My comments are IN CAPS.
Moderators Megyn Kelly, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace introduced the candidates and the debate began.
BAIER: Let’s get started.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, as you may have heard, the 2012 Republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney, had some things to say about you today.
He said your domestic policy will lead to recession, he’s said your foreign policy will make us less safe, and then he listed what he said are your personal qualities. Quoting now Romney on Trump, quote, “the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd, third-grade theatrics”.
He challenged you to answer with substance, not insults. How do you answer Mitt Romney, sir?
TRUMP: Well look, he was a failed candidate, he should have beaten president Obama very easy.
He failed miserably, and it was an embarrassment to everybody, including the Republican party. It looked like he went away on a vacation the last month. So, I don’t take that, and I guess, obviously, he wants to be relevant. He wants to be back in the game.
As far as domestic policy and trade which is killing our country, he said free trade and I believe in free trade also. But, if you look at China, and you look Japan, and if you look at Mexico, both at the border, by the way, where they’re killing us.
Both at the border, and with trade — and every other country we do business with we are getting absolutely crushed on trade. And, he said free trade, I say free trade great. But, not when they’re beating us so badly.
With China we’re going to lose $505 billion dollars in terms of trades. You just can’t do it.
Mexico, $58 billion dollars.
Japan, probably about, they don’t know it yet, but about $109 billion dollars.
Every country we lose money with. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve got to reduce — we have to redo our trade deals 100 percent. I have the greatest business people in the world lined up to do it. We will make…
TRUMP: … great trade deals.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, Romney also talked about your position on race, and the controversy over your failure to denounce David Duke on Sunday. You have repeatedly disavowed him since then, but I’d like to go deeper than that. What are your views on the Klu Klux Klan, and white supremacists?
TRUMP: I totally disavow the Klu Klux Klan. I totally disavow David Duke. I’ve been doing it now for two weeks, this is your — you’re probably about the18th person that’s asked me the question. It was very clear, that question was also talked about in the form of groups. Groups, I want to know which groups are you talking about? You have to tell me which groups?
Ultimately, he got to the Klu Klux Klan, which obviously I’m going to disavow. And, by the way, if you look on my Twitter account, almost immediately after the program they were disavowed again.
You know, it’s amazing. When I do something on Twitter, everybody picks it up, goes all over the place. But, when I did this one nobody ever picks it up. Take a look at my Twitter account.
WALLACE: Thank you, sir.
TRUMP: Thank you. Thanks.
BAIER: Senator Rubio, three weeks ago you said, quote: “I don’t do the personal attacks, primarily because it’s not who I am, because I think it’s beneath the office that I’m seeking but also because I don’t want to embarrass my kids.”
But in the past week you’ve mocked Mr. Trump’s tan. You’ve made fun of his spelling. You called him a con artist. You suggested he wet himself backstage at the last debate, along with other vulgar jokes and jabs. So what happened?
RUBIO: Yes, you know, Bret, let me say something. This campaign for the last year Donald Trump has basically mocked everybody with personal attacks. He has done so to people that are sitting on the stage today. He has done so about people that are disabled. He has done it about every candidate in this race.
So if there is anyone who has ever deserved to be attacked that way, it has been Donald Trump, for the way he has treated people in the campaign.
Now that said, I would much prefer to have a policy debate. I hope that’s what we will have here tonight. Let’s have a policy debate…
TRUMP: And we will.
RUBIO: … let’s talk about Donald Trump’s strategy and my strategy and Ted’s strategy and John Kasich’s strategy when it comes to ISIS. And on health care and on the important issues facing this country.
But let’s be honest too about all this. The media has given these personal attacks that Donald Trump has made an incredible amount of coverage. Let’s start talking again about the issues that matter to this country. I’m ready to do that starting right here right now tonight.
BAIER: Mr. Trump, your response?
TRUMP: Well, I also happened to call him a lightweight, OK? And I have said that. So I would like to take that back. He is really not that much of a lightweight. And as far as — and I have to say this, I have to say this. He hit my hands. Nobody has ever hit my hands. I have never heard of this. Look at those hands. Are they small hands?
TRUMP: And he referred to my hands, if they are small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there is no problem. I guarantee.
BAIER: OK. Moving on.
KELLY: OK, Senator Cruz, you say that you are the true conservative in this race. But 15 states have voted now, and you have won only four of them. You have lost repeatedly with what is supposed to be your core voter groups, including evangelicals and conservatives.
Hasn’t your brand of conservatism been rejected by an electorate that appears to be more taken with Mr. Trump’s populist message?
CRUZ: Well, Megyn, you know, at the end of the day for the folks at home, this is not about the insults back and forth between the candidates. This is not about what attacks we can throw at each other. This is the people at home who are struggling through seven years of Barack Obama.
This is the single moms who are working two and three jobs, 28, 29 hours a week because their hours have been forcibly reduced because of Obamacare. This is the truck drivers and the steel workers and the mechanics with calluses on their hands who have seen their wages not grow year after year after year while the cost of living goes up.
This is all the young people coming out of school with student loans up to their eyeballs that aren’t able to find a job.
And I don’t think the people of America are interested in a bunch of bickering school children. They are interested in solutions, not slogans. It’s easy to say, make things better, make things great. You can even print it and put it on a baseball cap.
But the question is, do you understand the principles that made America great in the first place? As president, I will repeal every word of Obamacare. I will pull back the regulators that are killing small businesses.
And we will pass a simple flat tax and abolish the IRS. And what that’s going to do, Megyn, is small businesses are going to explode. We are going to see millions of high-paying jobs. We are going to see wages going up. We are going to see opportunity.
That’s where our focus needs to be. That’s where my focus is. And that is why our campaign is the only campaign that over and over again has beaten Donald Trump to date, and it’s why we are the one campaign that going forward can and will beat Donald Trump in this election.
KELLY: Go ahead, Mr. Trump. TRUMP: I have heard Ted say that over and over again on television, that he is the only one that can beat me. Just, for the record, I have won 10. He has won three or four. Last week, in fact, on Tuesday, I was a half a million votes higher than him. I was a million votes higher than Marco, 1 million votes. That’s a lot of votes. And was by far in first place.
So I keep hearing that he is the only one that can beat me but he is getting beaten very, very badly. So where does this come from? Where does it come from?
KELLY: Go ahead, Senator Rubio.
RUBIO: Yes, I would just say a couple of things. There is no doubt that Donald has done well in these elections. There is no doubt about that. The numbers are there.
Here is what the numbers also say. Two-thirds of the people who have cast a vote in a Republican primary or caucus have voted against you. They do not want you to be our nominee.
WHICH MEANS ABOUT 80 PERCENT HAVE VOTED AGAINST RUBIO
RUBIO: And, the reason why is because we are not going to turn over the conservative movement, or the party of Lincoln or Reagan, for example, to someone whose positions are not conservative. To someone who last week defended Planned Parenthood for 30 seconds a debate stage. To someone, for example, that has no ideas on foreign — someone who thinks the nuclear triad is a rock band from the 1980’s.
TRUMP: Oh yeah, you’re…
RUBIO: … To someone who time and again on issue after issue has not proven that he has the principals…
RUBIO: … That outline what the conservative movement has been about. And, as Ted said, the things that made America great.
America is great because of the conservative principles of limited government and free enterprise, and a strong national defense…
KELLY: … OK…
RUBIO: … And, our nominee needs to be someone that stands by those things…
KELLY: … Alright…
RUBIO: … Donald has not demonstrated that.
KELLY: … Go ahead, Mr. Trump, and then we’re going to have to go to Governor Kasich.
TRUMP: Very nice words, but happens to be wrong. CNN just came out with a poll two days ago that…
RUBIO: … (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: … That national poll — excuse me…
RUBIO: … (INAUDIBLE)
TRUMP: … The national poll — a national poll where he’s at 15, he’s at 14… RUBIO: … (INAUDIBLE)…
TRUMP: … And, I’m at 49, so when he says 75 percent, that would mean that 80 percent of the people don’t dig you, and I’m back down to 50…
RUBIO: … Of all the people on this stage, he performs the worst against Hillary Clinton.
RUBIO: … If you’re our nominee, we will lose…
TRUMP: … I beat Hillary Clinton. I beat Hillary Clinton in many polls…
RUBIO: … You lose by (INAUDIBLE) points (ph). She will wipe you out.
TRUMP: I beat Hillary Clinton in many polls…
RUBIO: If you’re our nominee (INAUDIBLE)…
KELLY: … Hold on, Senator, hold on…
TRUMP: … I think I’m talking…
RUBIO: … Oh, excuse me (INAUDIBLE)…
TRUMP: … I beat Hillary Clinton…
KELLY: … Hold on, hold on, hold on…
TRUMP: … I hope you think (INAUDIBLE)…
KELLY: … The audience cannot understand when you’re talking over each other. Finish your point, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: … I beat Hillary Clinton in many polls. The Cue (ph) poll just came out. I beat Hillary Clinton in a recent Fox poll, I beat Hillary Clinton in USA Today, I beat her today in a poll in Ohio. I beat — I’m the only one that beats Hillary Clinton.
I beat — and I have not started on Hillary yet. Believe me, I will…
TRUMP: … start soon. I haven’t even started.
BAIER: Governor Kasich, today you admitted that you have a narrow path to the nomination through a contested convention. Today also Mitt Romney proposed that Republicans should vote for Senator Rubio in Florida. They should vote for you in Ohio. They should vote for Senator Cruz in states that he can beat Mr. Trump to prevent Mr. Trump from getting the nomination.
So, do you buy Romney’s blueprint, and can you say tonight to your Florida supporters that they should vote for Senator Rubio to get a contested convention?
KASICH: You know, this so much about process. It frankly is boring to me. I would like it clear though, since we’re talking about polls, I beat Hillary Clinton by more than 11 points, and the reason it happens…
TRUMP: … In one poll…
KASICH: … The reason it happens…
TRUMP: … In one poll…
KASICH: … You know, the reason is because, as the Democrats tell me all the time, I can get the crossover votes. You see, because throughout this campaign I’ve talked about issues, I have never tried to go and get into these scrums that we’re seeing here on the stage. And, people say everywhere I go, “you seem to be the adult on the stage.”
In terms of — you know, Mitt Romney’s a great guy, but he doesn’t determine my strategy. The fact of the matter is I’m running for president because I worked hard to fix this country when I was in Washington as the Chairman of the Budget Committee where we had some of the most significant job growth after we balanced the budget.
We had wages going up, it was very successful in Ohio. Our wages grow faster than the national average. We’re up over 400,000 jobs. We paid down, back in the old days, they paid down half a trillion dollars of the national debt. It’s a formula that works. And, I believe that formula will work when I return to Washington as the president.
And, by the way, I won’t need on the job training because I know how to do all of this, and within the first 100 days I will have a plan that will pass the Congress because…
KASICH: … It is reasonable, and I can bring both sides together…
BAIER: … But Governor, this is all about process. For voters, they need to see a path to get to the nomination if they’re going to support you.
On Super Tuesday you finished in single digits in nine out of 11 states. So, you can see that your path is through a contested convention. How do you…
KASICH: … Well, Bret, I think we’re all really there. I mean, the simple fact is that, you know, you all wrote me off. You wrote me off before I even got to New Hampshire, then when I finished in New Hampshire you wrote me off in the South, then you wrote me off in Super Tuesday.
I split delegates in Vermont with Donald Trump, I finished second in Massachusetts, and we won delegates in Virginia. But, guess what? It’s now March Madness and we’re heading up North to the place — to my turf, OK?
KASICH: And, let me just tell you this, I will win Ohio, and I am going to move all across this country, and over time as people begin to finally hear my message — you know what people say, Bret, to me all the time?
Why don’t they give you any time on the debate stage? Why is that?
KASICH: So now all of a sudden, I’m starting to get it, and what I want the people to know is, I know how to bring people together, Republicans and Democrats. I have successfully, both at the federal level and the state level brought economic growth, wage growth, and economic security to this country.
And I want to go back and do it again, and I’m going to keep talking about my message of bringing people together and motivating people in the neighborhoods that realize they don’t need somebody from Washington galloping in. There are many things they can do where they live, because the strength of our country is in our neighborhoods and our families. And I’m going to keep doing this.
BAIER: Thank you.
WALLACE: Well, then, we want to focus now on the economy, which is one of the top issues on Facebook, with 6.6 million people discussing it online. A lot of that conversation is happening here in Detroit, where the unemployment rate is 10.9 percent. That’s more than double the national average.
Senator Rubio, you have taken to calling Mr. Trump a con artist who portrays himself as a hero to working people while he’s really been, in your words, “sticking it” to the American workers for 40 years. But he has built a big company that employs thousands of people. Question. How many jobs have you created?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, government doesn’t…
First of all, Chris, my point is exactly right. He has spent a career of convincing Americans that he’s something that he’s not in exchange for their money. Now he’s trying to do the same in exchange for their country. This is a fact. He talks about these great businesses that he’s built. He inherited over $100 million.
TRUMP: Wrong. Wrong.
RUBIO: And with that money, he lost more money than he made.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, it’s not your turn. You’ll get your turn, sir.
RUBIO: He can start tonight by announcing that all the Donald Trump clothing will no longer be made in China and in Mexico, but will be made here in the United States.
And on the issue of job creation, I find this interesting. The private sector creates jobs. The jobs of those of us in public service are to put in place policies that allow the economy to grow.
That’s the problem with the Democratic Party. They think government is what creates jobs. Government does not create jobs.
Now, the way you create jobs is you make America the easiest and the best place in the world to start a business or to expand an existing business. If you go on my website, marcorubio.com, you will see a real plan to fix our taxes, to roll back regulations, to repeal and replace Obamacare, not just lines around the states. Serious policies and proposals.
WALLACE: Sir? Mr. Trump, I’d like you to respond. You have 30 seconds to respond. But as part of that, could you respond to his specific assertion about Trump Collection clothes, which you say some of it is made in Mexico?
TRUMP: This little guy has lied so much…
RUBIO: Here we go.
TRUMP: … about my record.
RUBIO: Here we go. It’s personal.
TRUMP: He has lied so much about my record.
WALLACE: Mr. Rubio — Senator Rubio, why don’t you let him finish?
TRUMP: And I will tell you this. First of all, I got a call from my sister and brother tonight, and they said we had no idea Dad gave you $200 million. Believe me, I started off with $1 million. I built a company that’s worth more than $10 billion. And I say it not in a bragging way, but that’s the kind of thinking we need.
Very low debt, tremendous cash flow. My financials are all — they’re all in there with the federal elections. You’ve seen them. Everybody has seen them. I say it only because that’s the kind of thinking this country needs with $19 trillion in debit. Believe me.
WALLACE: But wait one second. Specifically and quickly on the question, will you promise that you will — and how soon will you move your clothing collection, the clothes that are made in China and Mexico?
TRUMP: They devalue their currencies. I will do that. And by the way, I have been doing it more and more. But they devalue their currencies, in particular China. Mexico is doing a big number now, also. Japan is unbelievable what they’re doing.
They devalue their currencies, and they make it impossible for clothing-makers in this country to do clothing in this country. And if you look at what’s happened on Seventh Avenue, and you look at what’s happened in New York with the garment industry, so much of the clothing now comes out from Vietnam, China, and other places. And it’s all because of devaluation.
By the way, the Trans-Pacific, if you look at the TPP, a total disaster, which, by the way, Marco is in favor of, they need — it is a disaster for our country. It’s trying to be approved by various people, including President Obama. And I’ll tell you something. The biggest problem with that is: They don’t take into concurrence the devaluation. They’re devaluing their currency.
WALLACE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Trump. Senator Rubio?
TRUMP: And they’re killing — they’re going to…
WALLACE: Wait, wait, Senator Rubio.
RUBIO: The answer is, he’s not going to do it. And you know why? Because there are plenty of clothing makers in America.
RUBIO: If you go on my website, marcorubio.com, everything we have on there is made in America. The reason why he makes it in China or Mexico is because he can make more money on it. That’s why he’s doing it.
And the second point, you see what happens, again, when you challenge him on a policy issue. You asked him about the economy, and the first thing he does is launch an attack about some little guy thing. Because he doesn’t have answers.
TRUMP: No, no. I have very good answers.
RUBIO: And he’s asking us to make him the president of the United States of America.
RUBIO: This is not a game.
TRUMP: I know what’s happening with the economy. You don’t know a thing.
RUBIO: Well, then answer the economy question.
TRUMP: You haven’t employed in your life one person.
RUBIO: But he doesn’t answer the employment question.
TRUMP: I have employed tens of thousands of people.
TRUMP: You haven’t employed one person.
RUBIO: You ever heard of Trump Steaks? You ever heard of Trump Vodka?
TRUMP: Oh, you know what? You know what? Take a look at Trump Steaks.
RUBIO: All of these companies he has ruined.
TRUMP: By the way, that’s the other thing…
RUBIO: Trump Steaks is gone. You have ruined these companies.
TRUMP: Mitt Romney…
TRUMP: … false, totally false. And now the funny thing is he didn’t talk about the hundreds of really successful jobs, the buildings all over the world that have made a fortune.
WALLACE: I have a policy question for you, sir.
RUBIO: Let’s see if he answers it.
TRUMP: I will. Don’t worry about it, Marco. Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about it little Marco, I will.
RUBIO: All right, well, let’s hear it big Donald.
TRUMP: Don’t worry about it, little Marco.
WALLACE: Gentlemen. Gentlemen.
WALLACE: You have got to do better than this. TRUMP: This guy has a number one — the number one absentee record in the United States…
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, I would like to ask you a policy question.
TRUMP: He doesn’t show up to vote.
WALLACE: Your proposed tax cut…
TRUMP: That’s why the people in Florida do not like him.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, your proposed tax cut would add $10 trillion to the nation’s debt over 10 years, even if the economy grows the way that you say it will. You insist that you could make up for a good deal of that, you say, by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.
WALLACE: Like what? And please be specific.
TRUMP: Department of Education. We’re cutting Common Core. We’re getting rid of Common Core. We’re bringing education locally. Department of Environmental Protection.
NOT A DEPARTMENT – IS HE THINKING OF NY STATE (WHICH HAS A DEPT BY THAT NAME)?
We are going to get rid are of it in almost every form. We’re going to have little tidbits left but we’re going to take a tremendous amount out.
We have various other things. If you look at the IRS, if you look at every single agency, we can cut it down, and I mean really cut it down and save. The waste, fraud, and abuse is massive.
Larry Kudlow, great guy, everybody respects him, said my plan for taxes and tax cutting is the best by far of everybody.
WALLACE: But, Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump, your numbers don’t add up. Please put up full screen number four. The Education Department, you talk about cutting, the total budget for the education department is $78 billion.
And that includes Pell grants for low-income students and aid to states for special education. I assume you wouldn’t cut those things. The entire budget for the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, $8 billion.
WALLACE: The deficit this year is $544 billion. That’s more than a half trillion dollars. Your numbers don’t add up, sir.
TRUMP: Let me explain something. Because of the fact that the pharmaceutical companies — because of the fact that the pharmaceutical companies are not mandated to bid properly, they have hundreds of billions of dollars in waste.
We don’t bid properly. We don’t have proper bidding procedures. The reason we don’t is because they take care of all of the senators, all of the congressman, and they don’t bid. They don’t go out to bid. WALLACE: Mr. Trump…
TRUMP: Take a look — excuse me. You are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars…
WALLACE: No, you are not.
TRUMP: … if we went out to the proper bid. Of course you are.
WALLACE: No, you’re not, sir. Let’s put up full screen number 2.
You say that Medicare could save $300 billion a year negotiating lower drug prices. But Medicare total only spends $78 billion a year on drugs. Sir, that’s the facts. You are talking about saving more money on Medicare prescription drugs…
TRUMP: I’m saying saving through negotiation throughout the economy, you will save $300 billion a year.
