tv Huckabee FOX News December 3, 2011 5:00pm-7:00pm PST
of deliver his message. i am harris falker. a special two hour live presentation of huckabee. he is hosting a forum with the republican candidates for president. it starts in four or three. have a great saturday. ♪ >> mike: welcome to huckabee. tonight our special presidential fom live from fox news headquarters here in new york city. featuring the republican candidates for president who will face questions from three prominent attorneys general. good evening, i am mike huckabee. since fox held the first presidential debate in may, the candidates have debated the issues 14 times . everyone of the candidates that you will hear from tonight could become president. you as the voters will weigh them based on fair and
balanced treatment. having been a candidate and experienced the frustration of an event that left some frustrated on the edges. we'll do everything that you need. each candidates that accepted our invitation will appear individually and answer questions from the panel and each panelle get len minutes and able to answer those questions in the time frame. candidates will be required to focus on the questions and they are asked not to mention or attack other candidates and the order in which you will see them tonight, determined by a drawing held prior to the event. there is no audience to influence your perception and then at the close each candidate will be given oneminute for sumation. we have attorney generals dully elected by the people. first in oklahoma, attorney general scott pruitt.
in the center florida attorney general pam bondi and rounding out our panel from virginia ken cuccinelli. my role as moderate will keep things move let each candidate to know when their time it is up. jon hunts man declined and herman cain declined before announcing earlier today he is suspending his campaign. we would love to hear your thoughts. you can post on facebook.com/huckabeeshow. and tweet using tag muck forum. before you get to the candidates. talk about what we hope will happen as a result of this forum tonight. scott, we'll begin wu. >> governor, what a great opportunity to talk about important constitutional principle. the role of state and government. and the state authority and
the affect from health care and immigration and education and environment. and as attorney generals each day, we deal with issues because we have a president who doesn't respect those principles and believe that is washington is always the answer . so tonight, to have the opportunity to discuss with the candidates their commit test their knowledge and see if they will be different is important to the americans. at the end of the day, it is not an abstract legal concept about constitutional or federalism. those issues are real and it is real because we want to protect rour freedom and liberty. >> mike: pam bondi. as attorney it is my role to protect our citizens of my state and defend our laws. now as scott said we have a president who is trying to undermine our constitution and i alongg with 25 other states, we have sued the federal
government regarding the unconstitutional health care man date. we will continue to sue all three of us all day long, but ultimately that is not what is going to fix america. what is going to fix america is electing a conservative republican president who shares our values and knows the true meaning of the constitution . >> mike: ken cuccinelli? >> governor i am a constitutional conservative and i am compeeled like my colleagues here to sue the federal government to product the constitution from the federal government and keep it from vialating its own federal laws whether it is it health care or epa. national relations board and fccc and the list goes on on. as pam said it is unprecedented how long that list is. it would be far better if i didn't have to play that role.
when constitutional conservative don't have sway to reign in government state attorney generals are the last line of defense against an overreaching federal government led as a president like president obama. in 2012, america needs to elect a president who will govern as a limited conservative president. the goal is to see how the candidates measure up we can find ourselves a candidate who reveres and respects the constitution and has a plan in limiting the government and returningitous the first principles on which the government would be built. >> house speaker newt gingrich is our first candidate. >> good to be with you, mike as always. >> i will turn you over to the attorney generals and let them have at you. pam bondi will start. >> speaker gingrich thank you for being here. your plan for empowering local
neighborhood bord -s to decide if certain illegal immigrants will stay in our country is criticized on the ground that it could undermine the rule of law and encourage more illegal immigrants to come to our country. how do you respond to those claims. >> the model that it was based on did not mine the rule of law and implimited the draft in world war ii and allowed local people much like a jury trial to render judgment about local people in what was seen as an effective model. second, i am suggesting that this only apply to people who are here a long time and have a real tie to the local community and exploring the idea that they have to have a family sponsoring them to be eligible for review. to suggest that a model that only works after 20 or 25 years, is going to be a mag
net is nonsense in addition to patrolling the border which is part of my plane we have a provision for a guest worker program that is legal and implimited by american express or visa or master card and you would have fraud f. you are a brand new person coming to the u.s., you would have a legal point of entry and no reason to believe that anyone would get across the border to stay here illegally 20 or 25 years to some day 2000 be for review. >> of course, the border is important and you spoke as jury trials. as a former prosecutor, my point of concern is putting friend and neighbors in the point of judging determine. >> that's the point of a jury trial and that's why founding father who is distrusted judges insists on juries.
ultimately the citizens have to bear the responsibility for their own culture and society. ultimately, i believe they are more are trustworthy. if you me, would i trust a jury or a washington burrcrat. i would rather have a jury decide my fate. >> mr. speaker, you speak passionately about first principles and smaller government and yet you supported individual mandidates for health insurance and joined pelosi with report to climate change and advocated with a specific role and had close tice to fannie mae and freddie mac. why should limited government conservatives trust that president gingy gingwill not advance big government approaches when you are president? >> first of all individual man date was developed by heritage foundation as a method to block hillary care and all of
the conservatives came to the conclusion that it was dangerous and more difficult to implement and guaranteed that politicians and politics would define health care and why the conservatives have left that kind of a model. i said publicly sitting on the couch with pelosi is the dumbest thing i have done. but i never favored cap and trade and actively testified against it. i was in the u.s. house and energy committee the same day al gore was there to testify for it and i testified against it . throughh american solutionns we fought it in the senate and we playedd a major role in defeating it. if you look at my record. the only speaker to get four balanced budgets and development of welfare reform. somebody who has advocated a balanced budget amendment and somebody at newt.org, has a 21st century contract with america and called for a
vigorous enforcement. >> mr. speaker you rattled conservative part of your record. but you have a nonconservative part of your record. what will you do to structure your administration to filter out what i consider to be nongovernment ideas that you produce and stick to a government that focuses on limiting the federal government and shrinking the power and spend how will you do that within your administration? >> first of all in my active role in the congress i helped ronald reagan in the '80s speaker of the house to shrink the federal government. >> i am asking as president. >> i start with the notion and i have done this before. you have some reason to believe that i can get to a balanced budget because i have gotten there and you should some reason to know i will controll spending because i have controlled spending
before. we have part of our contract with america a presidential appointee, you cannot get the scale of change we want and the teparity want by appointing good people who have no understanding of the fight they are about to be in and difficult and hard washington is. i think we have to have a clearly philosophically drin program that said this is where the administration is going. and by the way not just the administration, but you have to apply pressure to the house and senate. under our constitution. unless you have them moving with you. >> we are going to have to take a break. we'll continue with speaker gingrich after the break and give him all of his time. we'll be right back. stay with us. congratulations.
congratulations. congralations. today, the city of charlotte can use verizon technology to inspire binesses to conserve energy and monitor costs. making communities greener... congratulations. ... and buildings as valuable to the bottom line... whoa ! ... as the people inside them. congratulations. because when you add verizon to your company, you don't just add, you multiply. ♪ discover something new... verizon. smany great pioneers before me, guided only by a dream. i'm embarking on a journey of epic proportion.
