this president has sanitized every defense document. everything. the word radical islam doesn't appear anywhere. why? because we're fight -- we're trying to fight this politically correct war and not talking about how they hate us and what we must do to stop us. >> we know you have differences with president obama, but who has the better argument between snoe santorum and huntsman? >> i would send troops back into iraq. >> now? >> i think we start talking with the iraqi individuals there, the idea that we allow the iranians to come back into iraq and take over that country with all of the treasure both in blood and money that we have spent in iraq, because this president wants to kowtow to his liberal leftist base and move out the men and women. he could have been renegotiated that time frame. i think it's a huge error for s us. we're going to see iran in my opinion, move back in at literally the speed of light. they're going to move back in and all of the work that we have done, every young man who's lost his life will be for nothing because we have a president who doesn't understand what's happening. >> do you agree, mr. speaker, send back troops now? >> no, but i had bud mcfarland introduce me and he was ronald reagan's national security adviser. i worked with him in the '80s on the strategy to defeat the soviet empire. if you're worried about the iranians in iraq, develop a strategy to replace the iranians dictatorship and iraq will be fine. if you want to stop wahhabiism, get an american energy policy so no american president ever bows to a saudi king. then you can put pressure on the saudis because you have enough american energy to stop this. >> governor romney, let's -- you have said that you would not send troops in right now. but give us a sense of the trigger, what would it take for you to send troops back in? >> it's a very high hurdle. the decision to send our men and women into harm's way is one which will be made with great seriousness and sobriety -- >> what kind of things? >> you can't begin to say, but it would have to require significant, dramatic american interests. you have to have a president explain the interests and indicated how we'd go in. we'd go in with exceptional force. we'd indicate how we'd define also when we're completed, how we get our troops out and what's left behind. the president didn't do that in libya. the president hasn't done that anywhere. i find it amazing that we have troops in harm's way around the world and afghanistan right now, in iraq, in the first three years of this president's term. he doesn't go on tv and talk to the american people about the sacrifice being made by the men and the women. a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom in america. the hurdle to put in our troops in harm's way is very, very high. the test is america's interests. our security interests. and they have to be involved at a very significant way to deploy our troops. >> i want to give congressman paul a chance to weigh in here, because a lot of people think foreign policy is your achilles heel at getting elected. you think that a nuclear iran is none of our business. how do you reconcile that -- >> i think that's a misquote. i don't want iran to get a nuclear weapon. i voted to go after bin laden. this when to go in, i think we made it much more complicated than it should be. yes, the president is the commander in chief, but not the king. that's why we fought a revolution. we could have saved ourselves a lot of grief if we had gone to war in a proper man. and let congressmen and senators make a declaration of war and we make these decisions. but we went into afghanistan, we went into iraq and now we're in pakistan. we're involved in so many countries now, they want to move on to syria. and they -- there's some in washington now can't wait till they start bombing iran. we have to change this whole nature. something happened this week i thought was encouraging, it reminds me of how we finally talked to the chinese. they have killed 100 million of their own people, but we broke the ice by playing ping-pong. but today, the american navy picked up a bunch of fishermen, iranians, that had been held by the pirates and released them. and they were so welcomed, it was a wonderful thing to happen. this is the kind of stuff we should deal with. not putting on sanctions. sanctions themselves are always leads up to war. eastern europe is going to be destabilized if they don't have this oil. and this just pushes iran right into the hands of the chinese. so our policy may be well intended, but it has a lot of downside. a lot of unintended consequences. and unfortunately, blow back. >> final word on this from senator santorum. >> well, ron, if we had your foreign policy there wouldn't have been a fleet to pick up the iranian fishermen and the fact is we did have a beneficial relationship with picking them up and we have a very great relationship and which should be much bet we are the iranian people. the iranian people have come to the streets, have taken to the streets repeatedly and still do trying to overthrow their president and we had a president of the united states who stood by as thousands were killed on the streets and did nothing. in fact, he tacitly supported the results of the election. ahmadinejad announced after polls were closed that he won with 60% of the vote and the president of the united states said that sounds like a legitimate election. obviously a chicago politician. but that's not what a president of the united states does. he doesn't get up and condone this behavior and turn his back on the folks in the street. when i was in the united states senate, i pushed to help those revolutionaries before the revolution, to give them resources. to make sure that we had the relationships so because i knew and if you take polls they do, in iran, the iranian people love america because we stand up for the truth and say and call evil which is what ahmadinejad and the mullahs are and we need aat to help them do what is necessary which is turn that regime out. >> we have to go to break. much more to come. be right back. i had enough of feeling embarrassed about my skin. [ designer ] enough of just covering up my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. i decided enough is enough. ♪ [ spa lady ] i started enbrel. it's clinically proven to provide clearer skin. [ rv guy ] enbrel may not work for everyone -- and may not clear you completely, but for many, it gets skin clearer fast, within 2 months, and keeps it clearer up to 9 months. [ male announcer ] because enbrel suppresses your immune system, it may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal, events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, and nervous system and blood disorders have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if, while on enbrel, you experience persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. if you've had enough, ask your dermatologist about enbrel. i think we should see other people. in fact, i'm already seeing your best friend, justin. ♪ i would have appreciated a proactive update on the status of our relationship. who do you think i am, tim? quicken loans? at quicken loans, we provide you with proactive updates on the status of your home loan. and our innovative online tools ensure that you're always in the loop. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. welcome. i understand you need a little help with your mortgage, want to avoid foreclosure. smart move. candy? um-- well, you know, you're in luck. we're experts in this sort of thing, mortgage rigamarole, whatnot. r-really? absolutely, and we guarantee results, you know, for a small fee, of course. such are the benefits of having a professional on your side. [whistles, chuckles] why don't we get a contract? who wants a contract? [honks horn] [circus music plays] here you go, pete. thanks, betty. we're out of toner. [circus music plays] sign it. come on. sign it. [honks horn] ...homes around the country. every single day, saving homes. we will talk it over... announcer: if you're facing foreclosure, make sure you're talking to the right people. speak with hud-approved housing counselors free of charge at... so you're asking clear -- you're asking the ko constitutionalist here. >> do you believe that states have that right or not? >> george, i don't know whether the state has the right to ban contraception. no state wants to. >> you've given two answers to the question. do you believe that the supreme court should overturn it or not? >> do i believe the supreme court should overturn -- do i believe the supreme court should overturn roe v. wade, yes, i do. >> go ahead, senator. >> i didn't know whether -- i didn't know whether i got time when it was favorable or not. but thank you. no, i think the fourth amendment is very clear. it is explicit in our privacy. you can't go into anybody's house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant. i'm don lemon at the cnn headquarters. tonight cnn is bringing you an encore presentation of the abc/yahoo/wmur new hampshire more in a moment but first a check of your headlines. one year ago today, gunfire at a tucson, arizona shopping center left six dead and 13 wounded including gabrielle giffordss. several events took place including a vigil on the university of arizona campus. giffords and her husband, mark kelly, will be there. crowds of people packed public spaces across syria again today demanding the ouster of president bashar al assad. opposition activists say at least 21 people were killed in attacks throughout the country. officials from the arab league again condemned the violence and said they will increase the size of their monitoring mission in syria. north korea is marking what's believed to be the birthday of newly installed leader, kim jong un. a documentary that aired shows the son of kim jong-il in his role of military leader driving a tank, inspecting troops and rising horses. most analysts put the new korean leader's aides at either 28 or 29. prominent political adviser and d.c. pundit tony blankly died after a battle with stomach cancer. he was on former white house newt gingrich's staff from 1990 to 1997 and later served as a political commentator for nbc and npr and on "the washington times." he also was a speechwriter in the reagan administration. more of the new hampshire debate right after this. cnn is bringing you a special encore presentation. for a limited time, passages malibu will be giving away free copies of the alcoholism & addiction cure. to get yours, go to ssagesmalibubook.com. once again, diane sayier, george steph nop lis. and we welcome you back. we want to talk more on jobs right now and specifically the ideas the candidates have, individual, unique ideas for creating more american jobs. and specifically jobs asking about what we think created the age of american energy which was infrastructure. >> infrastructure, and we have an example of that in new hampshire. if you traveled i-95 north you probably went over what was a widening project that's going on, about $350 million away from getting the project completed. a lot of people here think this is a very important project to get done in terms of our regional economy. so the question is, again, infrastructure. with the increasing demands on our roads and bridges and the aging roads and bridges, how committed would you be, and we'll start with you, governor romney, to invest not so much as a stimulus package, a true economic growth package on our infrastructure? >> well, there are certain things that government can do to encourage an economy and rebuilding an infrastructure that's aging is one of those. we had my state, 550 structurally deficient bridges. we've got to improve our bridges. improve our roads. improve our rail beds. improve our air transportation system in order to be competitive but fundamentally what happens in america that creates jobs is not government. it has its role. but by and large, it gets in the way of creating jobs. it's taxed too much. it regulates too much. it has energy policies that keep us from using our own energy. it has trade policies which too often favor people that are taking jobs away from us, so we're going to have to have government change its orientation to be encouraging the private sector. and fundamentally what it makes america, the most productive and the wealthiest nation of the major nations of the world, our gdp per capita. our income per person in america is 50% higher than that of the average person in europe. why is that? it's because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the american people of the ability of americans to innovate, to create. we have a nation which is based upon opportunity and merit. we draw people here who seek freedom. and these people have built enterprises that employ and that make america stronger. we have a president who has an entirely different view. he wants us to turn into a european-style welfare state. and