WALLACE: But that doesn’t really cut the federal deficit.
TRUMP: And that’s a huge — of course it is. We are going to buy things for less money. Of course it is. That works out…
WALLACE: That’s the only money that we buy — the only drugs that we pay for is through Medicare.
TRUMP: I’m not only talking about drugs, I’m talking about other things. We will save $300 billion a year if we properly negotiate. We don’t do that. We don’t negotiate. We don’t negotiate anything.
OF COURSE HE’S BEING SILLY HERE, AS WALLACE POINTS OUT
KASICH: Can I…
WALLACE: No. I promise I will get to you in a moment, sir.
Senator Cruz, one of centerpieces of your campaign, in fact, you mentioned it again tonight, is that you will abolish the IRS. Question though, who will collect the taxes that you are still calling for? Who will oversee to make sure that people pay the taxes that they rightfully owe? And who will check on the various tax deductions and tax credits that you still want?
CRUZ: So my simple flat tax I have rolled out in precise detail how it will operate where every American can fill out our taxes on a postcard. And if you want to actually see the postcard, see all the details, you can find them on our Web site. It’s tedcruz.org.
When he we get rid of all the corporate welfare, all the subsidies, all the carve-outs in the IRS code, it dramatically simplifies it. And under Obama, the IRS has become so corrupt and so politicized we need to abolish it all together.
Now, at the end of that there will still be an office in the Treasury Department to receive the postcards but it will be dramatically simpler.
IN OTHER WORDS, RENAME THE IRS?
CRUZ: And let me take a moment, Chris, to go back to go back to this exchange that was going on.
In between all of the insults, let me point out the specificity that was lacking. It’s very easy to say, “Let’s cut waste, fraud, and abuse.” I’ve rolled out a detailed plan to cut $500 billion in federal spending, specifying exactly what I would cut.
It’s easy to say it, but one of the great disconnects to all the people, all of the voters, I understand the folks who are supporting Donald right now. You’re angry. You’re angry at Washington, and he uses angry rhetoric.
But for 40 years, Donald has been part of the corruption in Washington that you’re angry about.
And you’re not going to stop the corruption in Washington by supporting someone who has supported liberal Democrats for four decades, from Jimmy Carter to John Kerry to Hillary Clinton. You’re not going to stop the corruption and the cronyism by supporting someone who has used government power for private gain. Instead, we need a president who stands with the American people.
WALLACE: Governor Kasich, I promise I will get to you. But you do get 30 seconds to respond, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Well, all of a sudden, I hear for 40 years I’ve been involved in Washington. I have been supporting people for many years. And these people have been politicians, and they’ve been on both sides, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives. I’ve supported everybody, because, until recently, I wasn’t a politician, and I hope maybe you don’t all consider me a politician right now. I hate the term politician.
But I’ve been supporting politicians. A recent article somewhere said Donald Trump is a world-class businessman who goes out and he does get along with everybody. I’ve supported Democrats, and I’ve supported Republicans. And as a businessman, I owed that to my company, to my family, to my workers, to everybody to get along.
Part of the problem we have in Washington, Chris…
WALLACE: Mr. Trump…
TRUMP: … is it’s total gridlock. Nobody gets along. We need people to get along. We need to be able to get things done.
THIS ILLUSTRATES THE ABSURDITY OF PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS. ON THE ONE HAND, PROMISE TO CUT GOVERNMENT BACK. ON THE OTHER, PROMISE TO MAKE DEALS. BARRING A LIBERTARIAN PARTY SWEEP OF CONGRESS YOU PROBABLY CANNOT HAVE BOTH.
WALLACE: Governor Kasich, Democrats, as you know, will make income inequality a big issue in the general election. You support raising the minimum wage, although you say not to the $15 an hour that Democrats are talking about. Mr. Trump opposes any increase because he says it will price American workers out of the world market. Is he wrong about that? No increase in the minimum wage?
KASICH: Well, well, wait a minute, first of all, I didn’t say I was for an increase in the federal minimum wage. I said in Ohio we increased it modestly every single year. So I’m not for a federal minimum wage increase.
WALLACE: But you did talk about states doing it.
KASICH: Well, states — if states want to do it, they ought to sit down with businesspeople and the lawmakers and figure out what will work. But hold on a second here with everything else.
I’m the only person on this stage who actually was the chief architect of balancing the federal budget. It’s not a theory for me. It’s not — it’s not some — you have to know how to put everything together. And you know, I spent 10 years of my life to get there, and I did not do that because I’m worshiping at some balanced budget shrine.
The reason I did it is when you have commonsense regulations, lower taxes on individuals and businesses, and you have a fiscal plan that makes sense, the job creators will expand employment. And what happened? When I was there, the jobs were exploding. Bill Clinton’s tried to take credit for it. When I went to Ohio, we’re up 400,000 jobs. It’s the same formula.
But it isn’t easy. I fought the entire Washington establishment and won, because when you balance a budget, you must affect every single thing. Everything in the federal government specifically. You cannot get there with theories or broad statements, and you have to be willing to take the heat. In fact, I fought a Republican president, who I thought was not offering constructive proposals to fix this economy.
So when we talk about all this, there’s one person on this stage and one person who’s been a candidate for president in either party that restored economic strength, growth, a balanced budget, paid down debt, cut taxes, the things that people in this country want. No theories. Reality.
WALLACE: Thank you, Governor.
KELLY: All right. Let’s talk immigration for a little bit. Senator Cruz, let’s start with you. You have repeatedly touted how you have stood shoulder to shoulder with Senator Jeff Sessions to fight illegal immigration and amnesty. But Senator Sessions just endorsed Donald Trump. If voters want Jeff Sessions-style immigration policies, isn’t their choice rather clear?
CRUZ: Yes, their choice is very clear. If you look to the actual record — you know, Donald mentioned a moment ago that he was just doing business when he was writing checks to liberal Democrats. But that’s not, in fact, the checks he was writing.
Listen, we could all understand if you write a check to a city commission because you’re looking for a zoning waiver on building a building. That may be corrupt, but you could understand real estate developers doing that.
CRUZ: That’s not what Donald Trump did. Donald Trump supported Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. Donald supported John Kerry over George W. Bush. If you don’t like Obamacare, Donald Trump funded Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi taking over Congress to pass Obamacare.
On immigration, if you don’t like amnesty, if you don’t like the Gang of Eight, Donald Trump funded five of the eight members of the Gang of Eight $50,000.
And let’s talk about this election. The choice Republican primary voters are making is who is best prepared to stand up to Hillary Clinton and beat Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump has written checks to Hillary Clinton not once, not twice, not three times. Ten times. And four of those checks were not to her Senate campaign. It wasn’t that she was the New York senator and it was a cost of doing business. It was to her presidential campaign.
Donald Trump in 2008 wrote four checks to elect Hillary Clinton as president.
CRUZ: So I’d like to ask Donald, why did you write checks to Hillary Clinton to be president in 2008? It wasn’t for business. And how can you stand on a debate stage now with her and say you don’t think she should be president?
TRUMP: Actually, it was for business. It was. It was. It was for business. I pride myself, including outside of the United States. I’m doing almost 120 deals outside of the — which I hope to be able to stop very soon and let my children handle it — but we’re doing many, many deals outside of the United States.
I support politicians. In 2008, I supported Hillary Clinton. I supported many other people, by the way. And that was because of the fact that I’m in business. I did support very heavily Ronald Reagan. I also supported George Bush, by the way.
KELLY: All right. Mr. Trump…
CRUZ: But what would you say…
KELLY: Well, stand by — stand by, Senator Cruz.
CRUZ: … to Hillary Clinton on the debate stage when you wrote her a check in 2008, wrote her four checks to be president?
TRUMP: Let me tell you, something, Ted. The last person that Hillary Clinton wants to face is Donald Trump. That I can…
KELLY: Let’s move on. And with all due respect, we have — we have questions. We have questions.
TRUMP: That I can tell you.
KELLY: No, no, no. Hold on. Hold on. We can do more of this later. Mr. Trump, hi.
KELLY: How are you doing?
TRUMP: Nice to be with you, Megyn.
KELLY: Great to have you here.
TRUMP: You’re looking well. You’re looking well.
KELLY: As are you.
Back in January, you gave an off-the-record interview to the New York Times. It was apparently audiotaped. Now, a recent report in Buzzfeed citing sources at the Times reports that in that interview you expressed flexibility when it comes to your immigration policy, specifically with respect to your promise to deport the 11 million people who are now living here illegally. You have suggested that you may have expressed some flexibility when it comes to the size of the wall that you want to build. But did you tell them, specifically, that you are flexible when it comes to your deportation plan?
TRUMP: I don’t know exactly what — when you talk about off the record. First of all, Buzzfeed? They were the ones that said under no circumstances will I run for president. And were they wrong. But a lot of people said that.
Then, I did have a meeting with the editorial board of the New York Times, a very nice meeting. Many of those things were off the record, I think at their suggestion and my suggestion. And I think being off the record is a very important thing. I think it’s a very, very powerful thing.
And I will say this. These three gentlemen have gone off the record many times with reporters. And I think they want to honor it, and I would always honor that.
I will say, though, in terms of immigration — and almost anything else — there always has to be some, you know, tug and pull and deal. And, you know, when I watch Ted stand on the Senate floor, I had great respect for what he did. He stood there for a day-and-a- half or something. In the meantime, what came of it? Nothing. You have to be able to have some flexibility, some negotiation.
Now, sometimes you ask for more than you want and you negotiate down to the point. I may have discussed something like that with the New York Times, but I would never release off-the-record conversations. I don’t think it’s fair, frankly, to do that to anybody.
KELLY: How flexible are you on this issue?
TRUMP: Not very flexible. No, not very flexible. I give the example — I’m going to build a wall. I’m the one that wants the wall. I’m the one that can build the wall.
It’s going to get built. And by the way, Mexico is going to pay for the wall. I can tell you that. Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
But — and I used an example. And this isn’t necessarily what was said, but whatever was said, the wall’s 50 feet high. Is it going to be 45 feet or 40 feet? That could very well be. That could very well — he wants it to be higher.
That could very well be. But there’s always give and take. There’s always negotiation. And the best negotiator that knows what he’s doing will make a great deal. But we need give and take in government. If you don’t have give and take, you’re never going to agree on anything.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION: I CAN MAKE SPEECHES BUT I REALIZE CONGRESS WON’T PAY FOR THEM.
KELLY: Senator Rubio, you not only supported the failed immigration reform effort through the Gang of Eight, but you’re still on record as favoring an eventual path to citizenship for those who are here illegally. And in addition…
… you favored in-state tuition for Florida illegal immigrants. You’ve been hitting Mr. Trump hard on this flexibility discussion with the New York Times, but his supporters might say at least his opening stance was tough.
RUBIO: Well, first of all, let me say that on the issue of the off-the-record, that’s not up to the New York Times. That’s up to you, Donald. If tonight you tell the New York Times to release the audio, they will do it, and we can exactly see what your true views are on immigration…
TRUMP: Fine (ph).
RUBIO: … because it is a major issue, in your campaign that you’ve made a center issue. Now, as far as my record on it is concerned, I absolutely want to solve this issue. And I did the best we could in a Senate that was controlled by liberal Democrats and Harry Reid in the hopes that the House, made up of conservatives, would take it up and make it even stronger. And I said that repeatedly at the time.
I’m not just saying that now; I said it throughout that process. We do need to do with this issue.
RUBIO: When I’m president it will not be dealt with the way it was done in the Senate.
It will be done first and foremost by bringing illegal immigration under control and proving it to the American people. And only after that is done can anything else happen.
AND DO THIS HOW? HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN ITS UNDER CONTROL? WILL IT BE BEFORE YOU LEAVE OFFICE?
And it will be something the American people support. We’ll see what they are willing to support. It’s not going to be an executive order and we’re not going to ram it down their throats.
KELLY: Mr. Trump, we will let respond, but will you release the tapes? Will you authorize of The Times to release the tapes?
TRUMP: I will say one thing, what Marco said is — I understand it. He is talking about a little give and take and a little negotiation. And you know what? That’s OK. That’s not the worst thing in the world.
There is nothing wrong with that. I happen to be much stronger on illegal immigration. Sheriff Joe Arpaio endorsed me. And if he endorses you, believe me, you are the strongest, from Arizona.
But give and take is OK. And I thought what he said is OK. We may differ on the degree. But what he said to me is OK.
KELLY: Will you release the tapes?
TRUMP: No. I never do that. I would not do that. I don’t think — I have too much respect — if I deal with you off the record, if I deal with Bret or Chris off the record, I have too much respect for that process to say, just release everything. I would not do that.
KELLY: OK. Stand by. We’re going to continue this right after the break. We have more.
BAIER: Coming up, more with Megyn on immigration, plus questions on other top issues, including the war on terror. The “FOX News Republican Presidential Debate Live from Detroit” continues after a quick break.
KELLY: Welcome back everybody to the FOX News Republican presidential debate, live from the FOX theater here in Detroit. Let’s get back now to the questions.
Mr. Trump, your campaign website to this day argues that more visas for highly skilled workers would, quote, “decimate American workers”. However, at the CNBC debate, you spoke enthusiastically in favor of these visas. So, which is it?
TRUMP: I’m changing. I’m changing. We need highly skilled people in this country, and if we can’t do it, we’ll get them in. But, and we do need in Silicon Valley, we absolutely have to have.
So, we do need highly skilled, and one of the biggest problems we have is people go to the best colleges. They’ll go to Harvard, they’ll go to Stanford, they’ll go to Wharton, as soon as they’re finished they’ll get shoved out. They want to stay in this country. They want to stay here desperately, they’re not able to stay here. For that purpose, we absolutely have to be able to keep the brain power in this country.
YOU WANT SOMEONE WHO WILL RIGIDLY HOLD TO OUTDATED IDEAS, TRUMP NOT YOUR MAN.
KELLY: So you abandoning the position on your website…
TRUMP: … I’m changing it, and I’m softening the position because we have to have talented people in this country.
KELLY: And you’re not releasing the discussion with the New York Times behind closed doors…
TRUMP: … That is correct.
KELLY: Which will have some asking whether, on your immigration policies, you’re really just playing to people’s fantasies, which is a tactic…
TRUMP: … No, I’m not playing.
KELLY: … you praised in your book, The Art of the Deal.
TRUMP: I’m not playing to anybody’s fantasies, I’m playing to the fact that our country is in trouble, that we have a tremendous problem with crime. The border is a disaster, it’s like a piece of Swiss cheese. We’re going to stop it, we’re going to stop people from coming into our country illegally. We’re going to stop it.
KELLY: Senator Cruz, not long ago you propose quintupling the number of these foreign worker visas. After you announced for president, you reversed yourself, citing reports that the program was being abused. But, that abuse had been around long before your 180. In fact, it was so bad that just a few months earlier that a bipartisan group of senators called for an investigation and you declined to join them.
Isn’t it a good thing that the American public didn’t trust Ted on that one?
CRUZ: Well, the abuse of the H1-B program has been rampant. On the face of that H1-B abuse, I have proposed, and promised as president that I will impose a 180 day moratorium on the H1B program to implement a comprehensive investigation and audit because you got U.S. companies that are firing American workers, bringing in foreign workers, and forcing them to train their replacements.
And, I would note that is not dissimilar to what we discovered at the last debate concerning the hotel that Donald owns down in Florida. Down in Florida that hotel has brought in hundreds of foreign workers, and afterwards it was really striking.
I watched the CNN interview Donald did where he explained, he said, well the problem is you can’t find Americans who are qualified, or who want to work as waiters and waitresses. Now, let me ask the people here, how many people have worked as a waiter or waitress?
CRUZ: Millions across this country. That is an astonishing statement. You know, Marco’s Dad started as a bartender. My Dad started washing dishes, and yet, you know how many Americans wanted those jobs?
CRUZ: Roughly 300 applied, Donald hired 17. And, that’s why this New York Times tape is so troubling because what’s been reported is that Donald told the Editorial Board of the New York Times what I’m saying on immigration, I don’t believe. I’m not going to build a wall, I’m not going to deport people, this is all just rhetoric for the voters.
Now, if he didn’t say that, he has an easy solution. Simply release the tape.
But, for everyone at home who’s mad at politicians that lied to us, Donald’s record right now as he standing here…
KELLY: … OK.
CRUZ: … His record right now is one of repeatedly hiring illegal aliens…
KELLY: … Times up, sir…
CRUZ: … abusing (ph) American workers…
KELLY: … Go ahead, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: First of all I’ve had tens of thousands of people working for me, most of which are — 98, 97, 98 percent of the people in this country, from this country. I’m very proud of it. You have a club in Palm Beach, Florida called the Mar-a-Lago Club, it’s a very, very successful club. It has a very short season, it’s called, the Season, and it goes from November until March.
It’s a few months, five months at the most. People don’t want a short-term job.
They don’t want — so, we will bring people in, and we will send the people out. All done legally, all done with the process that’s…
TRUMP: … Approved by government in Palm Beach, or West Palm Beach. We bring people in, we bring them out. We want to hire as many Americans as we can, but they don’t want part-time, very short part-time jobs.
KELLY: Understood. Thank you.
RUBIO: That’s not accurate. I’m sorry, Megyn, that’s not accurate. That’s my — there were at least 300 Americans that applied last year, none of them were hired. Some of them…
TRUMP: … Wrong…
RUBIO: … have been interviewed…
TRUMP: … That’s wrong.
RUBIO: … They were not hired…
TRUMP: … Wrong…
RUBIO: … And, here’s why he does it this way, let me explain why he (INAUDIBLE) H2-B…
TRUMP: … Wrong…
RUBIO: … Because when you bring them in this way, when you bring someone in on one of these visas they can’t go work for anybody else. They either work for you or they have to go back home. You basically have them captive, so you don’t have to worry about competing for higher wages with another hotel down the street. And, that’s why you bring workers from abroad.
You argue that you’re here to fight on behalf of the American worker, but when you have chances to help the American worker…
RUBIO: … but when you have chances to help the American workers, you’re making your clothes overseas and you’re hiring your workers from overseas.
KELLY: Go ahead, sir.
TRUMP: The — the — the other hotels during the season, they do the same thing. They take in a lot of people, because you can’t get them. They take in a lot of people. Long-term employees, we don’t do that, but short-term employees, we have no choice but to do it, and other hotels in that very, very hot area. It is a very hot area.
RUBIO: There were Americans in that hot area.
TRUMP: It’s very, very hard to get people. But other hotels do the exact same thing. And just so you understand, just again, this is a legal process. This is a procedure. It’s part of the law. I take advantage of that. There’s nothing wrong with it. We have no choice.
KELLY: All right.
CRUZ: Donald, you could resolve this issue very quickly by simply…
… releasing the New York Times tape. Because, listen, maybe it’s right.
TRUMP: This wasn’t on the subject.
CRUZ: … that you didn’t tell them you’re misleading the American people. If that’s the case…
TRUMP: Tapes were not on the subject, but that’s…
CRUZ: If you didn’t tell them that, the tapes will prove you’re innocent.
CRUZ: But if, in fact, you went to Manhattan and said I’m lying to the American people, then the voters have a right to know.
TRUMP: No, no. You’re the liar. You’re the lying guy up here.
CRUZ: Because we’ve been lied to too many times.
TRUMP: You’re the — you’re the one. You’re the one.
CRUZ: Why don’t you release the tapes? Release the tapes.
TRUMP: You’re the one. Now, let me just tell you. Let me just tell you.
TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me. I’ve given my answer, Lyin’ Ted. I’ve given my answer.
KELLY: All right. Let’s leave it at that.
Let’s leave it at that. We have more to get to.