i will travel, from sea to shining sea, through amber waves of grain, and i won't stop until i've helped every driver in america save hundreds on car insurance. well i'm out of the parking lot. that's a good start. geico, fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent, or more on car insurance. [ male announcer ] every day, thousands of people are choosing advil. my name is lacey calvert and i'm a yoga instructor. if i have any soreness, i'm not going to be able to do my job. but once i take advil, i'm able to finish out strong. it really works! [ laughs ] [ male announcer ] make the switch. take action. take advil.
c>> mike: welcome back to huckabee and our special republican presidential forumment we'll continue with former house speaker newt gingrich. the question comes from scott pruitt. >> mr. speaker, goodening. president obama seemed to think that washington has all of the answer to the national problem. as you know they don't require national solutions can you name problems that congress and president should not solve? >> absolutely. education should be trurned to the state and states should be
encouraged to adopt themselves. medicaid back to the state. it is clear that the federal government has fail to manage that. i want develop an environmental solution to replace the epa. it has to look for entrepreneurism and collaborate to state to local government. >> with regard to education largely returned to the states what does that. >> it will be returned to the citizens. the 10th amendment talks about the states and the citizens and it is not just moving power for example for washington d.c. to richmond or tallahassee or washington d.c. to oklahoma. it is moving power and i tell every group of citizens, if we shrinkk the washington burrcrats we grow lets citizenship. i would advocate that states consider a pel grant for k-12
so that you, every parent decides where there grant goes and you return power to the parents than the government. >> mr. speaker you propose impeaching judges that rules unconstitutional, but advocating abolishing appellate courts. if president obama were to eliminate a judgeship where the judge ruled against the man date in the signature health care law, would that be an appropriate application of the plan. >> first of all the president couldn't do it he would have to have the support of the house and senate to do it. i mentioned judge barry who issued a rulog june 1st that said students couldn't pray or use benediction or invocation or god or ask people to stand or have a moment of silence and hehe said if these are broken, i will put the superintendent in jail. as far as i am concerned he is
anti-american >> you want to eliminate the court. that is the jeffersonian solution from 1802, but you can only do it if you have the house, senate and president. >> understood. >> speaker, you supported the obama administration use race to the top to promote charter schools and calls for states to adopt rigorous education standard. we agree that race to the top is a good thing and charter schools. but is it wrong yes or no, is it wrong for the federal government to intrude over the state's authority? >> it is wrong. that's why i recommend we return the power to the state. on the other hand presidents can go to a state and say, i urge you to adopt the pel grant and charter schools. nothing wrong with the
president being a of the country. but that is different of saying the federal government sets the rules. >> you can't have it both ways. >> the government is not going to dictate but the president can advocte change. >> mr. speaker, i want to follow up on the appearance of nancy pelosi and climmate change. >> yes. >> you said that was the dumbest thing you have ever done. >> in recent years. was it dumb because of bad politics or policy. >> i think it innovation and look at positive ways of solving things. i was trying to make a case about a conservative environmentalism and that's why i am for environmental solution agency to replace the epa. frankly she was radioactive that it was impossible for a conservative to be in the same
set and not have everybody go that is crazy. they never heard your message. i wrote a book called contract with europe. in an effort to argue there are sound promarket science and inivation that would lead to a improved environment than you get out of lawyers and regulators and oh, pa. >> mike: we have final 30 seconds. >> who is your favorite founding father and why? >> joc washington we all stand on his shoulders and this is his command flag from valley forge. without george washington we would not have america and he was in the field eight years and from your state, he returned to mount vernon for one week in eight years. that's what he thought freedom was worth and that's the standard from us. >> mike: mr. speaker thank you for your time away from the
[ man #1 ] i was fascinated by balsa wood airplanes since i was a kid. [ man #2 ] i always wondered how did an airplane get in the air. at ge aviation, we build jet engines. we lift people up off the ground to thousand feet. thesengines are built by hand with very precise assembly techniques. [ man #3 ] it's gonna fly people around the world. safely and better than it's ever done before. it would be a real treat to hear this monsterire up. [ woman ] i think a lot of people, when they look at a jet engine, they see a big hunk of metal. but when i look at it, i see seth, mark, tom, and people like that who work on engines every day. [ man #4 ] i would love to see this thing fly. it's a dream, honestly. there it is. awesome. that's so cool! yeah, that was awesome! [ cheering ] i wanna see that again. ♪
cwelcome back to huckabee. joining us now is former pennsylvania senator rick santorum. first question from pam bondi. >> senator you said in the heritage foundation foreign policy debate that in the civil war abraham lincoln ran over our civil rights. are there parts of the patriot act that run over rights of season. >> no. >> why. >> they are consistent with what we are doing with drug king pins and gangsters and were not applied because we had a different model. we were not dealing with terrorism prior to the events of 9-9-9. our law didn't anticipate having to broaden what were
criminal opportunity to find out and intervene and wire tap and use the tools of the recent tools for finding out information and apply those to a terrorist setting . now we have the opportunity to do so. >> >> how did abraham linn conrun over civil rights. >> suspending habuous corpus. but the president was dealing with an inis surrection. approximate he did what he did to hold the union together. we are not in a situation like that where we have that problem. but we have problems on our home soil and we have to make sure our laws can find the terrorist and that are hoim grown. >> strength in the family is important to you and us, is that a proper function with respect to the federal government and if so how? >> it is. as you know karen and i are father and mother of seven children and family is
important to me and important to america. we have seen a federal government that has undermined the family in a lot of ways and look at what we have done in our welfare prospects. a lot of folks listening here tonight know people whose father and mother are living together and they are not married and they can receive welfare benefit to support the children. we do things to break families apart with government aid. we do things to not encourage marriage. those are thing law that we with for the marriage tax penalty that penalized them in the tax code. there is things that presidents can do to make sure the laws support the famils there. is discussions we can have. it takes a family is a book i wrote. i talk about a program in chattanooga, tennessee called first things first. they found out that the
divorce rate, the out of wet lockk birth rate and number of single mothers was one of the highest in the state of tennessee. they were appalled by that that it was going on in the community. they came together and the nonprofit businesss and the education community and government and formed a group to actually go out and promote marriage and promote policies to reduce divorce and it was a bipartisan and led by leader in the community. like a president can lead a revitalization of marriage. and focus on the issue of divorce without passing laws. the president can convene and start a national discussion and that is rarely used. >> where do the states fit in that with respect to welfare reform. where do the states fit in the model with the federal government? >> i was the author of the of