have government take from some to give to others. that will kill the ability of america to provide for a prosperous future and to secure our freedom and give us rights which have been in our declaration of independence and our constitution. i believe in an america that's based upon opportunity and freedom, not president obama's social welfare state. >> speaker gingrich, i know you agree with governor romney again on his views on president obama but how would your plans on job creation distinguish you from a governor romney? >> you're talking about infrastructure? >> infrastructure and more broadly job creation. >> let's theic with infrastructure which i think is a big and important topic. you cannot compete with china in the long run if you have an inferior infrastructure. you have to move to a 21st century model and you have to be technologically smart and, for -- and you have to make investments. so, for example, here, the northern pass project ought to be buried and should be along the state's right of way which means you're using modern techniques to bring electricity from quebec to boston in a way that preserves the beauty of new hampshire. i would have an energy program designed to get us free from saudi arabia, iran, venezuela. two-thirds of the government revenue from that would go to debt reduction and the opaying off the debt. one-third would go for infrastructure which would give you the act to have an infrastructure program that would actually get us back on track. and you look at places like the highways you're describing, the bridges, if you don't have some systematic investment program then you're not going to be able, i think, to compete with china and india. >> governor huntsman, where's the money going to come from? >> we've got to earn our way forward. there's no question about it. governors learn how to pay the bills. in order to pay the bills, you've got to expand your economic base. that's the problem we have in the united states now. we read about the jobs that have ticked upward in this country and we're all very happy about that. we're providing people more in the way of real opportunity. but think of where this country would be if during the first two years of barack obama, you would -- it would have had a different president. i would have ripped open the tax code and i would have done what simpson/bowles recommended to the tune of $1.1 billion. we've got a corrupt tax code. you've got to say how are you going to pay for it? we've got to stimulate some confidence in the creative class in this country. right now, they're sitting on their hands. and they're not going to have a more optimistic view of our direction. >> you have the same amount of revenue as simpson/bowles plan. that was the commissioner appointed by president obama. would anybody else on the stage agree? >> i'm sorry? >> to raise the kind of revenues called for in the simpson/bowles commission? >> no, no, i wouldn't. in fact, our plan puts together a package that focuses on simplifying the tax code. i agree with jon huntsman on that. five deductions. health care, housing, pension, children and charities. everything else goes. we focus on the pillars that have brought consensus to this economy. important sectors of our economy, including our children. the corporate side, we cut it in half, 17 1/2%. i do something different. i'm very worried about a sector of our economy that has been under fire. i come from southwestern pennsylvania. the heart of the steel country. the heart of manufacturing. and it's been devastated because we are uncompetitive. 30 years ago, we were devastated because business and labor didn't understand global competitiveness. and they made a lot of mistakes. they weren't prepared for it, we lost a lot of jobs. that's not what's happening now. our productivity gains, our labor force, they're doing their job. they're being competitive but they're running into a stiff headwind called government. and it's government taxation. 35% corporate tax. which is the highest in the world. it's a tax that doesn't easily offset when we try to export which makes it even more difficult for us to export. >> -- for lowering the corporate tax -- >> -- to zero it out for manufacturers and processors. which is what i do. because we are at 20% cost differential with our nine top trading partners on average. and that 20% cost differential, that is excluding labor costs. so it is government taxation, eliminating the corporate tax gets rid of a big chunk of that. it's regulation. this administration is on track. i think it's congressional research service, they look at regulations and they price the highest cost, ones over $100 million. and bush and clinton, there were 60 on average per year under those two administrations. last year under president obama, there was 150 of those types of regulations. >> senator, what's wrong -- >> i would repeal every one of them and replace them with ones that are less costly or not replace them at all. >> why not go to zero? >> to zero? there's no question it would be great not to have any taxes. unfortunately, we have to have taxes to pay for our military, to pay for the programs that pay for those who can't care for themselves. but our taxes are too high. government at all levels during the days of john f. kennedy consumed 27% of our economy, about a quarter. today it consumes 37% of our economy. we're only inches away from no longer being a free economy. and our democrat friends wants us to just keep raising taxes a little more. just give us a little more. government is already too big. we have to rein in the scale of the federal government. so we do need to have our employer tax rates brought down to be competitive with other nations. that's about 25%. we also have to make sure we give relief to people who need it most. the people that have been hurt in the obama economy are the people in the middle class. and so i've put in place the significant savings incentive. tax reduction. i eliminate any tax on savings for middle income americans. no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains, but i look long term to do what jon indicated. take bowles/simpson and reduce the rates in our tax code, limit the number of deductions that could occur and limit the number of exceptions that can occur. i don't want to raise capital gains tax rates as they do in bowles/simpson. broadening the base is the right way to go for our tax code long term. immediately, let's get some relief for middle income americans. >> co