BAIER: Gentlemen, the next topic to discuss is terrorism. Senator Rubio, ISIS is a big topic of conversation on Facebook. We have a map that shows theconservation about ISIS around the country. You proposed sending a larger number of American ground troops to help defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq…
RUBIO: That’s correct, and Libya.
BAIER: … but military commanders say the biggest ISIS threat to Europe in particular now is coming from Libya, not Syria.
BAIER: So just to be clear, if you’re for putting more U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria, are you also ready to send U.S. ground troops on the ground in Libya?
RUBIO: Well, Bret, what I’ve argued from the very beginning is ISIS — in order to defeat ISIS, you must deny them operating spaces. This is how ISIS or any radical group, for that matter, can grow. It’s how Al Qaida was able to carry out 9/11, is that the Taliban gave them an operating space in Afghanistan.
Today that operating space has largely been based in Iraq and Syria, but I’ve been warning about the Libyan presence for the better part of two years. So they need to be targeted wherever they have an operating space. They do need to be defeated on the ground by a ground force made up primarily of Sunni Arabs themselves. This is a radical Sunni movement. They can only be defeated if they are driven out and the territory is held by Sunni Arabs. But it will require a specific number of American special operators, in combination with an increase in air strikes. And that will include, if necessary, operating spaces in Libya, which, in fact, they are using to project into the Sinai against Egypt and ultimately into Europe, as well.
BAIER: Governor Kasich, would you put ground troops in Libya?
KASICH: Well, first of all, just to be clear, not only did I serve for 18 years on the Defense Committee, more than anybody on this stage, but, secondly, I was called into the Pentagon after 9/11 to help Secretary Rumsfeld with some of his difficulties.
I will say, look, let me tell you what happened with Libya. And I pointed out in the last debate — Hillary Clinton worked aggressively to depose Moammar Gadhafi. We had no business doing it. He was working with us. He was cooperating with us. He denuclearized. And now they pushed him out, and now we have a fertile ground for ISIS.
WELL STATED, GOVERNOR!
Fortunately in Libya, there’s only a few cities on the coast, because most of Libya is a desert. The fact of the matter is, we absolutely have to be — and not just with special forces. I mean, that’s not going to work. Come on. You’ve got to go back to the invasion when we pushed Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We have to be there on the ground in significant numbers. We do have to include our Muslim Arab friends to work with us on that. And we have to be in the air.
AND IF THEY LEAVE LIBYA, WHERE DO THEY GO NEXT?
And we — it should be a broad coalition, made up of the kinds of people that were involved when we defeated Saddam. Now, you’ve got to be on the ground and in the air both in Syria and Iraq. And at some point, we will have to deal with Libya. I am very concerned about ISIS getting their hands on the oilfields in Libya and being able to fund their operations. The fact is cool, calm, deliberate, effective, take care of the job, and then come home. That’s what we need to do with our military foreign policy.
BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders.
So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?
TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.
THEY DIDN’T REFUSE BUSH AND CHENEY, SO WHY SHOULD THEY REFUSE TO DO QUESTIONABLE THINGS NOW?
HAVING SAID THAT, GIVEN AMERICA’S HABIT OF ENGAGING IN DUMB WARS, A PRESIDENT WHO THE MILITARY IGNORES MIGHT NOT BE SUCH A BAD IDEA.
BAIER: But they’re illegal.
TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.
This really started with Ted, a question was asked of Ted last — two debates ago about waterboarding. And Ted was, you know, having a hard time with that question, to be totally honest with you. They then came to me, what do you think of waterboarding? I said it’s fine. And if we want to go stronger, I’d go stronger, too, because, frankly…
… that’s the way I feel. Can you imagine — can you imagine these people,these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we’re having a hard problem with waterboarding? We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.
BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?
TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.
BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families?
TRUMP: Well, look, you know, when a family flies into the World Trade Center, a man flies into the World Trade Center, and his family gets sent back to where they were going — and I think most of you know where they went — and, by the way, it wasn’t Iraq — but they went back to a certain territory, they knew what was happening. The wife knew exactly what was happening.
They left two days early, with respect to the World Trade Center, and they went back to where they went, and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon, and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane. All right?
BAIER: Senator Cruz, you were mentioned.
TRUMP: I have no problem with it.
BAIER: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Bret, you know, I think the American people understand that yelling and cursing at people doesn’t make you a tough guy.
We need a commander-in-chief that, number one, will rebuild the military, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1981 coming out of the weak Jimmy Carter administration. He passed tax reform and regulatory reform. The economy took off. It generated millions in high-paying jobs, trillions in new revenue. He rebuilt the military, bankrupted the Soviet Union, and won the Cold War.
As president, I will do the exact same thing with radical Islamic terrorism. We will rebuild this military so that it remains the mightiest fighting force on the face of the planet. And then, when I am commander-in-chief, every militant on the face of the Earth will understand that if they go and join ISIS, if they wage jihad against the United States of America, they are signing their death warrant.
ALL THOSE EXTRA SHIPS AND PLANES DIDN’T DO MUCH GOOD AGAINST GUYS WITH BOXCUTTERS
BAIER: But, Senator Cruz, in 2013, you said you were open — you were open to the possibility that Edward Snowden had performed a considerable public service, you said back then, in revealing certain aspects of the NSA procedures. Many of your colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Rubio, called him a traitor. It took you until January of this year to call him a traitor and say he should be tried for treason. Why the change of heart? And why did it take you so long?
CRUZ: Well, Bret, as someone who spent much of his life in law enforcement, I believe you should start with the facts and evidence first before ending up with the verdict. When the news first broke of the United States government engaging in massive surveillance on American citizens, that was a very troubling development, and it’s why the United States Congress acted to correct it.
Now, at the same time, I said in that initial statement that if the evidence indicated that Edward Snowden violated the law, he should be prosecuted for violating the law. And, indeed, since then, the evidence is clear that not only does Snowden violate the law, but it appears he committed treason. Treason is defined under the Constitution as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America, and what Snowden did made it easier for terrorists to avoid detection.
BY TELLING AMERICANS THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT WAS SPYING ON THEM? SEEMS LIKE A STRETCH, TO PUT IT MILDLY.
And Snowden’s comments afterwards, and his behavior afterwards, he fled to Russia, he fled to China. His conducts afterwards indicates that he was not a whistleblower, but instead he was undermining the ability to defend this country. But we need a president who isn’t rash, who doesn’t just pop off at the — at the hip, but waits to see what the facts are and then acts to defend this country.
INSTEAD THEY POP OFF WHEN THEY ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. READING THIS MAKES ME WISH RON PAUL WAS ON THE STAGE.
BAIER: Mr. Trump, you’ve repeatedly deflected calls for specific national security or defense policy plans with the claim that you’ll ask the best people when you become president, and take their advice.
So who are the best people? Can you reveal two or three names that you trust for national security?
TRUMP: I think Richard Haass is excellent. I have a lot of respect for him. I think General Keane is excellent. I think that there are — I like Colonel Jacobsvery much. I see him. I know him. I have many people that I think are really excellent but in the end it’s going to be my decision.
When you just asked the question about Snowden, I will tell you right from the beginning, I said he was a spy and we should get him back. And if Russia respected our country, they would have sent him back immediately, but he was a spy. It didn’t take me a long time to figure that one out. Believe me.
But I would get the best people, people that I’d be comfortable with. And we will do the right thing.
KASICH: Bret, it’s very interesting to note, I think it’s for the good of the record here that they took a survey of foreign policy magazines, 700 foreign policy experts, who would be the best person to conduct foreign policy of all the candidates in the race?
I received 55 percent of the vote. Jeb Bush received 30 percent of the vote. And everybody else, none of them made double digits. And that’s because you have to have the experience.
SURPRISINGLY THIS IS TRUE (THOUGH MY SUSPICION IS THAT THIS REFLECTS KASICH’S EXPERTISE LESS THAN IT REFLECTS ACADEMICS’ VAGUE FEELING THAT KASICH IS GENERALLY MORE MODERATE SO HE MUST BE MODERATE ON FOREIGN POLICY TOO) http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/19/snap-poll-who-will-make-the-next-best-foreign-policy-president-trump-syria-scholars/?utm_content=buffera9b84&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
And you know, we hear about Ronald Reagan rebuilding the military. I was there when Ronald Reagan rebuilt the military. I worked with him. I was there when Ronald Reagan rebuilt the economy. I was there, and I worked with him. I knew Ronald Reagan.
AS THE MONKEES WOULD SAY: “WE’RE THE OLD GENERATION, AND WE GOT SOMETHING TO SAY”
And I’ll leave it right there with what comes after that. You can figure that one out.
BAIER: Governor Kasich, thank you.
KELLY: We’re going to have more questions for the candidates right after this break. And during the commercial break, join us for a — Facebook live on the FOX News Facebook page and tell us what you think about tonight’s debate in the comment section.
BAIER: Welcome back to the historic Fox Theater in downtown Detroit and the Republican presidential debate. Let’s get right back to the questions.
KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is they believe you tell it like it is. But time and time again in this campaign, you have actually told the voters one thing only to reverse yourself within weeks or even sometimes days. We’ve teed up just three examples in a videotape,similar to those we used with Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz in the last debate. The first is on whether the war in Afghanistan was a mistake. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: What about in Afghanistan? Do you believe that American boots should stay on the ground in Afghanistan to stabilize the situation?
TRUMP: We’ve made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place. That thing will collapse about two seconds after they leave. Just as I said that Iraq was going to collapse after we leave.
(UNKNOWN): About Afghanistan, you said we made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place.
TRUMP: We made a mistake going into Iraq. I’ve never said we made a mistake…
(UNKNOWN): Our question was about Afghanistan. That day on October…
TRUMP: Well, OK, I never said that.
(UNKNOWN): … was on Afghanistan.
TRUMP: OK. Wouldn’t matter. I never said it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KELLY: Next, on whether we should accept…
TRUMP: Should I respond to that first?
KELLY: Two more, and then you’ll have the floor. Next on whether we should accept the Syrian refugees…
TRUMP: You’ll be here a long time.
KELLY: On whether we should accept the Syrian refugees.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Do you object to migrants who are getting out of the Middle East and North Africa? Do you object to them coming to the USA?
TRUMP: I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis, with what’s happening, you have to. It’s living in Hell in Syria; there’s no question about it. They’re living in Hell.
HANNITY: Are you saying absolutely people from Syria, the Middle East, should we allow any of them into this country?
TRUMP: Look, from a humanitarian standpoint, I’d love to help, but we have our own problems. We have so many problems that we have to solve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KELLY: Most recently, on whether President George W. Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction; there were none. And they knew there were none.
I don’t know if he lied or not. He could have lied. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. I guess you’d have to ask him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KELLY: And there are many other examples. So how is any of this “telling it like it is”?
TRUMP: Well, on Afghanistan, I did mean Iraq. I think you have to stay in Afghanistan for a while, because of the fact that you’re right next to Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, and we have to protect that. Nuclear weapons change the game.
And I was always against going into Iraq. In fact, I — believe me, I was always against it. There was some cases where I sort of — in one interview with a great friend of mine, and yours, Howard Stern — said that — said that…
I said very meekly, long before we went in, I said very meekly, well, maybe, maybe, I don’t know. By the time it got to that point, I was always against Iraq. But Afghanistan, I felt — and in that one, if you notice, I corrected it the second day. OK? Second question? KELLY: There are several examples, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: No, no. But…
KELLY: We went through the Afghanistan being a mistake. Within one day, you reversed yourself on Syrian refugees.
TRUMP: Now on — let me explain that. You’re right. Let me explain. First time the question had been put to me, it was very early on. The migration had just started. And I had heard that the number was a very, very small number.
By the second day, two or three days later, I heard the number was going to be thousands and thousands of people. You know, when they originally heard about it, they were talking about bringing very, very small numbers in.
And I said, begrudgingly, well, I guess maybe that’s OK. It was not like, “Let’s bring them in,” because I think we should build a safe zone in — we should really — what we should be doing is building safe zones so they can stay in their own country and not go all over, and at least this way we’re not going to have the problem. That’s what we have to do.
LIKE THE BIBLICAL REUBEN, TRUMP IS AS UNSTABLE AS WATER
But just — just to set — because I fully understand what you’re asking. When I first heard the question, first time the question was ever asked to me, first time I really had known about the question, the migration had just started. I was very much like, OK, by the time I went back and studied it, and they were talking about bringing thousands and thousands, I changed my tune. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
KELLY: But the point I’m going for is you change your tune on so many things, and that has some people saying, what is his core?
TRUMP: Megyn, I have a very strong core.
I have a very strong core. But I’ve never seen a successful person who wasn’t flexible, who didn’t have a certain degree of flexibility. You have to have a certain degree of flexibility.
You can’t — for instance, let’s say, on — on the second question, you can’t say it’s OK, and then you find out it’s not OK, and you don’t want to do anything. You have to be flexible, because you learn. I mean, before I knew the question was asked by Bill, and the next day, or the couple of days later, the question was asked by, by — you know — I was asked by a number of people, actually. I was asked by Sean, but I was asked by a number of people. But by that time, the number had increased significantly.
KELLY: Sean was the next day after Bill.
TRUMP: The next day. But I had learned. I mean, nobody had ever asked me the question. This was brand new. But — and I really mean it. You have to show a degree of flexibility. If you’re going to be one way and you think it’s wrong, does that mean the rest of your life you have to go in the wrong direction because you don’t want to change?
I GUESS BETTER TOO FLEXIBLE THAN NOT FLEXIBLE ENOUGH.
KELLY: Go ahead, Governor.
KASICH: I did 200 meetings in New Hampshire, I don’t know how many in Michigan now. In these townhalls people come in and they’re very emotional meetings. And, you know what they really want to know? If somebody tells them something, can they believe it?
And, the reason why people are so upset in this country is because politicians all the time tell them what they want to hear. And, they go to Washington, or they go to the state capital, wherever, and they don’t deliver on those promises.
You know, when I ran for Governor of Ohio, I said not only would we balance the budget, but we would cut taxes. People said that can’t be done. I wouldn’t have said it if I didn’t believe it.
We cut taxes in Ohio more than any governor in the country, and $5 billion dollars worth of tax cuts — we’re not running a surplus in Ohio. But, you see, what’s getting in the hearts and souls of the people is they want change, and they keep putting outsiders in to bring about the change, then the change doesn’t come. Then they put more outsiders in because we’re putting people in that don’t understand compromise. They don’t understand policy…
KASICH: … They’re getting more and more frustrated with the system which is why we must pick somebody that has a record of achievement, not just talk.
KASICH: Not just talk, but a record of achievement. That’s how we’ll restore credibility..
RUBIO: … This isn’t just about flexibility.
KELLY: Go ahead, Senator. RUBIO: There’s a difference between flexibility and telling people whatever you think you need to say to get them to do what you want them to do.
RUBIO: And, that’s what Donald has done throughout his career.
RUBIO: Well, he did, and that’s why Trump University…
TRUMP: … That’s not right…
RUBIO: … Is so relevant here. I saw this video last week where he’s sitting in front of a camera saying we’re going to hire the best people, and I’m going to hand pick them. There are going to be hand picked and instructors, the best instructors in the world. One of them, but the way, was the manager at a Buffalo Wild Wing. And, that’s who they hired to do this, and people borrowed money, and they signed up for this fake university.
And, these people owe all this money now, and they got nothing in return for it, but you are willing to say whatever you had to say…
RUBIO: … To get them to give you their money…
KELLY: … Go ahead, Mr. Trump…
TRUMP: … We’ll find out when we have the (INAUDIBLE)…
RUBIO: … And, we’re not going to do that to our country…
TRUMP: … And, by the way, just so you understand…
TRUMP: … This is a case I could have settled very easily, but I don’t settle cases very easily when I’m right. Ninety-eight percent approval rating, we have an “A” from the Better Business Bureau…
RUBIO: … That’s false…
TRUMP: … We have a 98 percent approval rating from the people who took the course. We have an “A” from the Better Business Bureau. And, people like it. Now, he’s saying they didn’t learn.
We have many, many people that will be witnesses. Again, I don’t settle cases. I don’t do it because that’s why I don’t get sued very often, because I don’t settle, unlike a lot of other people.
We have a situation where we will win in court…
(BELL RINGING) TRUMP: But, many of the people that are witnesses did tremendously well, and made a lot of money…
RUBIO: … That’s false…
TRUMP: … By taking the course.
KELLY: Go ahead, Senator.
TRUMP: You’re going to see, you don’t know…
RUBIO: … The Better Business Bureau gave it a “D” minus.
TRUMP: You’re going to see, you’re going to see.
KELLY: … It’s Senator Rubio’s turn…
TRUMP: … No, no. Before they had the information…
RUBIO: … Go on my website, Marco Rubio.com…
TRUMP: … Before they had the information…
KELLY: … Senator Rubio, standby, let him finish his point, and then I’ll give you the floor…
TRUMP: … Before they had the information it got — it is right now an “A”, once they had the information…
RUBIO: … (INAUDIBLE) this anymore.
TRUMP: … The only reason that is was a “D” was because we didn’t care — we didn’t give them the information…
RUBIO: … A third of the people (INAUDIBLE)…
TRUMP: … When they got the information it became an “A”…
KELLY: … With respect — wait. With respect…
TRUMP: … Marco you don’t know (INAUDIBLE)…
KELLY: … With respect, we went back and looked at this…
TRUMP: … Yes.
KELLY: The rating from the Better Business Bureau was a “D” minus…
(CHEERING) (APPLAUSE) TRUMP: … (INAUDIBLE)
KELLY: … that’s the last publicly available rating in 2010, and it was the result of a number of complaints they had…
TRUMP: … But it was elevated to an “A”…
UNIDENTIFIABLE MALE: (INAUDIBLE)
KELLY: … That’s never been publicly available.
TRUMP: … I can give it to you. I can give it to you tomorrow..
KELLY: … Let’s just bring the viewers up to speed, let’s just bring the viewers up to speed.
TRUMP: … It was elevated to an “A”.
KELLY: Let me just set the record, and then you guys can have at it. There was Trump University, which was a business that you started, and it was marketed…
TRUMP: … Small business…
KELLY: … to many people, and now there is a class-action of over 5,000 plaintiffs against you, Mr. Trump…
TRUMP: … Right…
KELLY: … And, it involves veterans, and it involves teachers, and it involves so-called little guys, working class, and lower- working class and middle class who say that they were fleeced, who say that it was as scam. The class has been certified, and in that case you counter-sued the lead plaintiff alleging that you were being defamed.
That case was thrown out against her…
TRUMP: … The lead plaintiff is now getting out of the case because it’s so bad for her…
KELLY: … But, what happened was…
TRUMP: … Excuse me, the lead plaintiff signed a letter saying how great it was, and it on tape saying how great it was.
KELLY: OK, no, but — standby. But, what happened in that case was you counter-sued her. The court threw out your counter-suit, and made you pay almost $800,000 dollars in legal fees of hers, and you made the same argument about 98 percent of the people being happy with Trump University. And, that woman in particular signing a survey saying she liked it while someone was standing over her shoulder…
TRUMP: … She’s trying to get out of the case. She’s trying to get out of the case…
KELLY: … And this is what — standby, this is what the Court of Appeals found. They said that the plaintiffs against you are like the Madoff victims…
TRUMP: Oh, give me a break… KELLy: … This is what the Court of Appeals said.
TRUMP: Give me a break.
KELLY: This is what the court of appeals said.
TRUMP: Give me a break.
KELLY: They found that victims of con artists often sing the praises of their victimizers until they realize they have been fleeced.
TRUMP: You know what, let’s see what happens in court. This is a civil case. Very easy to have settled. Could settle it now. Very easy to have settled. Let’s see what happens at the end of a couple years when this case is over, OK?
KELLY: It has been going for five years.
TRUMP: Yes, it has been going for a long time.