federal reform bill when i was in the house and carried the bill on the senate. it is the only time we have taken a federal program and eliminated and sent back to the states. we need to do the same for food stamps and medicaid and housing programs and job training programs. all of these programs are administered by the states but have a heavy federal component that doesn't belong had there. the role for the states is to get back to taking care of the health and welfare of the citizens. we should cut the program and cap it and freeze it and give that money back to the states with the flexibility to manage the program. >> you describe yourself pro life want a limited role for the federal government. since the constitution doesn't speak to the authority to regulate abortion, how would you weigh protecting the rights of unborn
suddenchildren through a federal law and limited partnering constitutionalism by allowing the states. >> i support a amendment to stand up for the right to life . that intimately involves the states. the process requires the ratification of that amendment by the states. i have been always a supporter that we need a uniformed law on values -- excuse me that undergird our country. that's why i feel strongly and promoted the federal marriage amendment and. we can't have 50 definitions of marriage in this country. family is too important. just like the sanctity of human life is a value and in our founding document. declaration independence and whole heart of american exceptional is life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and
if we can't institutionalize that. i don't think our founders could have envisioned that we would have a country that allowed >> i think you made it clear. we'll get to other questions. >> senator, in florida, it is frustrating. as you heard. i had to sue the epa to stop from imposing unsusable water standards on my state and devastating to the businesses in the florida. the obama administration pursued numerous, numerous environmental policy thalce affect all of us in different ways that impose staggering costs on the american people. what principles would you follow in deciding whether to approve any environmental regulation? >> i would say this, what we have seen is a radical environmental policy put forth in this administration and
based on poorly crafted legislation that is in place rightt now. you have endangered species act that is a heart of the problems that we dealt with in pennsylvania. central valley in california and seen these policies because you have poorly drafted. deliberately drafted pieces of legislation that are overly broad. it is national labor reulation and boeing situation in charleston. but you have a broadly worded statute. look at obama care. 700 places where the secretary can rewrite the bill. >> but what would you do, senator? >> i am getting there. >> what i believe we ought to do. we have authorization of the acts and you i they don't want to refight the war. as president, i will not
enforce and sign a straight reauthorization and continue to enforce an act that is not reauthorize. we'll force congress to take the statutes and fix them and have congress make the decision of what the laws are. >> senator having served in the senate you observed the separation of powers between the powers of government. why did thers create separation between the powers. >> they did it to protect the rights of the states and citizens. they went farther than that. the way we establish the congress was that they had the united states senate be selected by the state legislatures instead of the people. there was a intent that the federal government would be limited and the states would have a belt and suspenders ability to keep the power at the state level and it means
it would be closer to the people and they would control that power. we changed that with the 17th amendment and one of the reasons i am a supporter of balanced budget with a gap, because it guarantees limited government and guarantee states and people being more free. >> mike: we are down to final two minutes. i will turn to -- >> senator president obama's refusal of defining the marriage act. constitutionally why is the president wrong? >> first of all the president has the obligation to defend the laws of our country. this bill was passed and stands up for an institution that has been in place for a longg time. the president's autobiographyligation to enforce the laww and when it is challenged, his obligation to step forward and argue that case. i am happy he isn't. because he was still on the
case. he was giving up on it. >> they were rolling over. >> they were rolling over and i am sort of glad eric holder is not defending the defense of marriage act which he doesn't support. >> if a court found it unconstitutional and you were the president would you stand by that ruling? >> i would do whatever i could in passing a new law and i did this in the partial birth abortion case. the supreme court struck down the nebraska statute on partial births. we passed a new law . laid out the reasoning and why the court was wrongg and repassed the bill and president bush signed it and the court five years after they found it unconstitutional. i think it is important when the presidentings we are a equal and co-equal branch of government. we have a right to say what is constitutional as the supreme court. if they got it wrong, i would
fight to have another case brought before them. >> 20 seconds. that's all. >> are the courts the ultimate and only arbtraittor of the constitution. >> not -- absolutely not. and i am the only one in the field who did something about it and i called for the abolishment of the ninth circuit. i am out of time. >> mike: thank you very much for coming off of the campaign trail and being with the attorneys. >> great to be with you. >> mike: we'll see senator santorum at the end of the forum. coming up rick perry and michele bachmann and texas cram cramm ron paul and mitt romney. stay with us. one more gift...
[ gasps [ male announcer ] if you're giving an amazing gift, shouldn't it be given in an amazing way? ♪ ♪ the lexus december to remember sales event is here, but only for a limited te. see your lexus dealer for exclusive lease offers on the 2012 es 350 and, as a gift from lexus, we'll make your first month's payment. i wish my patients could see what i see. ♪
that over time, having high cholesterol plus diabetes... or high blood pressure... or family history of early heart disease... can put them at increased risk for plaque buildup. and they'd see that it's more important to get their cholesterol where their doctor wants. and why for these patients, when diet and exercise alone aren't enough, i prescribe crestor. adding crestor lowers bad cholesterol by up to 52%. and is also proven to slow plaque buildup. [ female announcer ] crestor is not right for everyone. like people with liver disease... or women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. simple blood tests will check for liver problems. tell your doctor about other medicines you're taking. or if you have muscle pain or weakness. that could be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. is your cholesterol where your doctor wants? ask your doctor if crestor is right for you. [ female announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astra zeneca may be able to help.
♪ >> mike: welcome back to huckabee and our special republican presidential forum. joining us is texas governor rick perry and the first question from ken cuccinelli. >> good to see you. >> yes, sir. >> you said if elected you would issue a executive order to bloke the health care law. >> absolutely executive order and in those agencies there i a substantial amount of that
bill that allowed for the agencies to put the rules in place. i am going to put people in as head of health and human services that share my philosophy that medicare, for instance needs to go back to the states and lord willing we'll get rid of that with a supreme court rulog the - ruling on the constitutionality. and thank you for being great attorney generals from that standard. >> it sounds like you are ready to use an executive order to void the law. >> absolutely. i think. >> what is your authority for that? >> suit executive order gives you that authority and also as i said earlier, having men and women in those agencies that are going to share your philosophy and that is an important message. not just health and human
service. in my plan to get america back to work. i talked about the energy industry and department of interior open up the federal land and waters and so we can get into and explore and get america more independent. millions of jobs can be created and have the security of domestic energy. >> we are getting away from the question. i want to be clear to make sure i understand it. >> you are taking the position that you can stop the implementation of the law with an executive order. >> i am saying we can start parts of it. other parts would be done in the rules stand point and they would be implemented by health and human services. >> governor perry, the right to work states, workers are not forced to join the union to be employed.
