both a mother and father to be raised up properly? Why then don't we see a problem with children who are raised by single parents or whole communities. Why also do we claim to be pro-life until the child is born and the mom needs welfare because she isn't fit to raise the baby on her own and because we objected abortions so vocally she couldn't get one.
Mr. Moderator: Senator Santorum, thirty seconds.
Rick Santorum: I think what Tori is failing to understand is that just because “same-sex” marriage, at the moment, could help reserve the sanctity of it because of the high divorce rate doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. It sounds to me like Tori would be for allowing polygamy if it would reserve the sanctity of marriage just because the divorce rate has gone up. Tori, you're a lawyer, like myself, in court we rely on evidence to support our case. Isn't there a whole body of evidence out there, of 5,000 years of civilization, that shows plainly that children need mothers and fathers? That the basic unit of any successful society is moms and dads coming together to raise children?
Additionally, one of the key rights in the Constitution is the right to life. You cannot put a dollar sign on life, to that effect I agree with Tori. But that right to life include the rights of the unborn. So Tori, as President, can't protect the Constitution while at the same time being pro-abortion. We already have a President that doesn't understand this. We need a strong conservative leader who will defend everything the Constitution stands for, not just what's convenient to liberal voters.
Tori Jacobs: If we're going to get into history there is also evidence of homosexuality being institutionalized in societies in the past with no major repercussions to speak of. In places like Africa the Americas, East Asia and Europe. Homosexuality isn't anything new, it has been around for a long time and if it had ill effects on our children it would have been made known many years ago. In fact, the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study has shown on its 24-year long study on families with lesbian parents, finding that not one of the 78 adolescents in the study had reported being sexually or physically abused by their parents. This compares to 26% of American adolescents overall who report parent or caregiver physical abuse. 8.3% report sexual abuse.
Santorum, you talk about “evidence” in your views that children should be raised solely by heterosexual couples. But you conveniently forget that there is no evidence that life starts at conception, how then can the Constitution protect what has not been proven to be life? Show me decisive evidence that life begins at conception and I will reevaluate my stance but until then the government has no right to mandate a woman's body when they can't even support that the embryo at the time is in fact a life. The burden of proof falls solely on pro-life advocates not pro-choice, and by the way Santorum I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice, there is a difference.
The Moderator: Back to the original question, Governor Huntsman.
Jon Huntsman: I was raised a Mormon, Mary Kaye was raised Episcopalian, our kids have gone to Catholic school, I went to a Lutheran school growing up in Los Angeles. I have an adopted daughter from India who has a very distinct Hindu tradition, one that we would celebrate during Diwali. So you kind of bind all this together. So I'm not biased when it comes to my home, I wasn't biased in that aspect when it came to my Governor position and I wouldn't be biased if I win the presidency.
The Moderator: In closing, I'd like each of you to tell the American people here right now what are the key issues of your campaign. Ms. Jacobs.
Tori Jacobs: The three key issues of my campaign is the Economy, Education and Healthcare. We need to get the Economy back on track, we need to get jobs being made here in America and stop exporting to other countries. We need an Education reform plan that gives schools what they need to properly teach the next generation of Americans instead of punishing schools with a law so broken it's not even being enforced by anyone and we need a Healthcare plan that is clear in what it's trying to do and give people choices, with one of those choices of course being able to opt out of it.
Gary Johnson: The key issues facing our nation today is the size and cost of government and the deficits and debt, which unlike the wars we're pledging in the Middle East and Libya, are real threats to our nation's National Security and as President I'll work to get the size of government down, so the cost of government will go down.
Ron Paul: As the Champion of Liberties my key issues will always be defending the Constitution by fighting all things unconstitutional. I will work to remove the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education, get the government out of affairs that should be left up to the states and pass a Balanced Budget amendment.
Tim Pawlenty: This country has gotten off track thanks to the policies of this current administration and I'm here today to get us back on track as your President. In Minnesota I got, as governor, government spending under control. We did healthcare reform the right way, without any government mandates like the current administration is proposing with Obamacare and these are going to be the key issues of my campaign. I believe in a 5% growth rate for this Economy per year, and America has the power to do it.
Herman Cain: We need to get fuel back into the engine of our Economy, and we need to get politicians who have been working on a broken system out of Washington because they've been there too long. We need strong leadership and a bold plan to move forward. That's why I propose taking out the current tax code, get fuel back into the engine with 9-9-9, get our own energy up out of the ground and empower the states to do what they do with no “one-size-fix-all” approaches. Our key issue this election needs to be about bringing America back on top by reviving this Economy. Let get a business problem solver in the White House.
Newt Gingrich: What we have now in DC is the biggest food stamps President ever to be seen in American history. My goal is to get the American people off of food stamps and bring this country back around to the hard-working America that it was when I was a boy and I would do it by not increasing the role of Government as President Obama has. People say, “How do you manage that?” My Jobs and Prosperity Plan: No tax increase, 100% expensing, reduce business tax to 12.5%, eliminate cap gains and 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.
Michele Bachmann: Our number one priority in our campaign is Obamacare, and that should be the number one priority of everyone; to repeal Obamacare because we want to create jobs and Obamacare will kill jobs. It is a job killer. And an executive order isn't going to be enough to stop it, we need a strong conservative voice in the Senate, we have one already in the House, but we need it in the Senate as well so we can properly repeal and replace Obamacare.
Mitt Romney: I work my whole life in the private sector, I've seen how jobs come and I've seen how jobs go. This President, he's a nice guy but he doesn't know how the Economy works, I do. When I became Governor of Massachusetts I looked to use my experience as a worker of the private sector into government. And as Governor we created jobs in Massachusetts, we did healthcare the right way. Obama's healthcare plan wants to raise taxes and increase government spending by 500 billion. We didn't do that in Massachusetts. We lowered taxes, we decreased government spending and as President I'll use that same experience to help create jobs here in America and provide a healthcare system that doesn't increase spending. Thank you.
Rick Santorum: We have a moral obligation to this country to make sure that our values, and the founding principals of our Founding Fathers aren't toppled on by big government, aren't toppled on by special interest groups or people trying to redefine what the Constitution says. Right now we have a President who doesn't understand how America works and who doesn't understand what this country was founded under. Who doesn't understand what the Constitution says and who is right now this moment abusing the executive order to make laws without going through Congress and what we need is a strong leader who doesn't sacrifice their morals based on what's convenient and as President that is what I'll do and that is what my campaign is focused on. Bringing America back to the values that has made us the number one country in the world.
Jon Huntsman: The key issue of my campaign can be seen in my campaign's slogan: country first. We need to put our country first and foremost and to do that we need to focus on our Economy, we need to focus on Jobs creation and decrease our presence in foreign affairs. Let stand by our allies but at the same time let's get out of places we don't need to be now like Afghanistan and Iraq and extend our support to friends like Israel who face a nuclear threat in Iran. As Governor of Utah we've created nearly 60,000 new jobs, a historic high for our state. Our job growth reached 5%, more than the national average. Our unemployment rate of 2.5% reached unprecedented levels and was among the lowest in the nation. And Utah was recognized as America's sixth fastest growing state. I did it in Utah, I have the background to prove it, this is what I'll do if elected President.
The Moderator: And that's all the time we have for tonight's debate. I'll like to thank the candidates and all those here at attendance live and around the world for being here. We hope our time here has been beneficial for you and your vote, thank you and goodnight.