KELLY: Go ahead, Senator.
RUBIO: I spoke to one of the victims yesterday.
TRUMP: We’ll win the case.
RUBIO: I spoke to one of the victims yesterday.
TRUMP: One, one of the victims.
RUBIO: No, there are several. Obviously there are so many, I can’t talk to them every day. I spoke to one of them, he told me exactly what happened. They signed up for this course because they believed Mr. Trump was this fantastic businessman, that Donald is going to teach them the tricks of the trade.
They signed up. They paid $15,000 for this course. They were asked for additional money for this course. If they really wanted the real secrets of success, they had to pay even more money, and so they did.
And you know what they got in these courses? Stuff you can pull off of Zillow. When they finally realized what a scam it was, they asked for their money back.
And you refused to give them their money back. Why don’t you tonight…
TRUMP: I gave many people their money back. RUBIO: Then why don’t you tonight say you’re going to give the money back to everybody who wants…
TRUMP: Let me just…
KELLY: OK. Senator Rubio, let him answer.
KELLY: Let him answer.
Go ahead, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: We will see who’s right at the end of a few years. But all of the — almost all of the people, many, many people signed what’s called the report card at the end, did you like the course, how did you like it.
Almost all of them said it was terrific, OK? With letters, with this. Some of them are on tape saying it was terrific. Let’s see what happens at the end of three years.
KELLY: With respect, Mr. Trump, one-third of the plaintiffs in that case demanded refunds. So it’s not the case that 98 percent were…
TRUMP: I gave some refunds to people because if they asked for the refunds in a certain period of time, and we gave refunds to people.
TRUMP: But let’s see what happens at the end of three years. Let’s see who’s right.
KELLY: Still a pending litigation.
TRUMP: It’s called pending litigation.
RUBIO: Megyn, this is why this is relevant to this election.
KELLY: All right. Senator Rubio then Senator Cruz. Go ahead.
RUBIO: This is why, because he’s trying to do to the American voter what he did to the people that signed up for this course. He’s making promises he has no intention of keeping. And it won’t just be $36,000 that they lose, it’s our country that’s at stake here.
The future of the United States and the most important election in a generation,
WELL, THE MOST IMPORTANT SINCE 2012 ANYHOW. THOUGH I THINK IT COULD BE THE MOST IMPORTANT IN A GENERATION IF RUBIO IS PRESIDENT AND STARTS WW 3 WITH RUSSIA. (JUST GOOGLE RUBIO AND “WAR WITH RUSSIA” IF YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE).
and he’s trying to con people into giving them their vote just like he conned these people into giving him their money.
TRUMP: Let me tell you the real con artist. Excuse me. Excuse me. The real con artist is Senator Marco Rubio who was elected in Florida and who has the worst voting record in the United States Senate.
He doesn’t go to vote. He’s absent. He doesn’t go. Now, the people of Florida can’t stand him. He couldn’t get elected dogcatcher. The people of Florida — the people of Florida — and by the way, I know he’s going to spend $25 million on ads. Without that he wouldn’t have a chance. He’s 20 points south.
The people in Florida wouldn’t elect him dogcatcher. He couldn’t get any — he’s right now 21 points down to me. And, you know…
TRUMP: … again, there will be a lot of advertising. It’s the only thing that might save him. But I doubt it.
RUBIO: Notice that’s not an answer.
KELLY: I’m coming to you next. But go ahead.
TRUMP: He scammed the people of Florida. He scammed people. He doesn’t vote. He doesn’t show up for the U.S. Senate. He doesn’t vote. He scammed the people. He defrauded the people of Florida.
KELLY: With respect, you’ve made that point.
RUBIO: There’s no — as you can see in his answer, it’s always the same thing.
TRUMP: You defrauded the people of Florida, little Marco.
KIND OF A STRETCH. IF YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO’S YOUNG ENOUGH TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, YOU ASSUME THE RISK THEY WILL MISS A FEW VOTES. AND HOW OFTEN DOES ONE VOTE MATTER IN THE SENATE THESE DAYS ANYHOW? HINT: NEVER
RUBIO: He has defrauding people out of things, and not just — and not just, by the way, on the issue of Trump University. He had another development in Mexico that he had nothing to do with except his name on the building. People put money into that building.
TRUMP: That was licensing.
RUBIO: They lost their money. Yes, licensing, but you told them you owned the building. So they gave him his money. They lost their money. Time and again…
KELLY: All right. Stand by. I will come back to you. Senator Cruz wants to weigh in. You’re coming back.
CRUZ: Megyn, let me ask the voters at home, is this the debate you want playing out in the general election? The stakes in this election are too high. For seven years, millions of Americans, we’ve been struggling, wages have been stagnating, people are hurting, our constitutional rights are under assault.
And if we nominate Donald, we’re going to spend the spring, the fall, and the summer with the Republican nominee facing a fraud trial…
TRUMP: Oh, stop it.
CRUZ: … with Hillary Clinton saying…
TRUMP: It’s just a minor case. It’s a minor case.
CRUZ: … why did you give my campaign and my foundation $100,000?
TRUMP: It’s a minor civil case.
CRUZ: And with Hillary Clinton…
TRUMP: Give me a break.
CRUZ: … pointing out that he supported her four times in her presidential race.
TRUMP: It’s a minor civil case.
CRUZ: Donald, learn not to interrupt. It’s not complicated.
TRUMP: There are many, many civil cases.
CRUZ: Count to 10, Donald. Count to 10.
TRUMP: Give me a break.
CRUZ: Count to 10. The stakes are too high and if you are one of the 65 to 70 percent of Republicans who recognize that nominating Donald would be a disaster, then I ask you to come join us. If you’re supporting other candidates, come join us.
We welcome you to our team because we’ve demonstrated not once, not twice, not three times, but five separate times we have beat Donald. And if you don’t want him to be the nominee, then I ask you to stand with us as a broad coalition of people who believe in the Constitution, believe in freedom, and want to turn this country around.
KELLY: Go ahead, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: I don’t believe these politicians. All talk, no action.
SEEMS LIKE PROJECTION HERE. THEN AGAIN, I THINK “NO ACTION” IS THE BEST ARGUMENT I’VE HEARD FOR VOTING FOR TRUMP. THE LAST THING I WANT FROM MOST PEOPLE NOW RUNNING IS ACTION.
I’m standing here listening to — I’m hearing him say about a percentage. CNN, he gets 15. That means 85 percent, based on what you’re saying, of the people don’t dig you, number one, number one. Is that a correct statement? How do you get — are you at 15 in the new CNN poll? Do you believe in CNN? I mean, I know we’re with FOX. But CNN spent — CNN…
CRUZ: All right, I’ll respond…
TRUMP: CNN spent a lot of money on a poll, just came out. I’m at 49. He’s at 15. He tells me about 65 percent of the people. It’s not 65 percent of the people. If you go by that, 85 percent of the people.
Then he goes, we have five. And — well, excuse me, I won 10. I won 10 states. If you listen to him, it’s like — I won 10 states. Everybody knows that on Super Tuesday Trump was the winner. There wasn’t one person that didn’t say that. Even the two people on your left and right said we did a great job. So how does he take — how does he take five and say it’s better than 10?
KELLY: Go ahead, Senator.
TRUMP: I am by far the leader. But if you listen to a politician, he’ll try and convince you otherwise.
KELLY: Senator Cruz, go.
CRUZ: All right, well, Donald lives by the polls every day. He tweets about the polls.
TRUMP: No, I don’t. No, I don’t.
CRUZ: He’s told us to look to the CNN poll. Well, that’s a very good poll to look to, because that CNN poll showed that head to head Donald Trump loses to Hillary Clinton by 8 points. He doesn’t just lose close; he loses by 8 points. That same poll he told you to look at shows me beating Hillary Clinton.
We cannot mess this up. And, by the way, the last four polls in a row, when you nominate a candidate who literally has been on every side of every issue, and in the course of this debate may be on two other sides before we’re done, that’s not how you win. And the stakes are too high. (CROSSTALK)
KELLY: All right. I’m going to let Mr. Trump — I’m going to let — let me just…
TRUMP: According to your poll…
KELLY: I’m going to let you respond to that, Mr. Trump. I’m going to then go to you, Governor. You’re up next.
TRUMP: … I know, but your recent polls have me beating Hillary Clinton, and very, very easily.
KELLY: OK. Do you want to weigh in?
KASICH: All right, look, honestly, when I see people at these meetings, these town halls, where we take massive questions, and I get to spend time with them. Last night, there was a woman that came to tell me about the loss of her 15-year-old son, who took his own life.
See, there’s people in this country — and Ted’s right — their wages haven’t gone up for so long, they see the rich get richer, they believe, and they’re not moving. And they put their money in the bank, and they got no interest on their money. They receive none. And their sons or daughters are living in the basement because they can’t get a good job after they rang up so much college debt.
What people are hungry for is, who can fix this?
YES, THAT WOULD BE NICE- BUT RIGHT NOW I THINK I’D SETTLE FOR “WON’T START WORLD WAR III”
People want to know who — what can you do to solve the problems in Washington, to make sure that we have stronger job growth and better wages? But you know what else they’re yearning for? They want to believe that they have the power to fix things where they live, and they want the power back, so they can begin to do things in their community.
Now, listen, this has been going on for a long time here. And I appreciate the discussion back and forth. But there are a lot of people out there yearning for somebody who’s going to bring America back, both at the leadership level and in the neighborhood, where we can begin to reignite the spirit of the United States of America. And let’s stop fighting.
KELLY: Governor, thank you. Gentlemen, thank you.
WALLACE: Much more to come live from the Fox Theater, including where the candidates stand on the social issues facing the country. The Republican presidential debate continues in a moment.
KELLY: Welcome back, everybody, to the Fox News Republican presidential debate. We want to get right back to the questions.
BAIER: We are here in Detroit. The top issues in Michigan, according to Facebook, are displayed in a word cloud you’re taking a look at. The second biggest issue is clean water. That, of course, is directly tied with the situation in Flint.
Senator Rubio, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have both been to Flint. They are both running ads in this state focusing on that, focusing on supporting Flint and fixing the problems, showing images of people in Flint thankful that they’re there.
Without getting into the political blame game here, where are the national Republicans’ plans on infrastructure and solving problems like this? If you talk to people in this state, they are really concerned about Flint on both sides of the aisle. So why haven’t GOP candidates done more or talked more about this?
RUBIO: Well, I know I’ve talked about it, and others in our campaign have talked about it, and other candidates have talked about it, as well. What happened in Flint was a terrible thing. It was systemic breakdown at every level of government, at both the federal and partially the — both the state and partially at the federal level, as well.
And by the way, the politicizing of it I think is unfair, because I don’t think that someone woke up one morning and said, “Let’s figure out how to poison the water system to hurt someone.”
But accountability is important. I will say, I give the governor credit. He took responsibility for what happened. And he’s talked about people being held accountable…
… and the need for change, with Governor Snyder. But here’s the point. This should not be a partisan issue.
ON THE ONE HAND, WE’RE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY- ON THE OTHER HAND, IT’S THE OTHER PARTY’S FAULT. SEEMS SLIGHTLY CONTRADICTORY The way the Democrats have tried to turn this into a partisan issue, that somehow Republicans woke up in the morning and decided, “Oh, it’s a good idea to poison some kids with lead.”
STRAW MAN. MY SENSE IS THAT THE LINE OF ATTACK ON SNYDER AND HIS AIDES ARE BEING ACCUSED OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS: “WE ACCIDENTALLY POISONED SOME PEOPLE WITH LEAD. BUT LET’S NOT SPEND MONEY DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT, BECAUSE WE’RE FISCAL CONSERVATIVES.” AM I WRONG? It’s absurd. It’s outrageous. It isn’t true.
All of us are outraged by what happened. And we should work together to solve it. And there is a proper role for the government to play at the federal level, in helping local communities to respond to a catastrophe of this kind, not just to deal with the people that have been impacted by it, but to ensure that something like this never happens again.
BAIER: Thank you, Senator.
KELLY: Governor Kasich, the city of Detroit has long suffered with urban blight, broken street lights, dilapidated and vacant houses, and so on. In 2013, Detroit actually declared bankruptcy, which helped, but the schools here remain a big problem. They’re $3.5 billion in debt and are some of the most troubled and poorly testing in the country. The kids too often go to classrooms that are unsafe, falling apart, infested with rodents and insects. Experts say the schools could go bankrupt by next month.
Question to you. If the federal government bailed out the auto industry here in Detroit, should it also bail out the Detroit schools?
KASICH: Well, look, first of all, I think the mayor now is controlling the schools. This is not much different than what happened in Cleveland, Ohio, where the African-American Democrat mayor, the union, and business leaders came to see me and said, “Would you help us to pass legislation to really create a CEO environment so that we can take control of the schools?”
We even invested in a buyout plan, where we bought out the teachers who had been there a long time, because there were so many young teachers who had been laid off who were so enthusiastic to get back in the schools. It worked beautifully. Cleveland’s coming back. The Cleveland schools are coming back because of a major overhaul.
REALLY? I DON’T THINK PEOPLE I KNOW IN CLEVELAND FEEL THAT WAY
It’s the same thing that has to happen in all of our urban schools. And, frankly, look, if I were president, I’d take 104 federal programs, bundle them into four buckets, and send it to the states, because fixing schools rests at the state and the local level, and particularly at the school board level.
KASICH: Now, I also believe — I also believe that you need to introduce vocational education in those schools.
SCHOOLS EVERYWHERE ALREADY HAVE VOCATIONAL EDUCATOIN You need mentoring in those schools. And you need to have a situation where people can have an alternative forum to get a degree. And you need school choice, both vouchers and charter schools. All of those things can come together to help, Megyn.
But here’s the bottom line. And I’ll go quickly. We as adults have to fight in our neighborhoods, in our communities, for our children’s education. Put the politics aside, and everyone in this room can play a role in lifting their schools and lifting the students who are in those schools, because too much politics gets in the middle of it, and where we focus as adults, and put children first, we see tremendous results. And the people of this town are going to rise. And they need to be involved. Thank you.
WALLACE: For — for half a century, as you all know, Detroit was the symbol of America’s industrial might: 300,000 manufacturing jobs in this city. At last count, there are now fewer than 30,000 manufacturing jobs here, and the unemployment rate in this city is 11 percent, twice the national average.
Senator Cruz, I know that you have general plans for tax reform, but what specifically would you do to bring manufacturing jobs back to America and train residents of cities like Detroit to do those jobs?
CRUZ: Well, Chris, thank you for that question. Let me start by observing that Detroit is a great city with a magnificent legacy that has been utterly decimated by 60 years of failed left-wing policy.
You know, Henry Ford revolutionized automobile manufacturing and brought automobiles to the middle class. During World War II, Detroit provided — funded the arsenals of democracy to help us win World War II. In — in the 1960s, Detroit was the Silicon Valley of America. It had a population of 2 million people, had the highest per capita income in the country.
And then, for 50 years, left-wing Democrats have pursued destructive tax policies, weak crime policies, and have driven the citizens out. (APPLAUSE)
This city now has just 700,000 citizens. There are vacant homes, one after the other after the other. Crime has been rampant, and it is an outrage. And let me say to folks in the media: That is a story that the media ought to be telling over and over again, the destruction of left-wing policies and the millions who have hurt because of it.
BOILERPLATE PARTISAN NONSENSE. PLENTY OF PLACES WITH MUCH MORE LEFT-WING LEADERS THAN DETROIT ARE MORE PROSPEROUS.
WALLACE: Well, I was going to say, I’ll give you 30 seconds to try to answer my question. What specifically would you do to bring manufacturing jobs back to Detroit and to train the residents here to do those jobs?
CRUZ: The way you bring manufacturing back to America is, number one, you lift the regulations. As president, I will repeal Obamacare, the biggest job-killer in America.
I will pull back the federal regulators, the EPA and all the regulators that are killing small businesses and manufacturing.
And my tax plan, which is a very, very detailed plan on the website, tedcruz.org, is what’s called border adjustable. We get rid of all the taxes. We get rid of the corporate income tax and the death tax and the Obamacare taxes and the payroll tax. And we replace it with a 16 percent business flat tax that is border adjustable, which means all exports are entirely tax-free and all imports pay the 16 percent business flat tax. That’s a 32 percent differential.
What that will do, Chris, is bring millions of manufacturing jobs back to this country, bring the steel industry back to this country, create an environment where when we compete on a fair and level playing field, American ingenuity can beat anyone. But right now, the federal government isn’t giving us a level playing field.
NONE OF THIS IS PARTICULARLY DETROIT SPECIFIC, BUT THEN AGAIN CRUZ ISN’T REALLY TALKING TO DETROITERS HERE.
WALLACE: Thank you, Senator.
BAIER: Gentlemen, the next series of questions will be on social issues. Governor Kasich, the last debate, you were asked a question about religious liberty, in a hypothetical situation where a same-sex couple approaches a cupcake maker to do their wedding. Here’s what you said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASICH: If you’re in the business of selling things, if you’re not going to sell to somebody you don’t agree with, today I’m not going to sell to somebody who’s gay, then tomorrow maybe I won’t sell to somebody who’s divorced.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: Governor, some faith leaders got nervous about that answer. Do gay marriage dissenters have rights?
KASICH: Well, look, first of all, I try to be a man of faith every day as best as I can, and I try to focus in my faith on the dos and I think the don’ts will take care of themselves once I get the dos right, which is humility, and loving my enemy, and caring for my neighbor.
But secondly, look, you’re in the commerce business, you want to sell somebody a cupcake, great. OK? But now if they ask you to participate in something you really don’t like, that’s a whole ‘nother issue, OK? Another issue.
KASICH IS FOR SELLING CUPCAKES. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
Here’s what I’d like to see happen. The Supreme Court ruled, I don’t agree with the ruling. I’m of favor of marriage between — you know, traditional marriage, a man and a woman. What I hope was going to happen after the Supreme Court ruling is things would settle down.
If you go to a photographer to take pictures at your wedding, and he says, I’d rather not do it, find another photographer, don’t sue them in court. You know what, the problem is in our country — in our country, we need to learn to respect each other and be a little bit more tolerant for one another.
NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO ANYTHING A PRESIDENT DOES, BUT NEVERTHELESS WELL PUT.
And at the end of the day, don’t go to court. Can’t we have common sense in America? That’s the way it used to be. And there was a book written called “The Death of Common Sense.” We need to bring it back.
But at the end of the day, if somebody is being pressured to participate in something that is against their deeply-held religious beliefs, then we’re going to have to think about dealing with the law.
But you know what, I’d rather people figure this out without having to put another law on the books and have more arguments in this country. Why don’t we come together as a country, respect one another, love one another and lift this country? I think that’s what people want.
So thanks for asking.
BAIER: Senator Cruz, the U.S. Supreme Court obviously declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states, a decision you have criticized. Given the current status of the law, do you believe a gay couple should be able to adopt?
CRUZ: Well, listen, adoption is decided at the state level and I am a believer in the 10th Amendment in the Constitution, I would leave the question of marriage to the states, I would leave the question of adoption to the states.
That’s the way it has been for two centuries of our nation’s history until five unelected judges in an illegitimate and wrong decision decided to seize the authority over marriage and wrongfully tear down the marriage laws of all 50 states.
Now, interconnected to this is the question of religious liberty. And at the last debate, one of my colleagues on this stage said on the question of religious liberty and Supreme Court nominees that he’d be willing to compromise and negotiate.
I can tell you, for me, there are areas that we should compromise on. Marginal tax rates, we can reach a middle ground on. But when it comes to core principles and convictions, when it comes to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I can tell the men and women at home I will never compromise away your religious liberty.
And for me, Bret, religious liberty has been a lifelong passion. I’ve spent two decades defending religious liberty, including defending the Ten Commandments before the U.S. Supreme Court and winning. Defending the Pledge of Allegiance before the Supreme Court and winning.