all three of us here represent right to work states and we admentally impose the national labor board attempt to stop boeing from adding a plant in south carolina because they are a right to work state. do you favor passing a national right to work law? >> actually, i believe that the states the responsibility of doing that. big 10th amendment supporter that i am, states compete against each other and i used to go over and try to get jobs out of arkansas and mike would be over to get them out of texas other than. >> mike: don't tell us how it turned out. >> that's how we get stronger as a country. states say we don't want to be a right to work state. places like texas or florida or virginia or oklahoma, they are going to be more competitive and with the tax policy and regulatory policy
and legal policiless that's how you make america competitive. get the federal government out of the one size fits all. even for things we think we would like. some states out there say we don't want that and people can vote with their feet and that's why poom move to texas now. we made it a very, very good place for business men and women put their capitol and know they will have a return on their investment. >> governor, as the governor of texas and expenses for health care and medicaid as relate to illegal immigration costs our state billions of dollars. should the federal government be required to reipburse. >> we send a bill every year and i am sure the governor did the same in arkansas. but yet to be paid. the real issue is border security. we have to deal with the
issues is because of the abject failure of the federal government to defend and schecure the border. i have dealt with it 10 years now. a sheriff arpayo he endorsed me in the campaign. you know what, this is the one guy who understands how to secure that border and that's what we have to do as a country. a president that is committed to securing that border. we know how to do it, but don't have the resources for a 1200 mile bord tore secure it the way it needs to be done. fencing and boots on the ground and aviation assets in the air. i made a commitment that 12 months after being inaugurated as president that would be shut down and secure. >> it is clear that you you are passionate and clear that the federal government has refused to do the job. >> absolutely. >> would you allow the state
to sue the federal government for the reimbursement of costs. in the end of the day that is it a nonissue because we will secure the border and all of the issue that is we are facing as governors will be eliminated. >> we'll have to take a break. we'll come back with more with governor rick perry. stay with us. we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] if you think tylenol is the pain reliever orthopedic doctors recommend most for arthritis pain, think again. and take aleve. it's the one doctors recommend most for arthritis pain... two pills can last all day.
obligation to intervene on the education of the children? >> no, and here's the reason why. if you believe in the 10th amendment and if you believe that those people in the state are going to impact the legislators, they will do that. and i think that is a situation that we would not find ourselves in because by the time a school failed, the children or the parents would have intervened and the legislators would have intervened. our problem is a federal government who is intervening too much with programs. i truly believe that the education of the children is a state and local issue and the federal government needs to stay out. >> talking about all of these programs, governor. would you get rid of federal assistance for school lunch and pel grants. gi bill? >> absolutely. there is a better way to those
dollars. there may be some of the programs. gi bill that we leave in place. but the idea that the federal government needs to take as many billions as it takes from the state up to washington d.c. and running it through the department of education and picking winners or loserings, i don't agree with that at all. look at every program. i do away with the department of education. i would do away with it. it is a waste of time and money. the state is aly - a better place to educate children. >> what does a strict constructionist mean to you. >> alito and roberts are the type of jurist. a strict constructionist and not a legislator in a robe. we have about four of each of those right now on our supreme court. and that's the reason that i have called for in my
overhalling washington a term for supreme court justices. instead of the lifetime appointments. there is no accountability there and no check and balance. if you put a term, and now obviously that would take a constitutional amendment. i believe in it so much that that is what we need to do from the standpoint of making sure we don't have legislators in robes on the court today. the idea they are telling us how we can pray, the idea of how they are telling us our kids can pray in school and tell us in texas we can't have 10 commandments on the capitol grounds that is offensive to me. and a lifetime appointment for folks who think that way is not too good. >> have the judges in texas matched that model. >> absolutely. i have put great justices and six of the nine i believe on
the texas supreme court. they have to run for office and we have had openings. but those justices have been strict constructionist when it comes to making decision yimpt am proud of those men and women. >> governor what is preferable to you. overturns roe versus wade and returning the to the state. >> until you get the constitutional amendment passed. states we have parental consent and passed a son gram bill in the state of the texas this last time. we have protections for our individuals and until we pass that life amendment to the united states constitution. i want to protect life in the states. i am for both until we get the constitutional amendment in our u.s. constitution passed.
>> other than overseeing questionable union elections, is there any reason that labor law has to be dominated by the federal government or can it be left to the states? >> it can be left to the states as well that is the same as right to work laws. if people in states want to put their businesses in a competitive disadvantage and make people join unions that ought to be their call. >> would you except for overseeing union elections. would you be raid to get the federal government out of it and leave it to the states? >> absolutely. in >> mike: we are in the final minute. >> who is your favorite founding father and why? >> madison. because he was those federalist papers and the things that he put together, i mean, just an incredibly brilliant visionary individual. >> thank you.
>> one final thing. we have all talked about strict constructionist. for the lay men. out there help them understand what that means. >> lit is right there. i took it out of my paper. that is the constitution. read exactly what it said. don't read anything to it and don't add to it and don't add different clauses whether it is the commence clause and any other clause trying to change what the founding fathers were telling us. >> mike: thank you, governor. thank you, governor rick perry . we'll see governor perry in the end of the forum. you can post it at facebook.com/huckabee show . tweet. coming up minnesota congresswoman michele bachmann and texas congressman ron paul
and minnesota governor mitt romney. we'll be right back . [ mujahid ] there was a little bit of trepidation, not quite knowing what the next phase was going to be, you know, because you been, you know, this is what you had been doing. you know, working, working, working, working, working, working. and now you're talking about, well you know, i won't be, and i get the chance to spend more time with my wife and my kids. it's my world. that's my world. ♪ [ knock on door ] coo you found it. wow. nice place. ye. [ chuckles ] the family thinks i'm out shipping these. smooth move. you used priority mail flat rate boxes.
if it fits, it ships for a low, flat rate. paid for postagenline and arranged a free pickup. and i'm gonna track them online, too. nice. between those boxes and this place, i'm totally stayinsane this year. do i smell snickerdoodles? maybe. [ timer dings ] got to go. priority mail fla rate shipping at usps.com. a simpler way to ship. with less chronic low back pain. imagine living your life with less chronic osteoarthritis pain. imagine you, with less pain. cymbalta can help. cymbalta is a non-narcotic treatment that's fda-approved to manage chronic musculoskeletal pain. one pill a day, every day, can help reduce this pain. tell your doctor right away if your mood worsens, you have unusual changes in mood or behavior or thoughts of suicide. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. cymbalta is not approved for children under 18. people taking maois or thioridazine or with uncontrolled glaucoma should not take cymbalta. taking it with nsaid pain relievers, aspirin, or blood thinners may increase bleeding risk.