I CAN’T IMAGINE HIS RIVALS ARE AGAINST RELIGIOUS LIBERTY EITHER. ALSO THE FLAG, MOTHERHOOD AND APPLE PIE.
And defending the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial, a lone white Latin cross that was erected to honor the men and women who gave their lives in World War I. I represented 3 million veterans for free defending that memorial and we won 5-4 before the Supreme Court.
BAIER: Senator, thank you.
Senator Cruz definitely avoided saying your name, Mr. Trump, but I think he was referring to you and your religious liberty answer. Would you like to respond?
TRUMP: I have nothing to say. I mean, generally speaking, agree with what he said. I would have certainly have rather left it to the states. I was always in favor — I was very surprised when they came up with that decision.
I would have certainly — I would have preferred had it been left to the states and I think most people would have preferred that.
BAIER: Senator Rubio, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, obviously, pointed out, in the United States versus Heller, that like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
Just like the First Amendment doesn’t allow you to go into a theater and yell fire, he said the Second Amendment leaves room to regulate guns. So do you agree with Justice Scalia? And if so, what limits would you draw around the Second Amendment?
RUBIO: As few as possible. The Second Amendment, as I’ve said before, is not a suggestion. It is the constitutional right of every American to protect themselves and their families. It is a right that — it is the Second Amendment for a reason.
It is right after the defense of the freedom of speech for a reason, for clearly the founders of our nation understood and the framers of the Constitution understood that you cannot have life and you cannot have liberty and cannot pursue happiness if you are not safe.
RUBIO: And the Second Amendment — when people talk about gun laws, what they need to realize is, criminals don’t follow gun laws. They’re criminals. By definition, they ignore the law.
But the gun rights of Americans, if you are talking to a law- abiding citizen and a gun-owner like myself, if you pass a law, I will follow whatever the law is. A criminal will not do it. They will continue to pursue these guns on the black market, where they then go out and commit crimes and they steal guns from each other.
Gun laws are not effective. They simply do not provide for safety. But they do, however, ensure that law-abiding people don’t have access to weapons to protect themselves and guns to protect themselves, but criminals always will be well armed. They don’t care about the law; they don’t follow the law. We will protect the Second Amendment when I’m president of the United States.
BAIER: Mr. Trump, you were once a supporter of an assault weapons ban. So do you think there should be any restrictions on the Second Amendment?
TRUMP: No, I’m a big defender of the Second Amendment. And if you look at what’s happened, whether it’s in California, where you had the 14 people killed, whether it’s in Paris — which, by the way, has the toughest gun laws in the world and 130 people killed. Many, many people in the hospital gravely injured. They will be dying. Many people will be dying in addition.
If we had guns, or if they had guns on the other side of the room, with the bullets going in the opposite direction, you would not have had 130 people killed. That I can tell you right now.
So I’m a very, very big supporter of the Second Amendment.
BAIER: But in 2000, you wrote in your book, “I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons.”
TRUMP: I don’t support it anymore. I do not support the ban on assault.
BAIER: Senator Cruz? Any limits to the Second Amendment?
CRUZ: Well, listen, unlike Donald, I would not support banning firearms. In that instance, Bill Clinton banned many of the most popular firearms in America. And by the way, the study showed that ban did nothing to reduce violent crime. It just took away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
ACTUALLY CRIME DID GO DOWN UNDER CLINTON
And let me point out, you know, it is easy for political candidates to have rhetoric and say, “I support the Second Amendment.” But you cannot say that and at the same time say what Donald just said, which is that on the question of Supreme Court nominees he wants to compromise and reach a middle ground with Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer. That’s what he said in the last debate.
TRUMP: I — I did not say that. I did not say that.
CRUZ: And any justice that Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer sign off on…
TRUMP: I did not say that.
CRUZ: And I would point out, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are both Democrats that Mr. Trump has written checks to repeatedly. Any justice that those two sign off on is going to be a left-wing judicial activist who will undermine religious liberty, and we are one vote away from the Heller decision being overturned, which would effectively erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.
If you care about the Second Amendment, then you need to ask who on this stage do you know will appoint principled constitutionalists to the court and not cut a deal with your Second Amendment rights?
BAIER: Mr. Trump…
TRUMP: So we’re listening to the all-talk, no-action politician, and he was the primary supporter of John Roberts, who gave us Obamacare.
CRUZ: That’s flat-out wrong.
TRUMP: No, it’s not. You take a look. He was the primary supporter. He pushed John Roberts, and pushed him, and pushed him, and Bush ultimately appointed him. He got appointed. And when it came his time to raise his hand and kill Obamacare, not once, but twice, he let us down, and he did the wrong thing.
This is the man that was the primary supporter. And you can read law journal, you can read whatever you want to read — I’ve read plenty of it. There was no stronger supporter of John Roberts than him. And it was a very, very big mistake.
BAIER: Quickly, Senator Cruz. CRUZ: You know, Donald has a tenuous relationship with the truth.
I wrote one op-ed supporting President Bush’s nomination after he made it. I would not have made that nomination. But let me point out…
TRUMP: Not what you say in the op-ed.
CRUZ: … if Donald actually cared about…
TRUMP: That is not what you said in the op-ed.
CRUZ: But, Donald, please, I know it’s hard not to interrupt. But try.
TRUMP: Yeah, I know it is. But it’s not what you said in the op-ed.
CRUZ: Breathe, breathe, breathe.
TRUMP: Lyin’ Ted.
CRUZ: You can do it. You can breathe. I know it’s hard. I know it’s hard. But just…
RUBIO: When they’re done with the yoga, can I answer a question?
CRUZ: You cannot.
CRUZ: I really hope that we don’t — we don’t see yoga on this stage.
RUBIO: Well, he’s very flexible, so you never know.
CRUZ: But you cannot, in fact, care about conservative Supreme Court justices and support Jimmy Carter for president. You cannot care about conservative Supreme Court justices and support John Kerry for president, as Donald did. You cannot care about conservative Supreme Court justices and support Harry Reid for Senate majority leader.
And you cannot care about conservative Supreme Court justices and write four checks to Hillary Clinton for her to be president if you care at all about the Second Amendment or religious liberty or anything else.
BAIER: Gentlemen, gentlemen, we’re going to move on. Thank you very much. We want to talk about some more policy questions coming up.
WALLACE: And coming up, the candidates tackle foreign policy. But first, during the commercial break, join us for a Facebook live on the Fox News Facebook page and tell us what you think about tonight’s debate in the comments section. Stay with us. More to come.
KELLY: Welcome back, everybody. We’re going it get right back to the questions.
WALLACE: And gentlemen, we’re going to focus for a bit now on foreign policy.
Senator Rubio, you like to take a shot at Mr. Trump on the campaign trail saying that negotiating a hotel deal in a foreign country is not foreign policy. The other day you even compared him to Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, as lunatics trying to get a hold of nuclear weapons.
Please tell Mr. Trump why he’s unprepared to be commander-in- chief.
RUBIO: Well, first of all, I think, as we’ve seen throughout this campaign, Donald has not shown a seriousness about the issues of foreign policy. He just simply hasn’t.
Whether it was the structure of our military, even today he was asked a question about the issue of commanders not following his lead on killing the family of terrorists. And his answer basically was, if I tell them to do it, they’re going to do it. Now that’s just not true.
Foreign policy is not only consequential, I think much of our future now depends on it.
MADE ME LAUGH (OBVIOUS OF COURSE BUT JUST PHRASED IN AN UNINTENTOINALLY AMUSING WAY) You know, I see a lot of young people at my events around the country. I feel great when they come.
And I always them that despite the hardships of the moment, I honestly believe that today’s Millennials have a chance to be the greatest generation we’ve had in 100 years. I really do.
Because the world today has hundreds of millions of people that can afford to be their clients, their customers, their partners, people they collaborate with. But that won’t happen if the world is dangerous and it’s unstable.
And that will require strong American leadership. The next president of the United States is going to have eight years of a mess of a foreign policy to clean up. That’s why it can’t be Hillary Clinton.
And quite frankly, that’s why it can’t be someone who simply has not shown the intellectual curiosity or the interest in learning about these very complicated issues. And Donald simply hasn’t.
A LOT OF CHUTZPAH COMING FROM THE RUBIOBOT WHOSE EVERY WORD IS A WARMED OVER WALL ST JOURNAL EDITORIAL. BUT OF COURSE TRUE.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, your response.
TRUMP: Well, let me just say this. I’ve gotten to know Marco over a period of time, believe me, he is not a leader. Believe me.
RUBIO: But that doesn’t answer the question.
WALLACE: He didn’t interrupt you. Let him talk.
TRUMP: He didn’t answer — he’s not a leader. And, frankly, when I say they’ll do as I tell them, they’ll do as I tell them. And that’s very — it’s very simple. It’s very simple.
We are in a very dangerous place. We have a depleted military. Totally depleted. We have — by the way, our vets are treated horribly. We’re going to take care of our vets. We’re going to start taking care of our vets, properly, like we should.
But we’re going to build up our military, and we’re going to get the equipment we want, not the equipment that’s sold to us by somebody that gave him and him and not the governor campaign contributions. OK? We’re going to get the equipment that the generals and the soldiers want.
I will prove to be a great leader. And, you know, it’s very interesting, we talk about the polls. Every single poll when it comes to ISIS and the military and the border say, by far, Trump is the best.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, your time is up.
RUBIO: Yeah, I just want to — a couple points. Once again, he was pressed on a policy issue to show his understanding of the foreign policy, and his reaction was just to attack somebody else with a name.
Here’s the bottom line. And I’m going to repeat it again. The world today is as complicated and as complex as it has been certainly in a very — certainly in the lifetime of anybody here today. You indeed do have a lunatic in North Korea with nuclear weapons. You indeed do have the Chinese government taking over the most important shipping lane in the world. And Vladimir Putin, who you’ve expressed admiration for, Donald…
TRUMP: Wrong. Wrong.
RUBIO: You’ve expressed admiration for him.
RUBIO: Donald, you said he’s a strong leader.
RUBIO: He is now dividing Europe up…
OK, HE HAS TAKEN A LITTLE CHUNK OR TWO OF ONE OR TWO COUNTRIES. BUT IT STILL ISN’T THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE OF OLD.
TRUMP: He said very good things about me, and I said…
RUBIO: All right, I’m going to finish my statement here.
TRUMP: Yeah, finish.
RUBIO: And he’s also sowing instability in the Middle East.
RUBIO STILL STUCK IN COLD WAR MODE. You have Iran who’s going to get $100 billion of sanctions relief. You have radical jihadists spreading all over the world. This is a time for seriousness on these issues. You have yet to answer a single serious question about any of this. Will you give us a detailed answer about foreign policy any time you’re asked on it?
TRUMP: Let me just tell you, first of all, I’ve been hearing this man so long talking about Putin. Putin said about me — I didn’t say about Putin — Putin said very nice things about me. And I say very nicely, wouldn’t it be nice if actually we could get along with Russia, we could get along with foreign countries, instead of spending trillions and trillions of dollars?
You’re talking about Flint, Michigan. You’re talking about places — we need to rebuild the infrastructure of our country. Wouldn’t it be nice if we got along with the world, and maybe Russia could help us in our quest to get rid of ISIS, et cetera, et cetera?
AMEN, BROTHER TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WALLACE: Gentlemen, you both have had a chance to talk. You both have had a chance to talk a couple of times. I’d like to move on to Senator Cruz. Senator, we have some breaking news tonight. North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un, has ordered that country’s nuclear weapons to be made ready at a moment’s notice.
CRUZ: Yes. Yes.
WALLACE: And this comes just hours after the U.N. Security Council announced that — approved the toughest sanctions in two decades against that country. Assume you’re President Cruz tonight. What do you do?
CRUZ: Well, you’re right, the news is very disturbing that Kim Jong-un has put their nuclear weapons on ready state. I’m glad that we’re sending another carrier group to the South China Sea. I’m glad that Congress passed sanctions on North Korea.
But this is all the result of the failures of the Clinton administration two decades ago that negotiated a deal with North Korea lifting the sanctions, allowing billions of dollars to flow in, and they used that money to develop nuclear weapons in the first place.
What we — now we’re in a much harder position. When you have a lunatic with nuclear weapons, to some extent, it constrains your options. We need to be moving the carrier — carrier group to the South China Seas. We — we need to be putting in place missile defense, such as the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea.
We need to be pursuing space-based missile defense. One of the advantages of space-based missile defense is that if you have a missile launch in North Korea or you have a missile launch in Iran, a space-based missile defense can take out one or two or three missiles before it can cross over and do damage.
SOUNDS INFORMED, BUT I DON’T KNOW ENOUGH TO KNOW WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE.
And we also need to be putting pressure on China, because North Korea is effectively a — a client state of China. All of that will happen with a strong commander-in-chief that is devoted to keeping this country safe.
WALLACE: Thank you, Senator.
Governor Kasich, I want to move back to the debate that we heard earlier about Vladimir Putin. In December, after Vladimir Putin had some nice thing to say about Donald Trump, calling him bright and talented, your campaign ran a video suggesting that Trump might name the Russian president as his running mate. Here’s a clip.
KASICH: I’ll have to see this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): If elected, Trump promised that the dictatorial duo would, quote, “make tyranny great again.”
TRUMP: I think I’d get along very well with Vladimir Putin. I just think so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: That was your campaign video, sir.
KASICH: That was a pretty good one.
WALLACE: Well, OK.
KASICH: No, I…
WALLACE: If I may — sir, if I may ask my question…
KASICH: Of course.
WALLACE: I think you were kidding…
WALLACE: But it was your video and the serious question is, because the suggestion is, do you think that Donald Trump is naive about the threat that Vladimir Putin represents?
KASICH: I’m not biting. Let me take you around the world, OK? Let me — look, I’m going to take you very quickly.
In Russia, we need to tell them we’re going to arm the Ukrainians with defensive lethal weapons. And we’re going to tell Putin if you attack anybody in Eastern Europe in NATO, you attack Finland and Sweden, which is not in NATO, consider it an attack on us. And he will understand that.
WHY BOTHER? WHY SHOULD WE CARE IF RUSSIA TAKES A CHUNK OF EURABIA? NOT THAT I THINK THAT’S LIKELY. IF YOU’RE GOING TO THREATEN WORLD WAR III, BEST TO DO IT OVER SOMEPLACE RUSSIA NOT INTERESTED IN ATTACKING.
Secondly, I would tell the Chinese you don’t own the South China Sea. Stop hacking us. And we’re going to beef up our cyber command. And we’re going to be in a position to be able to take out your systems if you continue to do this.
Now let’s move over into the Middle East. The Egyptians, they know they’re on their last legs there because of the attack from ISIS. The Jordanians are — really have been our friends. They know that they are at risk. So do the Saudis. So do the Gulf states.
They are our allies, really, or have similar aims,
THE SAUDIS ARE NOT OUR ALLIES- WHY CAN’T KASICH GET IT THROUGH THIS SKULL? THEY PROPAGANDIZE PEOPLE TO SPREAD FANATICISM ALL OVER THE WORLD. we need to bring them closer to us. Turkey a critical avenue IF BY “CRITICAL AVENUE” YOU MEAN “FRIENDS OF HAMAS” YOU AGREE/. to the Middle East. We have to bring them towards the West, and not towards the East.
THIS SPEECH ILLUSTRATES WHY KASICH HAS NOT MADE THE SALE FOR ME. HE MAY NOT BE AS EXTREME AS RUBIO, BUT HE IS STILL TOO NEOCON-LIKE FOR ME.
KASICH: And we have a joint, good human intelligence. That is called a semi-trip around the world. And if you gave me more time, I’d finish the trip.
WALLACE: Governor, thank you.
KASICH: Thank you.
BAIER: Coming up, a final question and closing statements. And take a look at this. The volume of conversation on Facebook surrounding the remaining candidates over the last month. Whether that conversation is good or bad, Donald Trump clearly dominates the field.
We’ll be back with more of the Republican presidential debate live from Detroit.
BAIER: Welcome back to the Republican presidential debate. Let’s get back at it.
Gentlemen, this is the last question of the night. It has been a long time since our first debate, seven months ago in Cleveland. A lot has transpired since then, obviously, including an RNC pledge that all of you signed agreeing to support the party’s nominee and not to launch an independent run. Tonight, in 30 seconds, can you definitively say you will support the Republican nominee, even if that nominee is Donald J. Trump?
Senator Rubio, yes or no?
RUBIO: I’ll support the Republican nominee.
BAIER: Mr. Trump? Yes or no?
RUBIO: I’ll support Donald if he’s the Republican nominee, and let me tell you why. Because the Democrats have two people left in the race. One of them is a socialist. America doesn’t want to be a socialist country. If you want to be a socialist country, then move to a socialist country.
The other one is under FBI investigation. And not only is she under FBI investigation, she lied to the families of the victims of Benghazi, and anyone who lies to the families of victims who lost their lives in the service of our country can never be the commander- in-chief of the United States.
RUBIO: We must defeat Hillary Clinton.
BAIER: Senator Cruz, yes or no, you will support Donald Trump is he’s the nominee?
CRUZ: Yes, because I gave my word that I would. And what I have endeavored to do every day in the Senate is do what I said I would do. You know, just on Tuesday, we saw an overwhelming victory in the state of Texas where I won Texas by 17 percent.
And I will say it was a powerful affirmation that the people who know me best, the people who I campaigned, who made promises that if you elect me, I’ll lead the fight against Obamacare, I’ll lead the fight against amnesty, I’ll lead the fight against our debt, and I will fight for the Bill of Rights and your rights every day, that the people of Texas said you have kept your word, and that’s what I’ll do as president.
BAIER: Governor Kasich, yes or no, would you support Donald Trump as the Republican nominee?
KASICH: Yeah. But — and I kind of think that, before it’s all said and done, I’ll be the nominee. But let me also say…
But let me also say, remember…
BAIER: But your answer is yes?
KASICH: But I’m the little engine that can. And, yeah, look, when you’re in the arena, and we’re in the arena. And the people out here watching — we’re in the arena, we’re traveling, we’re working, we spend time away from our family, when you’re in the arena, you enter a special circle. And you want to respect the people that you’re in the arena with. So if he ends up as the nominee — sometimes, he makes it a little bit hard — but, you know, I will support whoever is the Republican nominee for president.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, I’m going to ask you a version of the same question. As we saw today with Mitt Romney, the #NeverTrump movement is gaining steam. Some people are talking about contributing millions of dollars to try to stop you. Again today, you raised the possibility that you might run as an independent if you feel you’re treated unfairly by the Republican Party.
So I’m going to phrase the question that the other three people on this stage just got. Can you definitively say tonight that you will definitely support the Republican nominee for president, even if it’s not you?
TRUMP: Even if it’s not me?
Let me just start off by saying…
WALLACE: Thirty seconds, sir.
TRUMP: … OK — that I’m very, very proud of — millions and millions of people have come to the Republican Party over the last little while. They’ve come to the Republican Party. And by the way, the Democrats are losing people. This is a trend that’s taking place. It’s the biggest thing happening in politics, and I’m very proud to be a part of it. And I’m going to give them some credit, too, even though they don’t deserve it. But the answer is: Yes, I will.
WALLACE: Yes, you will support the nominee of the party? TRUMP: Yes, I will. Yes. I will.
KELLY: Candidates, it’s now time for your closing statements. Governor Kasich, we’ll start with you.
KASICH: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I love being here in Michigan, and I want to say to all of you here that I have a record of being able to solve some of the biggest problems. It’s not just talk, and it’s not theory.
I did it in Washington by helping people get into a healthier economic situation. I’ve done it in Ohio. And as we’ve made progress in Ohio, we’ve left no one behind. We’ve not left behind the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor, the developmental disabled, and we have raised our minority community.
And as president of the United States, I will go back to Washington, I will take the formulas that I used, and I will — I will fix the problems in Washington, and you’ll work with me as I send you power to fix your — your communities, your neighborhoods, your state, and together, we’ll restore the spirit of America. And I know you want that. Thank you.
WALLACE: Senator Rubio, 30 seconds, closing statement.
RUBIO: Well, I know this has been an unusual election cycle, as it continues, and there’s a lot of problems in America, and people are truly hurting. But this election is not just about confronting our problems; it’s also about embracing our opportunities.
I believe the 21st century holds the potential to be the greatest era in the history of the United States, if we get this election right and if we act now. If we do, if we do what needs to be done, we can leave our children as the freest and most prosperous Americans that have ever lived, and the 21st century can be the greatest era in the amazing story of America. So I ask everyone to vote for me and join our effort at marcorubio.com.
BAIER: Senator Cruz, your closing statement?
CRUZ: I want to talk to every soldier and sailor and airman and Marine. I want to talk to every mom and dad and sister and brother and son and daughter of someone fighting for this country. For seven years, you’ve had a commander-in-chief that doesn’t believe in you, that sends you into combat with rules of engagement that tie your arms behind your back. That is wrong. It is immoral. And in January 2017, it will end.
I want to also talk to all the police officers and firefighters and first responders who have been left behind with this president. Starting in January 2017, I will have your back.
KELLY: Mr. Trump, your closing statement.
TRUMP: Thank you. I am going to bring jobs back to the United States like nobody else can. We’re going to fix our very depleted military. We’re going to take care of our vets. We’re going to strengthen our borders. And you’re going to be very, very proud of this country in just a few years if I’m elected president. Thank you.
KELLY: Thank you, sir.
A liberal acquaintance of mine said that Sanders was electable because he would bring new people into the electorate.
It seems to me that if this was true, Democratic primary turnout would be up. So let’s look at the New Hampshire results:
2008 about 285,000 voters (details here)
2012 about 250,000 voters (details here).
Democrats are staying home, not turning out to vote for Sanders. To put it another way, the total non-Clinton vote in 2008 was about 173,000; this year it was about 155,000- again down. Clinton herself got 17,000 fewer votes.
What about on the Republican side:
2008 about 238,000 votes
2012 a little over 280,000 votes
The energy is on the Republican side this year. Of course, this is based on just one primary- we’ll see how the rest of the primaries shape up.
As always my comments are IN CAPS.
MY GENERAL THOUGHTS: THE ONLY REAL WINNER HERE WAS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. BUSH AND TRUMP WERE SOMETIMES GOOD AND SOMETIMES TERRIBLE.. RUBIO WAS NEVER ALL THAT GOOD, AND SOMETIMES TERRIBLE (BUT I KNOW THE PRESS DECLARED HIM THE WINNER BECAUSE AFTER NEW HAMPSHIRE EXPECTATIONS WERE VERY LOW). KASICH AND CRUZ SAID NOTHING HORRIBLY EMBARASSING BUT WEREN’T ALL THAT INTERESTING EITHER.
First, the death of Justice Scalia, and the vacancy that leaves on the Supreme Court. Mr. Trump, I want to start with you. You’ve said that the President shouldn’t nominate anyone in the rest of his term to replace Justice Scalia. If you were President, and had a chance with 11 months left to go in your term, wouldn’t it be an abdication to conservatives in particular, not to name a conservative justice with the rest of your term?
TRUMP: Well, I can say this. If the President, and if I were President now I would certainly want to try and nominate a justice. I’m sure that, frankly, I’m absolutely sure that President Obama will try and do it. I hope that our Senate is going to be able — Mitch, and the entire group, is going to be able to do something about it.
In times of delay, we could have a Diane Sykes, or you could have a Bill Pryor, we have some fantastic people. But this is a tremendous blow to conservatism. It’s a tremendous blow, frankly to our country.
DICKERSON: So, just to be clear on this Mr. Trump, you’re OK with the President nominating somebody… TRUMP: … I think he’s going to do it whether or I’m OK with it or not. I think it’s up to Mitch McConnell, and everybody else to stop it. It’s called delay, delay, delay.
DICKERSON: Governor Kasich, I want to get your thoughts on this. Justice Scalia was a real believer, obviously, in the strict word of the constitution. Now, Harry Reid says that a failure to fill his vacancy would be, quote, “Shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential constitutional responsibilities.”
Where do you come down on this?
KASICH: Well, John, first of all if I were president we wouldn’t have the divisions in the country we have today. I do want to take a second as we reflected on Judge Scalia, it’s amazing — it’s not even two minutes after the death of Judge Scalia, nine children here today, their father, didn’t wake up. His wife sad, but, I just wish we hadn’t run so fast into politics.
Here’s my concern about this. The country is so divided right now, and now we’re going to see another partisan fight take place. I really wish the president would think about not nominating somebody. If you were to nominate somebody, let’s have him pick somebody that’s going to have unanimous approval, and such wide spread approval across the country that this could happen without a lot of recrimination.
“UNANIMOUS” IS A BIT IMPOSSIBLE THESE DAYS- BUT I SEE HIS POINT. I don’t think that’s going to happen, and I would like the President just to for once here put the country first. We’re going to have an election for President very soon, and the people will understand what is at stake in that election.
And, so I believe the President should not move forward, and I think that we ought to let the next President of the United States decide who is going to run that Supreme Court with a vote by the people of the United…
KASICH: … States of America.
BUT DOES HE THINK HIS PICKS SHOULD HAVE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL? OR IS THERE A SPECIAL OBAMA RULE?
DICKERSON: Dr. Carson. Dr. Carson, you, like others, put out a statement after the death was announced, and you said the president should delay.
You’ve written a book on the constitution recently. What does the constitution say about whose duty it is here to act in this kind of a situation?
CARSON: Well, the current constitution actually doesn’t address that particular situation, but the fact of the matter is the Supreme Court, obviously, is a very important part of our governmental system. And, when our constitution was put in place, the average age of death was under 50, and therefore the whole concept of lifetime appointments for Supreme Court judges, and federal judges was not considered to be a big deal.
Obviously that has changed, and it’s something that probably needs to be looked at pretty carefully at some point. But, we need to start thinking about the divisiveness that is going on in our country. I looked at some of the remarks that people made after finding out that Justice Scalia had died, and they were truly nasty remarks. And, that we have managed to get to that position in our country is truly a shame. And, we should be thinking about how we could create some healing in this land.
But, right now, we’re not going to get healing with President Obama. That’s very clear. So, I…
CARSON: … Fully agree that we should not allow a judge to be appointed during his time.
DICKERSON: Senator Rubio, you’re a…
DICKERSON: Senator Rubio, you’re a lawyer. Quickly, can you address the issue of whether the Constitution tells us who has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices?
And then, also, the Senate Republicans last year floated an idea of removing the filibuster for Senate — excuse me, for Supreme Court nominations. You seemed open to that. What’s your feeling on that now?
RUBIO: Well, let me first talk about Justice Scalia. His loss is tremendous and obviously our hearts and prayers go out to his family. He will go down as one of the great justices in the history of this republic.
You talk about someone who defended consistently the original meaning of the Constitution, who understood that the Constitution was not there to be interpreted based on the fads of the moment, but it was there to be interpreted according to its original meaning.
Justice Scalia understood that better than anyone in the history of this republic. His dissent, for example, on the independent counsel case is a brilliant piece of jurist work. And, of course, his dissent on Obergefell as well.
Number two, I do not believe the president should appoint someone. And it’s not unprecedented. In fact, it has been over 80 years since a lame duck president has appointed a Supreme Court justice.
DEAD WRONG, UNLESS RUBIO HAS A VERY UNUSUAL DEFINITION OF “LAME DUCK.” BUT SECOND TERM PRESIDENTS APPOINT JUSTICES ALL THE TIME; BUSH APPOINTED ROBERTS AND ALITO IN HIS SECOND TERM.
And it remind us of this, how important this election is. Someone on this stage will get to choose the balance of the Supreme Court, and it will begin by filling this vacancy that’s there now.
And we need to put people on the bench that understand that the Constitution is not a living and breathing document. It is to be interpreted as originally meant.
DICKERSON: Quickly, though on this question…
DICKERSON: Very quickly, Senator, on this specific question, though. You were once in favor of dropping the threshold…
RUBIO: That’s not accurate.
DICKERSON: … majority — you were never in favor of that?
RUBIO: No, I’ve never — there has been, for example, today, according to the changes Harry Reid made, appellate judges can now be appointed by a simple majority, but not Supreme Court justices.
And I think today you see the wisdom of why we don’t that want to change. Because if that were the case and we were not in charge of the Senate, Harry Reid and Barack Obama would ram down our throat a liberal justice, like the ones Barack Obama has imposed on us already.
DICKERSON: OK. Thank you, Senator.
Governor Bush, I would like to ask you, conservatives for a long time have felt like that their Republican presidents have picked justices that didn’t turn out to be real conservatives.
DICKERSON: Bernie Sanders has said he would have a litmus test. He would you make sure that he appointed a justice who was going to overturn Citizens United. If they can have a litmus test for a nominee, what about you? Would you have a litmus test for a nominee? And what would it be?
BUSH: Not on specific issues, not at all. I think the next president — if I’m president, I will appoint people — I’ll nominate people that have a proven record in the judiciary.
The problem in the past has been we have appointed people thinking you can get it through the Senate because they didn’t have a record. And the problem is that sometimes we’re surprised.
The simple fact is the next president needs to appoint someone with a proven conservative record, similar to Justice Scalia, that is a lover of liberty, that believes in limited government, that consistently applied that kind of philosophy, that didn’t try to legislator from the bench, that was respectful of the Constitution.
ALL THESE CONCEPTS SEEM A BIT CONTRADICTORY TO ME. NOT TRYING TO LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH AND BEING RESPECTFUL OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO ME, IMPLY BEING FAIRLY DEFERENTIAL TOWARDS ELECTED PEOPLE. BEING A “LOVER OF LIBERTY” WHO “BELIEVES IN LIMITED GOVERNMENT” TO ME SUGGEST IMPOSING YOUR AGENDA ON THE CONSTITUITON.
And then fight and fight, and fight for that nomination to make sure that that nomination passes.
Of course, the president, by the way, has every right to nominate Supreme Court justices. I’m an Article II guy in the Constitution. We’re running for the president of the United States. We want a strong executive for sure. But in return for that, there should be a consensus orientation on that nomination, and there’s no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama will not have a consensus pick when he submits that person to the Senate.
SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY ISN’T IT? AND IS BUSH GOING TO SEEK CONSENSUS NOMINEES IF HE’S PRESIDENT?
DICKERSON: Right, so, Senator Cruz, the Constitution…
DICKERSON: So, Senator Cruz, the Constitution says the president “shall appoint with advice and consent from the Senate,” just to clear that up. So he has the constitutional power. But you don’t think he should.
Where do you set that date if you’re president? Does it begin in election year, in December, November, September? And once you set the date, when you’re president, will you abide by that date?
CRUZ: Well, we have 80 years of precedent of not confirming Supreme Court justices in an election year. And let me say, Justice Scalia…
DICKERSON: Just can I — I’m sorry to interrupt, were any appointed in an election year or is that just there were 80 years…
CRUZ: Eighty years of not confirming. For example, LBJ nominated Abe Fortas. Fortas did not get confirmed. He was defeated.
DICKERSON: But Kennedy was confirmed in ’88.
CRUZ: No, Kennedy was confirmed in ’87…
DICKERSON: He was appointed in ’87.
CRUZ: He was appointed in…
DICKERSON: … confirmed in ’88. That’s the question, is it appointing or confirming, what’s the difference?
CRUZ: In this case it’s both. But if I could answer the question…
DICKERSON: Sorry, I just want to get the facts straight for the audience. But I apologize.
DICKERSON WAS RIGHT, BUT ONLY BY A MONTH OR SO- KENNEDY WAS CONFIRMED IN FEB. 88.
CRUZ: Justice Scalia was a legal giant. He was somebody that I knew for 20 years. He was a brilliant man. He was faithful to the Constitution. He changed the arc of American legal history. And I’ll tell you, his passing tonight, our prayers are with his family, with his wife, Maureen, who he adored, his nine children, his 36 grandkids.
CRUZ: But it underscores the stakes of this election. We are one justice away from a Supreme Court that will strike down every restriction on abortion adopted by the states. We are one justice away from a Supreme Court that will reverse the Heller decision, one of Justice Scalia’s seminal decisions that upheld the Second Amendment right to keep and to bear arms.
We are one justice away from a Supreme Court that would undermine the religious liberty of millions of Americans — and the stakes of this election, for this year, for the Senate, the Senate needs to stand strong and say, “We’re not going to give up the U.S. Supreme Court for a generation by allowing Barack Obama to make one more liberal appointee.”
And then for the state of South Carolina, one of the most important judgments for the men and women of South Carolina to make is who on this stage has the background, the principle, the character, the judgment, and the strength of resolve to nominate and confirm principled constitutionalists to the court? That will be what I will do if I’m elected president.
DICKERSON: All right.
Thank you, Senator Cruz. All right, we’re going to move on to national security here, and we are going to — I want to read a quote from Secretary Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served for eight year — under eight presidents.
And this is what he said about Republican candidates, quote, “Part of the concern that I have with the campaign is that the solutions being offered are so simplistic and so at odds with the way the world really works.”
So, in that spirit, we’re going to work tonight to be more specific.
Mr. Trump, I want to start with you. You have said as president, you’ll get up to speed very quickly. You’ll know more quickly as president than any of the experts.
So, you’ve been elected president. It’s your first day in the situation room. What three questions do you ask your national security experts about the world? TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? Because we are going to have to hit very, very hard to knock out ISIS.
GOOD FOCUS. ONE THING I LIKE ABOUT TRUMP: HE SEEMS TO BE FOCUSED LIKE A LASER BEAM ON ISIS, AS OPPOSED TO SOME OTHER PEOPLE WHO WANT TO START WARS UNRELATED TO ISIS.
We’re going to also have to learn who our allies are. We have allies, so-called allies, we’re spending billions and billions of dollars supporting people — we have no idea who they are in Syria. Do we want to stay that route, or do we want to go and make something with Russia?
I hate to say Iran, but with Russia, because we — and the Iran deal is one of the worst deals I have ever seen negotiated in my entire life. It’s a disgrace that this country negotiated that deal. But very important…
Not only a disgrace, it’s a disgrace and an embarrassment. But very important, who are we fighting with? Who are we fighting for? What are we doing? We have to rebuild our country. But we have to — I’m the only one on this stage that said, “Do not go into Iraq. Do not attack Iraq.” Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong. And I was in the private sector. I wasn’t a politician, fortunately.
But I said it, and I said it loud and clear, “You’ll destabilize the Middle East.” That’s exactly what happened.
SAY IT, BROTHER TRUMP! (THOUGH APPARENTLY HE DIDN’T SAY IT BEFORE THE WAR STARTED, NOT IN PUBLIC ANYHOW).
I also said, by the way, four years ago, three years ago, attack the oil, take the wealth away, attack the oil and keep the oil. They didn’t listen. They just started that a few months ago.
DICKERSON: Senator Rubio — just 30 seconds on this question, Senator Rubio. Are those the questions you would ask?
RUBIO: No. I think there are three major threats that you want to immediately get on top of. No. 1 is, what are we doing in the Asia-Pacific region, where both North Korea and China pose threats to the national security of the United States.
No. 2 is, what are we doing in the Middle East with the combination of the Sunni-Shia conflict driven by the Shia arc that Iran is now trying to establish in the Middle East, also the growing threat of ISIS.
“SHIA ARC”? SERIOUSLY? HE’S REFERRING TO THREE OR FOUR COUNTRIES, AS OPPOSED TO THE 20 SUNNI COUNTRIES, MOST OF WHICH MAKE IRAN SEEM LIKE MOTHER TERESA. RUBIO’S SHIA-PHOBIA SOUNDS TO ME A LOT ;LIKE ANTI-ZIONISM: IN BOTH CASES PEOPLE CONFUSE A TINY MINORITY WITH A MAJORITY.
And the third is rebuilding and reinvigorating NATO in the European theater, particularly in Central Europe and in Eastern Europe, where Vladimir Putin is now threatening the territory of multiple countries, already controls 20 percent of Georgia and a significant percentage of Ukraine.
SO WHAT? WHY IS THIS A TERRIBLE THING?
RUBIO IS EXACLTLY WHAT IS WRONG WITH US FOREIGN POLICY- INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO KILL US, THERE IS THIS LUST TO SHOW YOUR MANHOOD BY TURNING FRENEMIES INTO ENEMIES.
IF CALIPH AL-BAGHDADI WAS WATCHING THIS DEBATE, HE WOULD SAY “THAT’S HOW WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD. DIVIDE AND CONQUER THE INFIDELS!’
DICKERSON: Let me ask you a follow-up, a full, proper question, then.
Violent extremists are operating or active in 40 countries. Some 80 countries are in different degrees of instability. And so, that’s just the crises overseas. Barack Obama walked into an economic collapse when he came into office. We face international health crises, from Ebola to Zika.
So, there is a lot of opportunity for crisis, as you have talked about. What would you point to in your past to show voters that you’ve been in a crisis and that you’ve been tested when that inevitable crisis comes when you’re president?
RUBIO: Well, let me tell you what has happened a couple of years ago. One of the hardest decisions you’ll ever make in Congress is when you are asked by the president to authorize the use of force in a conflict, because you are now putting your name, on behalf of the people of your state, behind a military action, where Americans in uniform could lose their life.
So, in 2014, Barack Obama said he would not take military action against Assad unless it was authorized by the Senate, beginning on the Committee of Foreign Relations, where I am one of its members.
RUBIO: And it was hard because you looked at the pictures. I saw the same images people saw. I’m the father of children. I saw the images of these little children — been gassed and poisoned by their own leaders and we were angry. Something had to happen, and there was the sense that we needed to seek retribution.
And then I looked at Barack Obama’s plan. Barack Obama’s plan, which John Kerry later described as unbelievably small, and I concluded that that attack would not only not help the situation, it would make it actually worse. It would allow Assad to stand up to the United States of America, survive a strike, stay in power and actually strengthen his grip.
So it was a difficult decision to make and when we only had a few days to look at and make a decision on it and I voted against Barack Obama’s plan to use force, and it was the right decision.
TALK ABOUT HAVING IT BOTH WAYS!
DICKERSON: Dr. Carson, I want to ask you a question…
Dr. Carson, you said you’ve had more two a.m. — two a.m. phone calls than anybody up on this stage. But when those two a.m. phone calls came, you operated on a foundation of all of that amazing medical work that you did, all of that learning. So if you were to be president, though, you wouldn’t have the political foundation that hones those instincts when the two a.m. phone call comes. So isn’t that a liability?
CARSON: No, it isn’t. First of all, let me go back to your first question for me. It wasn’t phrased as who gets to nominate Supreme Court appointees, of course that’s the president. So I know that there are some left wing media who would try to make hay on that.
Secondly, thank you for including me in the debate. Two questions already. This is great. Now, as far…
As far as those two a.m. phone calls are concerned, judgment is what is required. And the kinds of things that you come up with are some sometimes very, very difficult and very unique. One of the things that I was known for is doing things that have not been done before. So no amount of experience really prepares you to do something that has never been done before. That’s where judgment comes in.
And that, I think, is a situation that we’re in right now, a situation that we have never been in before with the kinds of threats that pose real danger to our nation, and it comes in very handy in those situations.
DICKERSON: Governor Kasich, Russia is being credited…
Russia is being credited with bombing U.S.-backed rebels on behalf of Assad in Aleppo and Syria. They’ve also moved into the Crimea, eastern Ukraine. You’ve said you want to punch them in the nose. What does that mean? What are you going to do?