severe liver problems, some fatal, were reported. signs include abdominal pain and yellowing of the skin or eyes. talk with your doctor about your medicines, including those for migraine, or if you have high fever, confusion and stiff muscles, to address a possible life-threatening condition. tell your doctor about alcohol use, liver disease, and before you reduce or stop taking cymbalta. dizziness or fainting may occur upon standing. side effects include nausea, dry mouth, and constipation. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor about cymbalta. imagine you, with less pain. cymbalta can help. go to cymbalta.com to learn about a free trial offer. it's 4g, so you can do more faster. so, kathryn, post more youtube videos of your baby acting adorable. baby. on it. matt, ignore me and keep updating your fantasy team. huh? jeff, play a game. turbo-boosting now, sir. dennis, check in everywhere you go on foursquare. that's mayor dennis... of the water cooler. you're the best. liz, rock out to pandora. oh, no i'm an only child. and nick, you shouldn't even be here, you can do everything from the golf course. good? good. [ male announcer ] on at&t,
blackberry® torch moves at the speed of 4g. ♪ you are a strong opponent of the health care because of the individual man date and went so far to say that the state cannot pass the individual man date. what is the constitutional basiss for that. >> it goes back to the liberty interest. there is reasonable disagreement on that issue. the overriding issue that i want the american people to realize if we do absolutely nothing obama care will be implement it will change the
face of the country forever. it will cost trillions over the year and take away our liberty and have potential collapse in medicare. and it is also for the first time in the history of the country it has taxpayer subsidized abortion . it is the social engineering playground to the left and has to be stopped. one theng i would like to mention in august of this year. president obama in a stunning lilf of power demonstrated how far a president can go with obama care. he ordered every private insurance company in the united states to now offer free of charge the morning after abortion pill . contraceptives and on and on. and this is it. what i want people to know. we have one chance to get rid of the bill in this election cycle. >> congresswoman virginia passed a statute that no could be force to buy health
insurance and came thing? oklahoma, are you saying that is unnecessary and the states didn't have the authority to do that anyway? >> no, you have the authority to pass the statute, but the federal government and obama care bill will trump the states statutes. you demonstrated that this is the opinion of the people in oklahoma and people of virginia. you don't want to come under that federal government restriction. but the problem is, it is the law of the land right now . if we do nothing, it will continue to steam roll every state that there is. i don't want to see socialized medicine the law of the land and fundmentally foundation of socialized medicine. >> congresswoman, thank you for being here. you pledged to deport all eight illegal aliens. that will cost 135 billion. how do you plan to pay for
that and execute that plan? >> first of the all, i want people to know that there is a cost already to having illegal aliens in the united states. it costs taxpayers 113 billion every year and 32 billion of that costs is absorbed by the states and that works out to a thousand dollars per american household. i agree, this is the thorniest and most difficult issue in dealing with imlegal immigration and what about deportation? i believe we should uphold the laws of the land. how do we pay for it? the american taxpayer. >> what is your plan for executing that? >> for executing. >> carrying out the plan. >> good question. enforcement in the border and also by the ice agents. right now the ice agents in the interior the country are tasked with enforcing the law, they are not enforcing them
and we have sanctuary cities now where they don't enforce the laws on deportation. we need to start enforcing the laws which we are not doing and begin the process of deportation. >> as attorney general in the state of the florida that money could get dumped on my state. >> i don't blame you. it must not. look at arcticle one section 8 of the constitution what congress can do specific enumerated power that the government needs to deal with securing the border. that is the federal government's role and not the state's role. it is very important that the federal government pays for the costs that. is the burden. the cost every year 113 billion but the states are bearing 82 billion. the federal government needs to pay for the deportation cost.
congresswoman michele bachmann republicans support tort reform. you are a leadership in limited government. there is a bill to allow the federal government dictate how the state judges are to try medical mal practice cases and cap what awards can be given by juries under the state do you support that bill? >> i support tort reform absolutely. 45 lows lawsuits are out of control. there is an issue with the 10th amendment. some states implemented caps on the 45 lows lawsuits and lawsuits that came forward. one state is california. >> you support tort reform and so do i. but do you support federal tort reform that governs how states may conduct the medical practice trial. >> i can come out in support of that. this is an issue that is a fundmental issue and something i can support. >> okay.
we'll continue with congresswoman michele bachmann after the break. stay with us. we'll be right back. there he is, gordon jones, poised at this moment to discover new plum amazins from sunsweet, the amazing alternative to raisins and cranberries with 50% more fiber, about half the sugar, and a way better glycemic index. yes, that's the stuff. he's clearly enjoying one of the planet's most amazing superfruits. amazin' yes, plum amazins, 100% fruit with so much more nutrition and taste it's simply, amazin'. hey, keep it down mate, you'll wake the kids. plum amazins. new, from sunsweet. wait a second... with olay challenge that. new regenerist wrinkle revolution... relaxes the look of wrinkles instantly, and the look of deep wrinkles in 14 days. ready, set, smooth... regenerist. from olay.
s s smany great pioneers before me, guided only by a dream. i'm embarking on a journey of epic proportion. i will travel, from sea to shining sea, through amber waves of grain, and i won't stop until i've helped every driver in america save hundreds on car insurance. well i'm out of the parking lot. that's a good start. geico, fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent, or more on car insurance. ♪ ♪ ♪ when your chain of supply ♪ goes fr here to shanghai, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ chips from here, boards from there ♪ ♪ track it all through the air, that's logistics. ♪ ♪ clearing customs like that ♪ hurry up no time flat that's logistics. ♪
superintendents, especially in iowa. if i was able to repeal all of the federal education law and do away with the federal department of education and you wouldn't get the money that the federal government sends down to you, would you take that deal? >> they said, absolutely we would take that deal. the amount of money we get from the government doesn't begin to cover the costs of the mandates they put on us. we didn't have a federal department of education before the late 1970s. so we can certainly get along without it. >> you said you would uholish the epa. as a practical meafert, how would you deal with pollution across state lines? >> we have 50epa's. every state has one. there are issues in the state. i think on a case by case basis, the federal government gets involved whether it is clean air or clean water or if it is on our international border and we need to deal
with other nations. it is more on a case by case basis. what we can't have at the current department of epa, they have become a government to themselves almost. and they are changing the course of history every day. >> i agree with you about the aggressivness -- the overaggressivness of the epa. you said on a case by case basis, you don't mean you would pass a law for every instance of a coal plant in ohio's pollution coming into pennsylvania, and then something else from one state to another, do you? >> that's right. >> is that what you intend? >> legislation is one thing. negotiation is another. i think a lot of these issues can be negotiated. if the two states that you mentioned, the two states can get together. >> but you cannot just negotiate without a legal foundation, and there by compel both sides to participate. you can't do that. so what is the -- if they won't negotiate, then what?
>> you are making a very good point. i think when we send the power and the authority back to the states, that's the place to begin. there may be a need for new legislation that comes forward , or there may be a limited role within another department to be able to take care of it. i am not opposed to the federal government. it is special -- certainly reasonable to deal with some of these issues, but let's look at what we are talking about with the epa. right now they want to impose a new tax because of cap and trade. they are changing our economy. they are literally writing the rules and taking over businesses because of what's happening with the epa because they are putting so much heavy burden and requirements -- >> you are talking to a crowd that are suing the epa in one way or another. >> what we were trying to get at is your alternative. i think you have probably -- >> and i am not opposed to new legislation to deal with that again. it is -- on a case by case
basis or a very modified form. the current epa has to go. >> we are less than two minutes for this segment and pam, you have the next question. >> this is a practicing lawyer congressman bachman. other than row versus wade what is the worst united states supreme court decision in the last 50 years? >> in the last 50 years i would say the all time worst was the dred scott decision. in the last 50 years there are so many it is hard to choose. i will go with the kilo decision. the kilo decision offended me tremendously. it was a government entity taking away the private property interest from one individual because it would benefit government in the form of revenue, and then giving that private property to another. that's a terrible decision. >> congresswoman, in that regard, what would you do from the federal government's perspective to protect private property? >> to protect private property? the federal government needs
to stand up in terms of legislation, and also from the legal perspective. if there is a case that goes before the court, they need to follow the constitution, and they also need to have reference with the declaration of independence. that's part of our government that we uphold private property rights. that hasn't happened a lot in recent years, but it must. >> we are in the final 30 seconds of the segments. do you have a question? >> kilo is one of my top ones as well. you expressed support for a federal human life amendment. why is it preferable to allowing the state to have their own policy on abortion? >> because life is the fundamental issue. if you go back to the declaration of independence we have inalienable rights. those are the rights god gives to us and not man. the reason the governments were instituted according to the declaration of independence was to protect the inalienable rights which includes life.