KASICH: First of all — yes. First of all, look, we have to make it clear to Russia what we expect. We don’t have to declare an enemy, rattle a sword or threaten, but we need to make it clear what we expect. Number one is we will arm the folks in Ukraine who are fighting for their freedom. They deserve it. There will be no ifs, ands or buts about it.
Secondly, an attack on NATO, trumped up on any excuse of Russian- speaking people, either in the NATO countries or in Finland or Sweden is going to be an attack on us. And look, I think we have an opportunity as America to put something really great together again.
DOES HE WANT TO START WORLD WAR III? THEN AGAIN, I DON’T THINK RUSSIA IS LIKELY TO ATTACK FINLAND OR SWEDEN.
The Egyptians, the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Gulf states, they all know they’re at risk.
We need to look into Europe, we look at France, we look at Germany and the migrants. We look at Belgium, we look at Britain. Everybody now is being threaten by radical Islam.
WHICH THEY SHOW BY ADMITTING THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS INTO THEIR COUNTRY.
We have an opportunity to lead.
“LEADING” IS VAGUE NONSENSE.
You know, the fact of the matter is the world is desperate for our leadership. Sometimes they may — they may make a remark here or there that we don’t like, but frankly, the world needs us. And we have an opportunity now to assemble a coalition of the civilized people, those who respect civilization, the rights of women, the rights to protest, to be able to reassert our leadership all across this globe again and make sure this century is going to be the best we’ve ever seen.
AND DO WHAT?
DICKERSON: You said defeating ISIS requires defeating Assad. But wouldn’t that also put us into conflict with Russia, a country that supports Assad? so doesn’t that mean effectively Assad’s there to stay?
BUSH: No, it doesn’t, and that’s the problem. The lack of leadership in this country by Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, thinking that this is a policy that works, this policy of containment with ISIS. It’s a complete, unmitigated disaster. And to allow Russia now to have influence in Syria makes it harder, but we need to destroy ISIS and dispose of Assad to create a stable Syria so that the four million refugees aren’t a breeding ground for Islamic jihadists.
SO HE WANTS TO FIGHT ISIS AND SYRIA AT THE SAME TIME? SERIOUSLY? AND DO WHAT IN THEIR PLACE? OH, THAT’S RIGHT, BUSH BELIEVES THAT THE US CAN DESTROY EVERY MAJOR FORM OF LEADERSHIP IN A COUNTRY AND PRODUCE SOMETHING OTHER THAN ANARCHY. LISTEN, FOOL: THAT DIDN’T WORK FOR RUSSIA IN AFGHANISTAN. IT DIDN’T WORK FOR YOUR BROTHER IN IRAQ. IT DIDN’T WORK FOR THE CURRENT PRESIDENT IN LIBYA. AND IT WON’T WORK FOR PRESIDENT RUBIO IN SYRIA. IT JUST WON’T, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WISH IT WOULD.
This is the problem. Donald Trump brought up the fact that he would — he’d want to accommodate Russia. Russia is not taking out ISIS. They’re — they’re attacking our — our — our team, the team that we’ve been training and the team that we’ve been supporting.
OUR TEAM? YOU MEAN AL-QAEDA? (AKA THE NUSRA FRONT)
It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that Russia could be a positive partner in this. They are on the run. They are making — every time we step back, they’re on the run.
I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT “ON THE RUN” MEANS IN THIS CONTEXT.
BUSH: The question that you asked was a really good one about what you would do — what three things would you do.
I would restore the military, the sequester needs to be reversed. I would have a strategy to destroy ISIS, and I would immediately create a policy of containment as it relates to Iran’s ambitions, and to make it make clear that we are not going to allow for Iran to do what it’s doing, which is to move towards a nuclear weapon.
Those three things would be the first and foremost things that we need to do…
BUSH: … in 2017.
DICKERSON: Mr. Trump, you’re…
DICKERSON: Mr. Trump, you were mentioned here. You did say that you could get along very well with Vladimir Putin. You did at one point say let Russia take care of ISIS…
TRUMP: … (INAUDIBLE) called me a genius, I like him so far, I have to tell you. Let me just tell you this.
Jeb is so wrong. Jeb is absolutely self — just so you understand, you know what that is? That’s Jeb’s special interest and lobbyist talking.
Look, let me just tell you something, Jeb — Jeb is so wrong. You got to fight ISIS first. You fight ISIS first. Right now you have Russia, you have Iran, you have them with Assad, and you have them with Syria. You have to knock out ISIS. They’re chopping off heads. These are animals. You have to knock em out. You have to knock them off strong. You decide what to do after, you can’t fight two wars at one time.
I CAN’T BELIEVE I’M AGREEING WITH DONALD TRUMP. BUT I THINK THE TALMUD SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT PROPHECY BEING LIMITED TO CHILDREN AND FOOLS…
If you listen to him, and you listen to some of the folks that I’ve been listening to, that’s why we’ve been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven’t won anything. We’ve spent $5 trillion dollars in the Middle East with thinking like that. We’ve spent $5…
TRUMP: Lindsey Graham, who backs him, had zero on his polls. Let me just say something — we’ve spent — we’ve spent.
I only tell the truth, lobbyists.
We’ve spent $5 trillion dollars all over the — we have to rebuild our country. We have to rebuild our infrastructure. you listen to that you’re going to be there for another 15…
DICKERSON: … Alright…
TRUMP: … You’ll end up with world war three…
DICKERSON: … Alright, Governor Bush, please respond.
BUSH: The very basic fact is that Vladimir Putin is not going to be an ally of the United States. The whole world knows this. It’s a simple basic fact.
UM, NO I DON’T.
BUSH: They’re not taking out — they’re not even attempting to take out ISIS. They’re attacking the troops that we’re supporting. We need to create a coalition, Sunni led coalition on the ground with our special operators to destroy ISIS, and bring about stability. And, you can’t do that with Assad in power. He has…
TRUMP: … We’re supporting troops
BUSH: … Let me finish….
TRUMP: …that we don’t even know who they are.
DICKERSON: … OK, settle…
BUSH: …This is ridiculous…
TRUMP: … We’re supporting troops that we don’t even know who they are…
DICKERSON: … Alright, Mr. Trump, alright…
TRUMP: We have no idea who they are.
DICKERSON: Gentleman, I think we’re going to leave that there. I’ve got a question for Senator…
BUSH: … This is coming from a guy who gets his foreign policy from the shows.
TRUMP: … Oh, yeah, yeah…
BUSH: … This is a guy who thinks that Hillary Clinton is a great negotiator in Iran…
TRUMP: … Let 44 million in New Hampshire, it was practically (INAUDIBLE)…
BUSH: … This is a man who insults his way to the nomination…
TRUMP: … 44 million — give me a break.
DICKERSON: … Alright, alright, gentlemen, gentlemen, let’s leave it there so I can ask a question of Senator Cruz who’s also running for President.
DICKERSON: Senator Cruz, you talked about the first Gulf War as being a kind of model for your focused, and determined effort to go after ISIS. But, there were 700,000 ground troops as a part of that, and you don’t have a ground component to your plan. Why?
CRUZ: Well, we need to focus on what the objective is, you know? You’re question about the first three questions you would ask in this Situation Room. I think it is a problem if the president, commander in chief we’ve elected does not have the experience and background to understand the threats facing this country coming in on day one.
If you look at the threats facing this country, the single gravest threat, national security threat, is the threat of a nuclear Iran. That’s why I’ve pledged on day one to rip to shreds this Iranian nuclear deal, and anyone that thinks you can negotiate Konami does not understand the nature of Komani.
SILLY BECAUSE 1) NO, I REALLY DON’T THINK ITS AS MUCH OF A THREAT AS ISIS 2) I DON’T SEE HOW DEEP SIXING THIS DEAL IS GOING TO PREVENT A NUCLEAR IRAN- SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A GREAT WAY TO ACCELERATE IT.
When it comes to ISIS, we’ve got to have a focused objective. One of the problems of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy, and sadly, too many establishment Republicans in Washington, is they focus on issues unrelated to protecting this country. They focus on nation building, they focus on toppling governments to promote democracy, and it ends up undermining our national security.
Now, with regard to ISIS, we need a commander in chief that sets the objective we will utterly defeat them because they have declared war. They’ve declared a jihad on us.
Now, what do we need…
CRUZ: … To carry that out. We need overwhelming air power, we need to arm the Kurds who can be our boots on the ground, and if ground troops are necessary than we should employ them, but it shouldn’t be politicians demonstrating political toughness. It should be military expert judgement carrying out the objectives set out by the commander in chief.
GOOD. I’M HONESTLY NOT SURE ANY LEVEL OF GROUND TROOPS ANY AMERICAN IS CONTEMPLATING WILL WORK, GIVEN THAT IT TOOK 150K TO BEAT AL QAEDA, WHICH WAS MUCH WEAKER THAN ISIS. BUT IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE ONE EYED SEN CRUZ IS KING
DICKERSON: Very quickly, 30-second follow-up. You’ve said that essentially the Kurds would be the American ground forces in there. The criticism that experts have on that is that the Kurds only can work within their territory.
If they take larger amounts of territory, you have an ethnic war with the Arabs. So the Kurds can’t really do as much as you seem to be putting on their backs.
CRUZ: We have Kurds in both Iraq and Syria. They are fighting ISIS right now. They are winning victories right now.
DID HE JUST IGNORE THE QUESTION?
ISIS is using American military equipment they’ve seized in Iraq. And the Obama administration refuses to arm the Kurds, the Peshmerga, the fighting forces who have been longtime allies.
FALSE. JUST COMPLETELY FALSE.
We ought to be arming them and letting them fight. Now if we need to embed Special Forces to direct our overwhelming air power, if it is required to use ground troops to defeat ISIS, we should use them, but we ought to start with using our incredible air power advantage.
The first Persian Gulf War, we launched 1,100 air attacks a day. Today we’re launching between 15 and 30. We’re not using the tools we have and it’s because the commander-in-chief is not focused on defeating the enemy.
DICKERSON: All right. Mr. Trump…
DICKERSON: … on Monday, George W. Bush will campaign in South Carolina for his brother. As you’ve said tonight, and you’ve often said, the Iraq War and your opposition to it was a sign of your good judgment.
In 2008, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, talking about President George W. Bush’s conduct of the war, you said you were surprised that Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi didn’t try to impeach him.
You said, quote: “which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing.” When you were asked what you meant by that and you said: “For the war, for the war, he lied, he got us into the war with lies.” Do you still believe President Bush should have been impeached.
TRUMP: First of all, I have to say, as a businessman I get along with everybody. I have business all over the world.
TRUMP: I know so many of the people in the audience. And by the way, I’m a self-funder. I don’t have — I have my wife and I have my son. That’s all I have. I don’t have this.
TRUMP: So let me just tell you, I get along with everybody, which is my obligation to my company, to myself, et cetera.
Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake. All right? Now, you can take it any way you want, and it took — it took Jeb Bush, if you remember at the beginning of his announcement, when he announced for president, it took him five days.
He went back, it was a mistake, it wasn’t a mistake. It took him five days before his people told him what to say, and he ultimately said, “it was a mistake.” The war in Iraq, we spent $2 trillion, thousands of lives, we don’t even have it. Iran has taken over Iraq with the second-largest oil reserves in the world.
Obviously, it was a mistake.
TRUMP: George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.
DICKERSON: But so I’m going to — so you still think he should be impeached?
BUSH: I think it’s my turn, isn’t it?
TRUMP: You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
TRUMP IS OUT OF BOUNDS HERE. I DON’T THINK ANYONE “KNEW” THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. GIVEN THAT MR. HUSSEIN HAD USED POISON GAS IN THE PAST, I THINK EVEN AMERICANS WHO OPPOSED THE WAR THOUGHT THEY HAD SOME. HAVING SAID THAT, I HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE BUSH PEOPLE WENT TOO FAR TO MAKE THEIR CASE, LIKE COPS TRYING TO FRAME SOMEONE THEY THOUGHT WAS GUILTY ANYHOW- MAYBE THAT’S WHAT TRUMP IS REFERRING TO.
DICKERSON: All right. OK. All right.
Governor Bush — when a member on the stage’s brother gets attacked…
BUSH: I’ve got about five or six…
DICKERSON: … the brother gets to respond.
BUSH: Do I get to do it five or six times or just once responding to that?
TRUMP: I’m being nice.
BUSH: So here’s the deal. I’m sick ask tired of Barack Obama blaming my brother for all of the problems that he has had.
ANYTHING THAT’S OBAMA’S FAULT IS BUSH’S FAULT TOO. NO WAR IN IRAQ, NO OBAMA BEATING HILLARY (SINCE A LARGE PART OF THE RATIONALE FOR THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN WAS BASICALLY “I WAS AGAINST THE WAR AND SHE WAS FOR IT”). SO NO BUSH 43, NO OBAMA.
BUSH: And, frankly, I could care less about the insults that Donald Trump gives to me. It’s blood sport for him. He enjoys it. And I’m glad he’s happy about it. But I am sick and tired…
TRUMP: He spent $22 million in…
BUSH: I am sick and tired of him going after my family. My dad is the greatest man alive in my mind.
BUSH: And while Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe. And I’m proud of what he did.
BUSH: And he has had the gall to go after my brother.
TRUMP: The World Trade Center came down during your brother’s reign, remember that.
BUSH: He has had the gall to go after my mother.
Hold on. Let me finish. He has had the gall to go after my mother.
TRUMP: That’s not keeping us safe.
BUSH: Look, I won the lottery when I was born 63 years ago, looked up, and I saw my mom. My mom is the strongest woman I know.
TRUMP: She should be running.
BUSH: This is not about my family or his family. This is about the South Carolina families that need someone to be a commander-in- chief that can lead. I’m that person.
DICKERSON: Governor Kasich, would you weigh in on…
DICKERSON: Governor Kasich, please weigh in.
KASICH: I’ve got to tell you, this is just crazy, huh?
KASICH: This is just nuts, OK? Jeez, oh, man. I’m sorry, John.
DICKERSON: Why is it nuts? Talk about it. Give us your sense of…
KASICH: Oh, well, listen, I think being in Iraq, look, we thought there were weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell, who is one of the most distinguished generals in modern time said there were weapons there.
KASICH: But, but, the fact is we got ourselves in the middle of a civil war. The Sunni, the Shia, and the Kurds, never gotten along. In fact, that country was drawn — the borders of that country were drawn after World War I by Westerners that didn’t understand what was happening there.
KASICH: The tragedy of it is that we’re still embroiled. And, frankly, if there weren’t weapons of mass destruction we should never have gone. I don’t believe the United States should involve itself in civil wars. Civil wars are not in our direct are interest, and if you — and look, I served on a defense committee for 18 years and was called into the Pentagon after 9/11 by Secretary Rumsfeld to deal with some of the most serious problems that we faced.
OK BUT A TINY BIT MISLEADING IN THIS RESPECT: THE CIVIL WAR DIDN’T EXIST BEFORE THE US INVADED. BUSH BASICALLY CREATED THE CIVIL WAR BY OVERTHROWING HUSSEIN, CAUSING THE COUNTRY TOI LAPSE INTO ANARCHY.
The fact is, is that we should go to war when it is our direct interest. We should not be policemen of the world, but when we go, we mean business. We’ll do our job. We’ll tell our soldiers, our people in the service, take care of your job and then come home once we’ve accomplished our goals.
That’s what we need to do.
VERY GOOD BUT IT SEEMS TO CONTRADICT SOME OF HIS BLATHER ABOUT RUSSIA.
DICKERSON: Thirty seconds, Senator Rubio.
RUBIO: I just want to say, at least on behalf of me and my family, I thank God all the time it was George W. Bush in the White House on 9/11 and not Al Gore.
WHAT WOULD GORE HAVE DONE THAT WOULD BE WORSE?
And you can — I think you can look back in hindsight and say a couple of things, but he kept us safe. And not only did he keep us safe,
DID RUBIO NOT EVEN LISTEN TO THE BUSH/TRUMP EXCHANGE? DID HE FORGET WHO WAS PRESIDENT ON 9/11?
but no matter what you want to say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of U.N. resolutions, in open violation, and the world wouldn’t do anything about it, and George W. Bush enforced what the international community refused to do.
SO THE US SHOULD INVADE ANY COUNTRY THAT IT THINKS IS IN VIOLATION OF UN RESOLUTIONS? LOTS OF PEOPLE THINK ISRAEL IS IN VIOLATION OF UN RESOLUTIONS, DOES THAT MEAN THE US SHOULD BOMB THE SMITHEREENS OUT OF ISRAEL? I AM BEGINNING TO WONDER WHETHER THIS GUY IS AN IDIOT.
And again, he kept us safe, and I am forever grateful to what he did for this country.
TRUMP: How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center — the World — excuse me. I lost hundreds of friends. The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe.
RUBIO: The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn’t kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him.
FALSE DICHOTOMY. JUST BECAUSE CLINTON FAILED DOESN’T MEAN BUSH DIDN’T FAIL TOO. NO LOGIC HERE.
(APPLAUSE) TRUMP: And George Bush– by the way, George Bush had the chance, also, and he didn’t listen to the advice of his CIA.
DICKERSON: All right, Dr. Carson, we have a cleansing…
BUSH: Can I just…
DICKERSON: We have a cleansing…
BUSH: I’m not going to invite Donald Trump to the rally in Charleston on Monday afternoon when he brother is coming to speak.
TRUMP: I don’t want to go.
BUSH: I’m rescinding the invitation. I thought you might want to come, but I guess not.
DICKERSON: All right. Well, Dr. Carson, I have got a question now for you.
A moment of pause here. You have said, Dr. Carson, that — referring to yourself that people bought into the idea that, quote, “A nice person can’t be tough on terrorists.”
You have called for loosening the rules of engagement for the military, which could lead to more civilian casualties.
So, explain why those casualties would be acceptable in the fight against ISIS?
CARSON: Well, first of all, let me just address the Iraq question.
You know, I was not particularly in favor of us going to war in Iraq, primarily because I have studied, you know, the Middle East, recognizing that those are nations that are ruled by dictators and have been for thousands of years. And when you go in and you remove one of those dictators, unless you have an appropriate plan for replacing them, you’re going to have chaos.
SAY IT, BROTHER CARSON!!!!
Now, fortunately, we were able to stabilize the situation, and it was the current administration that turned tail and ran and destabilized the situation.
Now, having said that, in terms of the rules of engagement, I was talking about, you know, Obama has said, you know, we shouldn’t bomb tankers, you know, coming out of refineries because there may be people in there, or because the environment may be hurt.
You know, that’s just asinine thinking. And the fact of the matter is…
You know, we — obviously, you’re not going to accomplish all of your goals without some collateral damage. You have to be able to assess what is acceptable and what is not.
DICKERSON: All right, thank you, Dr. Carson.
TRUMP MAY HAVE LOST THE NOMINATION WITH THESE EXCHANGES- WHICH IS TOO BAD BECAUSE EXCEPT FOR THE “BUSH LIED” REMARK (WHICH REALLY WAS A BIT MUCH) I THINK I MOSTLY AGREE WITH HIM.
We’re going to have to take a commercial break here. Thank you to all the candidates. We’ll be right back with CBS News’ 2016 debate in Greenville, South Carolina.
DICKERSON: We’re back with the Republicans who could (ph) be president. The topic now is money and how the candidates would spend it. We’ll turn the questioning over to Kimberly Strassel of The Wall Street Journal and Major Garrett of CBS news. Kim?
STRASSEL: Mr. Trump.