this is a special republican presidential forum. joining us now is congressman ron paul from texas. nice to have you. >> good to be here. >> congressman, you advocate for pure constitutionalism. given that filter, what do you think are the primary domestic responsibilities of the federal government. >> domestic responsibilities? >> protecting the borders. providing a sound economy -- a sound currency. that's in the constitution very clearly. it is a major issue. really enforcing the bill of rights. they are very specific, and that is property rights as well as freedom of speech and all of those other things. those would be the major issues. the constitution overall would be a major issue as well. >> congressman, good evening to you. in 1995, we lost 168 oklahoma anes in a domestic terrorist
attack. melissa houston, my secretary general, is a survival of the blast and spent many years after that utilizing tools of the patriot act fighting domestic terrorism. you have come out opposed to the pay tree yekt -- patriot act based on privacy concerns, and i too share your concerns with respect to privacy. what thoughtful alternative do you have to prevent further acts of domestic terrorism in the future? >> you say your goal is preventing all crimes and all criminal acts. you destroy liberty by doing that. the patriot act, if it would have been called the repeal of the fourth amendment, it wouldn't have passed. that's essentially what that does. that's way too much sacrifice of liberty. but there are laws in the books for violent acts. if you think you can pass enough laws to prevent all crimes and all acts of violence, just think of the acts of violence that occur in
our household. are they going to put cameras in every household? i don't think it is a lack of laws that is our problem. >> congressman, you don't believe there needs to be a comprehensive law at the federal level equiping law enforcement to prevent terrorism in this country? >> i don't believe we need a comprehensive law at the federal level. i believe we need state law to prevent violence. the one law that we totally ignore, and that is that terrorism is a crime, and it is not a war. we have drifted off to be called, this is a war on terrorism, and it is a justification to pursue war. not only around the world, but even domestically. and so i would say it is a crime. the constitution i think is very clear. there is nothing in our constitution that says the violent act should be a prerogative of the government. they didn't offer a national police force. even today. if you are talking about
criminal acts of violence, murder, manslaughter, robbery, that's all the state issued. the nationalization of law enforcement, i mean, we have already a hundred thousand federal bureaucrats carrying guns. we don't need anymore federal policemen. and i think the problem isn't a lack of federal laws. >> congressman, what would you call the attacks right around the corner on the twin towers in new york city? what would you call those? >> that's an act of violence. >> is that an act of terrorism, congressman? >> it is a terrorist attack. and we do have responsibility from pre -- protecting our borders, but it is an act of terrorism. we should be checking our borders and finding out who is coming in. but we ought to understand that whole problem rather than just saying what we need is more federal policemen, and it is a lack of federal police
activity and guns that will make us safer. if you don't understand the motivation and all of the problems of why we are facing this crisis and why people want to come here and kill us, just more laws won't do it. this whole thing is all messed up because what we have been told for 10 years is that people want to come here and commit acts of terrorism against us because we are free and prosperous. as long as people believe that, believe me we are not going to solve the problem and we are not going to make people any safer. >> different topic. president obama has had the audacity to say the republican approach to the economy means dirt yes,irtier air and water and less people with health insurance. is that what less federal regulation means? >> no. matter of fact, i get charged with that all the time. i don't want the federal regulations, and most republican conservatives don't need or think we need more
federal regulation. they say you will have people in the streets and no medical care. the whole thing is, if you don't have regulation -- say in the environment and different things or regulation on banking regulations, actually the market is a real strict regulation -- it is a strict regulation. our problem today is when you write the regulations say on drugs, the drug companies get involved and they write the regulation. banking regulations are written by the banking community. they become the law. so it isn't the lack of regulation. but if you have the market. you have the property rights and the contract rights and you have bankruptcy laws. and those are strictly enforced. it wasn't a lack of regulations that caused the enron scandal, but it was the market that took care of it. those individuals were convicted in texas court for fraud, and they went to prison. no, we have to answer back. i think we do a lousy job on that. they are saying the liberals grabbed the moral high ground
and say we are going to take care of anybody. people will be suffering and there won't be any medical care. it is up to us to argue the case that the markets can answer. property rights can solve just about all of these problems much more than the bureaucrats in washington. >> we have to take a break at this . more with congressman ron paul right after this break. stay with us.
let's continue with the texas congressman ron paul. for the next question, scott pry -- pruitt. >> you said on fox news sunday that medicare, medic cade and social security are unconstitutional. i presume that means you will eliminate those programs. how will you do it? >> if you think so. you all work on obamacare, and you talk about it being unconstitutional because there is a mandate. but how many other programs in medicine -- they are all mandates. do they not have to pay medicare taxes? i looked at article one section 8 and where does it say the government should be involved in education and medicine.
the question is how do you get rid of it? >> how do you do it? >> you can't do that overnight. matter of fact, i go to extreme of saying that for the -- for those individuals who have been totally de pen department, children and the el -- totally dependent, children, and there is a horrible budget crisis. it would be creating anarchy it would be so bad. if we wanted to save this country, we have to cut. i have a program where i want to cut a trillion dollars. a bunch comes from overseas, and a bunch comes from five departments. going back to the budget of 2006. actually, i would preserve some of the programs. when i present this program, i say for the purpose of phasing them out. for instance, my program actually allows people under 25 to get out of social security. but to cut that off and think you can do that overnight isn't going to work. you have to have a transition program.
technically speaking they say, are they constitutional? where is the authority? i don't know where the authority s. there is no authority for one penny to run education. i think that's why we are in such trouble. there is no respect at all for the constitution. >> congressman, you are very clear if you think they are unconstitutional. why would you sign a budget you think contains something unconstitutional? >> other than that, you have two choices, you can either work our way out of this, or you wait until it collapses and we have to rebuild it. i am just saying that you can't -- even on the federal reserve everybody knows my position on the federal reserve, and it is unconstitutional. i don't advocate you close down the federal reserve tomorrow. i have transition programs. and that makes a big difference. >> let me move to another topic. which comes first in your mind, the sovereignty of the people, the sovereignty of the states or the sovereignty of the federal government?
and please put them in order. >> the people of the state and then the federal government, and very little for the federal government and none for international governments like the u.n and nato to get authority for the things we do around the world. >> congressman, are there any amendments to the constitution that you believe are mistakes? >> that i believe what? >> are mistakes. >> are mistakes? >> yes. >> there was one -- >> try to keep it to a few. >> i am not quite hearing you. >> i said try to keep it to a few. >> oh, a few. and you said amendments to the constitution. well, one of the worst was the prohibition that lead to a horrible decade, and then we repealed that one. the repeal was very great. there is not -- i mean, obviously the bill of rights, those are amendments and they
are great. the other ones are sort of not for me to get riled up about. i am so concerned about not following the constitution we have on the property rights and the rule of law and the monetary issues and going to war issues. those are the kind of things i am concerned about in the constitution. >> we are in our final minute. >> short on time. quick question, if you could suggest every american read one book, what would it be? >> one book? excluding something religious oriented. >> it could be. >> well, i think to simplify things, to get a message out since we are talking about politics in the law, people if they want to read a short book to really wake them up on what the law should be they should read a book called "the law." if they read that and find out the moral principal behind the
law saying that you as an individual can't do certain things. if you can't do it, the government can't do it. if you can't steel from your neighbor, you can't send the politicians to steel from your neighbor. the law is a basic principal we are starting with and i think it will introduce a great idea to a lot of people. >> thank you, congressman ron paul. you can post your thoughts about the forum. we would love to hear from you. put it at the wall at facebook .com/huckabee show. coming up, our final canld debt, mitt rom -- candidate, mitt romney. stay with us. we will be right back.
s . welcome back to huckabee. this is our special forum. joining us is mitt romney. governor, it is good to see and you thanks for joining us. >> thanks, mike. >> and i will turn you over to scott pruitt for the first question. >> governor, good evening. >> hi, scott, and thank you to you and to pam and ken for participating in this. it has been an interesting show to watch so far. i hope it stays that way. >> governor, you have traveled to oklahoma, and you know oklahoma is a leader in energy from oil and gas to coal to wind. so when the energy ceo's tell me your epa or your epa administrator may not be much
different than the presidents now, what do you say to that? >> well, they don't know what i would do if i were the president of the united states. you know, one of my good friends is mike levit who was the epa administrator under george bush. i asked some of the executives what it was like, and they said it was a lot better than it is today. i think the epa has gotten out of control for a simple reason. it is a tool in the hands of the president. to crush the private enterprise system and to have energy with the oil, gas, coal, and there is a real effort on some in the president's party that don't like the american enterprise system, and they are trying to do everything they can to impede the growth of our economy and our energy independence. and i look at the effort on the epa to stop -- to step in the way of fracking and to eliminate the potential in some states to have our access to natural gas and our oil,
and say this is in an effort to say let's go solar and wind. let's raise the cost of energy dramatically. it is entirely opposite of the view. we need a federal government that sees its job as helping the private sector grow and add jobs. >> you mentioned hydrolic manufacturing. the state -- the current epa administrator is marching toward having a federal government overseas. would you put a stop to that? >> absolutely. u hit the nail in the head. the epa and the extreme voices and the party are frustrated beyond belief that the states have the regulatory authority of refracking. and right now, i guess something close to 70% of the oil wells have been fracked. they have managed it well, but the epa wants to get in and grab more power.
basically they will try and move the whole economy away from oil, gas, coal, nuclear and push it into the renewables. we all like the renewables. but renewables alone are not going to power this comple. -- this economy. among other things, i would greet the epa out -- i would get the epa from carbon dioxidey emissions. that was not a pollute meant. -- pollute tent. it is one of the agencies most being used by this president to try and hold down, crush and insert the federal government into the life of the private sector. >> governor, in a general election debate. -- debate, president obama will say his healthcare law was based on your massachusetts model. what would be your response to the president in that debate? >> i sure look forward to that. i would say, mr. president, thank you for the compliment, but why didn't you give me a call? why didn't you pick up the phone and ask me what i would
do differently and what i would do the same. >> well, let me ask you, what would you do differently? >> a lot of things. the bill i proposed was different than the final bill. some measures in the final bill i vetoed. they were overridden by the legislature. i'm sure in the years that have passed some things have seemed to gone well and some things needed to be adjusted and improved. do i like to build overall? yes. am i proud of what we did for our state? yes. what the president has done is way beyond what we envisioned. we were trying to take care of the 8% of our population that didn't have insurance. the president is not just worried about the people wots insurance. obamacare is about taking over 100% of the people insurance in this country. >> you would acknowledge, you would agree that even when you are trying to take care of the 8%, what you did in that bill affected the entire industry in massachusetts, correct? >> it a limited way, if at all. for the 92% of people who already had insurance, nothing
changed. they continued to get the insurance from the private insurance companies, and the 8% by the way also got private insurance. they didn't get government insurance. they got private insurance. for the 92% that were already insurance i had, nothing changed. we hoped what we would do would bring down the cost of healthcare in a modest way. that didn't happen. some say it has come down a little bit, or the rate of growth has come down a little bit. but in terms of getting down the cost of healthcare, that's the real objective we have to be looking at at the federal level. >> governor romney, in 2008 you campaigned in favor of the federal no child left behind act. but more recently, have you stated that the federal government should get out of education. under a romney administration what role would the federal government play in setting education policy? >> well, let me say that i continue to support aspects of no child left behind.
i am not looking to change that position in anyway. the federal government has a role to stand up to the federal teachers' unions. the federal teachers' unions are impeding the education of our kids by preventing cyber learning and preventing choice this schools merit pay for the best teachers, and president bush recognized that the only way for us to determine which schools were succeeding and which were failing, which schools were succeeding and which were failing was to test our kids. the only way that can happen is for the federal government to stand up to the huge federal teachers' unions. he stood up to them. we don't have to have the federal role. education should be held at the local level. it should be managed and controled by the states, by the the localities and by the parents and the families, and not by the federal government. but the role of insisting that
we will test our kids that was put in place by no child left behind was an effort by president bush to say stop to the teachers' unions. >> quickly, would you support federal assistance for school lunch, pell grants and gi bills? >> the whole series of items there. in some cases yes, in some cases no. most of the programs that deal with the poor, and you mentioned pell grants or assistance for lunch. i look at a lot of programs. i will examine them one by one. you should craft the plans. it is different being poor in massachusetts than -- or mississippi or michigan. it is different from medicaid, but for housing vouchers and food stamps, and even for school lunch programs. >> governor, perhaps your next administration -- this administration starting, there
may be several uh appointments to the u.s. supreme court. you said you want to point strict constructionists to the bench. what does that mean to you to a point? >> i would like people who recognize that their job is to protect the constitution. i follow the constitution as written and intended. follow the laws of congress as written and intended. rather than having the supreme court see its role as springing from or departing from the constitution of laws. and i look at the opinions of the last several years by justices like roberts and elito and thomas and scalia. i want justices that are brilliant, strict constructionists who are able to convince their colleagues they are right on key issues, who share my values throughout, and i want to see people with an extensive track
record either as jurists, or if they have been in the -- for instance, the academic profession. i want to see a real track record. i don't want to just take their word. i want to see it in practice. >> governor romney, to change subjects, as you know there are countless illegal immigrants coming into my state in florida. given the federal government's complete failure to do their constitutional duty and protect my state in securing the border, what should florida do to address this problem? >> pam, my view is that states have a responsibility to care for the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of their citizens. and if the federal government is failing to fulfill their responsibility to enforce the immigration laws, the states should have to take action. i took action. there was an effort on the part of the legislature to pass a bill providing in state tuition to illegal immigrants. i vetoed that. there was a discussion of
driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. i actually empowered our state police to work with ice to be able to carry out federal immigration laws to make sure we found people who were in our state illegally, who committed crimes and got them out of the country. i think we are going to have to recognize that the federal government has to stetson up and do its job. secure the border and crackdown on players. >> this question to ken. >> governor, other than seeing elections, is there any reason the labor law has to be run, or can it be eliminated and turned over to the states? >> that's a fair question. >> i hope so. >> exactly. i don't mean to be insulting. back in the days of law school and labor law classes and suggestions, one of the real questions was do we need federal labor law? that's where things have evolved. the first step we have to take is to completely revamp the national relations board, if
not eliminate it altogether, and turn back to courts or to an agency with shorter reins. my own view is that states should be putting in place right to work laws to allow the people of their states to participate and not join a union. >> governor, that sounds like a maybe on the getting rid of. >> 20 seconds left. >> at this time i would not oppose getting rid of all federal law. we have to rain in the power of the national labor relations board. my preference is return power and authority to the states. >> and we have to close it out at that point. every candidate has had exactly the same amount of time. governor romney, thank you for joining us tonight. up next, all six candidates coming back. their final thoughts on tonight's republican presidential forum.
each of the six candidates had equal time to answer our panel questions. now they are joining us all once again, and each of them have exactly one minute each to give us their final thoughts for tonight. now in the order you will see them was determined by a drawing prior to tonight's program. first up, governor mitt romney from massachusetts.
governor romney? >> thank you, mike. this 2012 election is really going to be an election which presents a choice to the american people about what kind of america we will have. historically, this has been what david brooks has called a merit-based society. individuals based on their education, risk taking and a little luck can have rewards based on success they achieve. that has lead us to be the strongest nation in the history of the earth. it is a nation of freedom and opportunity. president obama and his friends have a very different view for america. they want to see an entitled -based society where you take the rewards from some and spread it out to everybody else. and whereby the way the best rewards go to the people who do the spreading, the people in government. are we going to be a free society with free individuals pursuing their own course with free enterprises or a nation governed by the government. i am convinced this is a time where america will have to make that choice. i spent my life in the private
sector. i know how to make this country strong and great by applying the principals that always made us great. thank you. >> thank you, governor romney. next, governor rick perry of texas. governor perry? >> mike, thank you. and boy, it has been a wild and wooly ride in this primary. i suspect that will stay the same. i hope everyone will give me a second look and look at my plan that cuts taxes and balances the budget and gets america working again. and it overhauls washington. in one of the ways it does that, we will put a part-time congress in place. think about that. send it back to their own districts to have a real job working in their home districts. that's the way you make a difference. i have lived a purpose-driven life, and our country is in trouble and needs us working together to take our country back. so i hope, again, that you will take a look at my plan and give me that second opportunity. i will promise you this, that
every day i will work to make washington, d.c. as incon sequential in your life as i can. god bless you, thank you for your support and your vote. >> thank you, governor rick perry. our next candidate is congressman ron paul of texas. congressman paul? >> i thank you, mike. tonight we talked a lot about the federal government with the state government. and we realize it is such a mess. we turned the constitution on its fed. the -- on its heads. it is a consequence of our carelessness with the constitution. our congresses, our courts as well as the executive branch have taken over too much of the power. now it falls on the states because they are suffering the consequences, and the states have this responsibility to do something about it. the one issue we have to revisit because the founders understood it, and that's the
principal of null law pho location. if the --nullification. i would respond in a favorable way of reinstituting the null law pho location. the states have to nullify this. it would stop all of the powers and the privileges from the states to the government. >> thank you very much, congressman ron paul. our next candidate is speaker newt gingrich. speaker gingrich? >> i want to thank you and the attorneys general for what is a very useful evening where people can look at the issues and see some very, very intelligent professional people asking some very good questions. this may be the most important election since 1860. eight years of barack obama would be a disaster. if he gets re-elected with this economy, this deficit, these problems, he will think it vindicates his radicalism and his commitment to fundamentally change america.
we need your help because this is a big election. we have changes to make that are so big not one president can make them alone. if i tell you to vote for me you will go home and say i hope newt fixes it. i want you to vote with me. we have to stand shoulder to shoulder to get congress to do the right thing. i look forward to working with you, and i want to thank you and the attorneys general for what i think was a very, very useful evening. >> thank you, speaker gingrich. our next candidate is congresswoman michele bachmann. congresswoman? >> well, this is the most important election of our life stime. -- life lifetime. we have a chance to take our country back in 2012. we were promised in 2008 hope and change. we didn't get hope and change in the way we thought we would. this is our chance to have real hope and real change as president of the united states, i am going to unite our
country. i am going to grow the economy. i know how to do that as a tax attorney and also as a business owner. i think more importantly we have to realize we have some hard, significant work to do. that hard work will payoff. it will payoff in the form of millions of new jobs being created. it will payoff in terms of growing the economy, legalizing the american energy production and bringing down the price of gasoline. we can do all of this and have the hope that we want for our children. we can do it if we stand together and unite our country. >> thank you, congresswoman. our final candidate we will hear from is senator rick sontorum. senator? >> thank you. it is great to be with you tonight. you were a great warrior for faith and family on the campaign trail four years ago. i know everybody said we need a truce on those issues. we need to focus on creating
jobs and tackling the huge government that is spending too much and driving our country into bankruptcy. those are absolutely right. but you might know what is at the heart of this. america is a moral enterprise and we are sick from the inside when it comes to the state of the family and the state of the moral enterprise that is america. when we have thousands of children being aborted every day, and we see marriage being attacked and falling you -- falling apart. a truce is not a truce. it is a surrender. ladies and gentlemen, i will not surrender the values of this country. i will stand and defend america. >> my thanks to all of these candidates. we will be back with some final thoughts. hope you will stay with us.
joining me are three attorneys general. thank all of you for being with us. final thoughts first with ken. >> well, governor, i think this was successful in focusing on the difference between the federal government and the states and the balance between the two. nobody bonned here. -- bombed here, but some people really shined. they are commited to reining in the federal government as it relates to our state. >> we heard more about the constitution than every other debate combined. we heard substantive conversations without fighting, so thank you for puting on this debate. >> and for that reason, governor, it was a wonderful success. we heard from our candidates they would be different. it is exciting. >> i thank all of you for
being here. i want to thank you for joining us. it has been a historic night to have all of the candidates here and to give them equal time and give them time so they talked about the issues and they did not talk about each other. i hope you have enjoyed it. it has been a meaningful and up substantive debate and maybe one that could become a model for the future. i know what it is like to be on their side of it, and all of them did an outstanding job. here is a reminder, the next fox news presidential debate will be on december 15th at 9:00 p.m. eastern. brett bier will be serving as moderator. now from new york for this special edition of "huckabee" this is mike huckabee, good night and god bless.
Uploaded by TV Archive on