STRASSEL: You have made a lot of promises and you have also — you’re the only candidate who has said he would not touch entitlements. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that your ideas would cost an additional $12 trillion to $15 trillion over the next 10 years and that we would have to have annual economic growth of anywhere from 7.7 percent to nine percent annually to pay for them. Are you proposing more than you can actually deliver, at least not without big deficits?
TRUMP: First of all, the — when you say I’m the only candidate, if you listen to the Democrats, they want to do many things to Social Security and I want to do them on its own merit. You listen to them, what they want to do to Social Security, none of these folks are getting elected, OK, whether they can do it or not. I’m going to save Social Security. I’m going to bring jobs back from China. I’m going to bring jobs back from Mexico and from Japan, where they’re all — every country throughout the world — now Vietnam, that’s the new one.
They are taking our jobs. They are taking our wealth. They are taking our base. And you and I have had this discussion. We’re going to make our economy strong again. I’m lowering taxes. We have $2.5 trillion offshore. We have 2.5 trillion that I think is actually five trillion because the government has no idea when they say 2.5, they have no idea what they’re doing or saying, as they’ve proven very well.
We’re going to bring that money back. You take a look at what happened just this week, China bought the Chicago Stock Exchange, China, a Chinese company. Carrier is moving to Mexico, air conditioning company. Not only the ones I talk about all the time, Nabisco and Ford and — they’re all moving out.
We have an economy that last quarter, GDP didn’t grow. It was flat. We have to make our economy grow again. We’re dying. This country is dying. And our workers are losing their jobs, and you’re going…
STRASSEL: But in terms of…
TRUMP: I’m the only one who is going to save Social Security, believe me.
STRASSEL: OK. But how would you actually do that? Can I ask you? because right now, Social Security and Medicare…
TRUMP: Because you have tremendous waste. I’ll tell you…
STRASSEL: They take up two-thirds of the federal budget and they’re growing.
TRUMP: You have tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. That we’re taking care of. That we’re taking care of. It’s tremendous. We have in Social Security right now thousand and thousands of people that are over 106 years old. Now, you know they don’t exist. They don’t exist. There’s tremendous waste, fraud and abuse, and we’re going to get it. But we’re not going to hurt the people who have been paying into Social Security their whole life and then all of a sudden they’re supposed to get less. We’re bringing our jobs back. We’re going to make our economy great again.
THE SAME OLD POLITICAL RUBBISH ABOUT WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE. TRUMP PLAYS THE GAME JUST LIKE THE REST OF THEM.
GARRETT: Senator Cruz.
John mentioned this is about dollars and incentives, we also want to talk about economic growth engagements. You have proposed a consumption tax, you called it the “back tax. ” Some analysts compare it more to an attributed “value added tax.”
From the perspective from economic growth in building wages, how does that work and how would you address those loan standing conservative concerns that something approaching the “value added tax” would be used to constantly increase those race to pay for future government spending and become an escalator of taxation not of growth?
CRUZ: Well, let me say it at the outset that everyone here understands – everyone understands that how – that the middle class has been left behind in the last seven years of the Obama economy and we’ve got to bring jobs back. We’ve got to get people back to work. We’ve got to get wages going up again. We’ve got to get people moving from part time work to full time work.
We all agree on that but it’s not going to be solved with magic pixie dust. It’s just going to be solved by declaring into the air, “let there be jobs.” We actually have to understand the principles that made America great in the first place.
Now, where do you get economic growth? If you look at cause and effect over our nation’s history, every time we lessen the burden of Washington on small business owners, on job creators, we see incredible economic growth. You do that through tax reform and regulatory reform.
My tax plan – typical family of four , first 36,000 dollars you earn, you pay nothing in taxes – no income taxes, no pay role taxes, no nothing. Above ten percent, everyone pays the same simple flat ten percent income rate, it’s flat and fair. You can fill out your taxes on a postcard and we abolish the IRS. If you want to see the post card, I’ve got it on my website.
GARRETT: Now the question – conservatives have sort of this idea conceptually for a long time but especially on this consumption value added tax system. In Europe where it exist, it has become an escalator of taxation to feed government spending and that’s why conservatives have long resisted it. Why and what would you do as president to make sure that doesn’t happen?CRUZ: Now Major, the business flat tax that is in my tax plan is not a VAT. A VAT in Europe is a sales tax. The business flat tax is not a sales tax, it is a tax of 16 percent opposed fairly and evenly across the board on all business.
One of the things that’s critical is we’re doing that in conjunction with abolishing the corporate income tax, with abolishing the Obamacare taxes, with abolishing the payroll taxes which are the biggest taxes paid by most working Americans and with abolishing the death tax which is cruel and unfair. And you asked about economic growth, the non-partisan tax foundation estimated a simple flat tax that would product 4.9 million new jobs, it would increase capital investment by 44 percent and would lift everyone’s income by double digits.
That’s how you turn the country around, not just hoping and praying for it but implementing policies that work.
SOLID, DULL ANSWER. CRUZ RARELY HITS HOME RUNS WHEN HE SPEAKS, BUT HE RARELY MAKES ME WANT TO BEAT MY HEAD AGAINST THE NEAREST BRICK WALL.
STRASSEL: OK, I have a question, a related tax question.
Senator Rubio, you have the highest tax rate of anyone up on the stage in terms of the top tax rates, 35 percent. Some economists say, “it would limit its potential to boost economic growth.” You do that, so that you will have more revenue to pay for a tripling of the Child Tax Credit.
Normally, it’s liberals who like to use the tax code to insert social policy. Why should conservatives who want to tax adopt the other side’s approach?
RUBIO: Well, because I’m influencing social policy, this is their money. This is the money of parents. You don’t earn the tax credit unless you’re working. That’s your money, it doesn’t belong to government.
Here’s what I don’t understand, if a business takes their money and they invest in the piece of the equipment, they get to write to off their taxes. But if a parent takes money that they have earned to work and invests in their children, they don’t? This makes no sense.
Parenting is the most important job any of us will ever have. Family formation is the most important thing in society. So what my tax plan does, is it does create – especially for working families, an additional Child Tax Credit. So that parents who are working get to keep more of their own money, not the government’s money to invest in their children to go to school, to go a private school, to buy a new back pack.
Let me tell you, if you’re a parent that’s struggling, then you know that fifty dollars a month is the difference between a new pair of shoes this month or not getting a new pair of shoes for your kids. I’m going to have a tax plan that is pro-family because the family is the most important institution in society. You cannot have a strong country without strong families.
NONCONTROVERSIAL, NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
(APPLAUSE) STRASSEL: Governor Kasich, this on is on size (ph) of government. In 2013 you pushed through a Medicaid reform in yours state over the rejections of many of the republicans in your state. Total enrollment and overall cost of program have gone well beyond what anyone had expected including yourself. How can you argue that this overall growth fits in with conservative ambition to significantly cut back on the size of federal welfare programs?
KASICH: Yeah. Well, first of all, those numbers incorrect. We are — our Medicaid programs are coming in below cost estimates, and our Medicaid program in the second year grew at 2.5 percent.
And Kimberly, let me tell you, when we expand Medicaid and we treat the mentally ill, then they don’t live under a bridge or live in a prison, where they cost $22,500 a year.
When we take the drug addicted and we treat them in the prisons, we stop the revolving door of people in and out of prisons and we save $22,500 a year.
Guess what else? They get their lives back. And the working poor, they’re now getting health care. And you know that about a third of the people who are now getting that health care are people who are suffering very serious illnesses, particularly cancer.
So, what I would tell you is, we’ve gone from an $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus. We’ve cut taxes by more than any governor in America by $5 billion.We have grown the number of jobs by 400,000 private sector jobs since I’ve been governor.
Our credit is strong. Our pensions are strong. And frankly, we leave no one behind. Economic growth is not an end unto itself. We want everyone to rise, and we will make them personally responsible for the help that they get.
And that is exactly the program we’re driving in Ohio. And, boy, people ought to look at Ohio, because it has got a good formula.
GOOD SOLID ANSWER.
GARRETT: Governor Bush, a question for you — but if you want to jump in, please.
BUSH: I’d like — can I — can I…
GARRETT: Jump in, and then I’ve got a question for you.
BUSH: Look I admire the fact that Governor Kasich is supporting spending more money on drug treatment and mental health. I think that’s a high priority all across this country, but expanding Obamacare is what we’re talking about, and Obamacare’s expansion, even though the federal government is paying for the great majority of it, is creating further debt on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We should be fighting Obamacare, repealing Obamacare, replacing it with something totally different.
When I was — as a private citizen, Florida was confronted with the choice. The governor was supportive of doing what John did. So was the Florida Senate. A committed speaker of the House asked me to go as a private citizen to make the case against the expansion.
I did, and it wasn’t expanded there, just as it wasn’t expanded in South Carolina under Governor Haley.
GARRETT: Real quickly, jump in, because I have got a question for Governor Bush, but jump in.
KASICH: Yeah, let me say a couple of things.
First of all, when Jeb was governor, his first four years as governor, he expand — his Medicaid program grew twice as fast as mine. OK? It’s just a fact.
Now, with Obamacare, I’ve not only sued the administration, I did not set up an exchange. And he knows that I’m not for Obamacare, never have been. But here’s what’s interesting about Medicaid.
You know who expanded Medicaid five times to try to help the folks and give them opportunity so that you could rise and get a job? President Ronald Reagan.
Now, the fact of the matter is, we expanded to get people on their feet, and once they’re on their feet, we are giving them the training and the efforts that they need to be able to get work and pull out of that situation.
GARRETT: Understood, Governor Kasich.
KASICH: That’s what we’re doing in our state.
BUSH: South Carolina — South Carolinians need to know this, because the Cato Institute, which grades governors based on their spending, rank him right at the bottom.
GARRETT: Yeah, Governor Bush, fine.
BUSH: And Governor Haley is ranked at the top.
GARRETT: Let me get in a question from…
BUSH: No. He mentioned my name.
GARRETT: I understand, I understand. BUSH: Let me finish, though. No, no, no — hey, wait, wait, wait. Just hold Major, hold Major. Hold on, Major.
BUSH: South Carolinians want to make that they elect the most conservative governor or candidate that can win.
KASICH: Let me — let’s tell you…
GARRETT: I have a question on economic growth, Governor Bush.
KASICH: Major — Major, we can’t — we’ve got to — look, I have got to correct the record. And the fact of the matter is, we went from an $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus. We’re up 400,000 jobs. Our credit is rock solid.
And I don’t know…
GARRETT: A (inaudible), Governor.
KASICH: Look, the bottom line is the people of this — of this country, and this state want to see everybody rise, and they want to see unity, and I don’t want to get into all this fighting tonight because people are frankly sick of the negative campaigning.
GARRETT: I know, understood. Governor Bush.
KASICH: And I’m going to stay positive about what I want to do from the…
GARRETT: Governor Bush, from the perspective economic growth — viewed from this perspective of economic growth, you have proposed a tax on hedge fund managers.
The Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative tax group you’re probably aware of, has said no Republican should be for higher taxes on capital gains. And many conservatives wonder if this proposal of yours would undermine not only that philosophy, but undercut your projection of 4 percent economic growth annually under your presidency?
BUSH: Of course, not. It won’t have an impact on hedge funds managers paying ordinary income. In fact, it’s not just hedge fund people, but people that are doing — they’re in the business of investing other people’s money, getting capital gains treatment is not appropriate.
They should be paying ordinary income. That’s their business. They’re grateful to be able to make a lot of money, I’m sure. And what we do is lower the rates. It’s not the end of the world that private equity people and hedge fund folks that are, right now, getting capital gains treatment for the income they earn, pay ordinary income like everybody else in this room.
BUSH: That’s not a problem at all. What we need to do is reform the tax code to simplify the rates, to shift power away from Washington, D.C. That’s what I did as governor of the state of Florida, $19 billion dollars of tax cuts, and it stimulated seven out of the eight years. Florida led the nation in job growth.
DICKERSON: Dr. Carson, before we go to break, could you give us your sense of this conversation about either MedicAid, or economic growth through taxation?
CARSON: Well, first of all, let me just mention on the tax issue. Ben Carson.com, go read about it because my tax plan has been praised by Kato, by Wall Street Journal. Forbes said it is the best, the most pro-growth tax plan, and it’s based on real fairness for everybody. Starts at the 150% poverty level, but even the people below that have to pay something because everybody has to have skin in the game, and the millions of people can’t, you know, talk about what other people have to pay and have no skin in the game.
And, it deals with corporate tax rate, and makes it the same as everybody else…
CARSON: … Everybody pays exactly the same.
CARSON: … And, as far as Medicare and MedicAid, my main goal is to get rid of Obamacare, and put the care back in the hands of (INAUDIBLE)…
GARRETT: … Dr. Carson…
DICKERSON: … Dr. Carson, I’m sorry we have to go to a commercial. The free market wants what it wants.
LOVELY LINE FROM THE MODERATOR!
Back soon with the 2016 Republican debate in Greenville, South Carolina.
DICKERSON: Welcome back. We’ll begin the second half of the debate with one of the hottest issues in the Republican campaign, immigration. But before I turn it back to Major Garrett and Kim Strassel, I have one question for Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump, in the Republican National Committee’s Spanish language response to the State of the Union, Congressman Diaz-Balart said, quote “It’s essential that we find a legislative solution,” talking about immigration, “to offer a permanent and humane solution to those who live in the shadows. What does that mean to you, a humane solution to those who live in the shadows?
TRUMP: I want everybody taken care of, but we have to take care of our people in this country. We’re not taking care of our people. We have no border. We have no control. People are flooding across. We can’t have it. We either have a border, and I’m very strongly — I’m not proposing. I will build a wall. I will build a wall.
Remember this, the wall will be paid for by Mexico. We are not being treated right.
YOU AND WHOSE ARMY WILL MAKE MEXICO PAY? JUST SILLY
We are not being treated properly. If we don’t have borders, if we don’t have strength, we don’t have a country. People are flowing across. We have to take care of our people. Believe me.
GARRETT: Senator Rubio…
For the purposes of the lines — lines you would draw legislatively as a president on immigration reform, define amnesty.
RUBIO: Well, first of all, I think amnesty is the forgiveness of a wrongdoing without consequence and that — I’ve never supported that. I do not support that.
AS BILL CLINTON WOULD SAY “IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD AMNESTY IS”
I think there has to be consequences for violating our immigration laws. What I think is clear about this issue to begin with is we’re not going to be able to make progress on illegal immigration until first, illegal immigration is brought under control.
You go back to 1986 when they legalized three million people and they promised to secure the border. It didn’t happen, and as a result, people have lost trust in the federal government. It is now clear that the only way to make progress on immigration is not just to pass a law that enforces the law, but actually prove to people that it’s working.
They want to see the wall built. They want to see the additional border agents. They want to see e-verify. They want to see an entry- exit tracking system. Forty percent of the people in this country illegally are entering legally and over-staying visas. And only after all of that is in place, then we’ll see what the American people are willing to support on this issue.
I think the American people will be very reasonable, but responsible, about how you handle someone who has been here a long time, who can pass a background check, who pays a fine and starts paying taxes and all they want is a work permit. But you can’t do any of that until you prove to people that illegal immigration is under control once and for all.
THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE ASKED: EVEN IF EVERYTHING YOU SUPPORT GETS DONE, AND AS A RESULT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS “UNDER CONTROL” (WHATEVER THAT MEANS) , WILL PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP BEFORE 2024 WHEN YOU LEAVE OFFICE?
MY SUSPICION IS: PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN’T THAT WELL INFORMED, AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE EAGER TO DEMAGOGUE THE ISSUE FOR VOTES.
STRASSEL: Senator Cruz. Senator Cruz, you have promised to deport illegal aliens. You have also promised to reverse President Obama’s executive action that gives temporary amnesty to illegals brought here by their parent as children. As president, you would have the names and addresses of the some 800,000 of those that have registered under that action. Now, you have said that in this country, we shouldn’t go door to door look for illegals, but in this case you would have a list. Would you use it?
CRUZ: Well, you know, your question highlights a sharp difference on immigration on this stage. You know, in a Republican primary, everyone talks tough on immigration. Everyone is against illegal immigration in a Republican primary. But as voters, we’ve been burned over and over again by people that give us a great campaign speech and they don’t walk the walk.
There are sharp differences on amnesty. If you look at the folks on this stage, when Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and establishment Republicans were leading the fight to pass a massive amnesty plan, I stood with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people and led the fight to defeat that amnesty plan.
STRASSEL: So would you — would you use the addresses?
CRUZ: Now that moment…
STRASSEL: Would you pick them up?
CRUZ: That moment was what Reagan would call “a time for choosing.” When it comes to deciding which side of the line you’re on, the Rubio-Schumer amnesty plan…
CRUZ: … apparently supported by the donor class, which is why Washington supported it. The Rubio-Schumer amnesty plan passed the Senate and it was on the verge of passing the House.
House leadership intended to take it up and pass it with the Democrats overruling most of the Republicans. And the question for anyone on illegal immigration is where were you in that fight? Where did you stand?
You are right. There is a difference between Senator Rubio and me on this question.
DID HE ANSWER THE QUESTION? I DON’T THINK SO.
HE SHOULD HAVE JUST SANG THE “I’VE GOT A LITTLE LIST” SONG FROM THE MIKADO.
STRASSEL: Senator Rubio, your reply.
RUBIO: We’re going to have to do this again, OK? When that issue was being debated, Ted Cruz, at a committee hearing, very passionately said, I want immigration reform to pass, I want people to be able to come out of the shadows. And he proposed an amendment that would legalized people here.
Not only that, he proposed doubling the number of green cards. He proposed a 500 percent increase on guest workers. Now his position is different. Now he is a passionate opponent of all those things.
So he either wasn’t telling the truth then or he isn’t telling the truth now, but to argue he is a purist on immigration is just not true.
CRUZ: Major, I get a response to that.
GARRETT: Very quickly, Senator Cruz.
STRASSEL: All right. Senator Cruz. Your response, Senator Cruz.
CRUZ: You know, the lines are very, very clear. Marco right now supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally. I oppose citizenship. Marco stood on the debate stage and said that.
But I would note not only that, Marco has a long record when it comes to amnesty. In the state of Florida, as speaker of the house, he supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. In addition to that, Marco went on Univision in Spanish and said he would not rescind President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty on his first day in office.
TRUE BUT MISLEADING- HE WOULD RESCIND THESE POLICIES EVENTUALLY.
I have promised to rescind every single illegal executive action, including that one.
(MIX OF APPLAUSE AND BOOING)
CRUZ: And on the question…
RUBIO: Well, first of all, I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish. And second of all, the other point that I would make…
CRUZ: (SPEAKING SPANISH).
I THINK RUBIO GOT CAUGHT WITH HIS PANTS DOWN ON THIS ONE. I CAN’T BELIEVE THE PRESS ISN’T PLAYING THE VIDEO OVER AND OVER AGAIN OF THIS ONE. BUT RUBIO, BARRING THE KIND OF TOTAL SCREWUP IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEBATE, PRETTY MUCH IS THE SPOILED CHIL.D OF THE MEDIA. BECAUSE BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT MEDIA ARE SO AFRAID OF TRUMP AND CRUZ, THEY LET HIM GET AWAY WITH A LOT.
RUBIO: Look, this is a disturbing pattern now, because for a number of weeks now, Ted Cruz has just been telling lies. He lied about Ben Carson in Iowa.
RUBIO: He lies about Planned Parenthood. He lies about marriage. He’s lying about all sorts of things. And now he makes things up. The bottom line is this is a campaign and people are watching it. And they see the truth behind all these issues.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT RUBIO IS TALKING ABOUT (EXCEPT FOR THE BEN CARSON THING). RUBIO SOUNDS UNHINGED. SO IF YOU WANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT TRUMP BEING CRAZY…
And here is the truth, Ted Cruz supported legalizing people that were in this country…
CRUZ: That is simply…
RUBIO: … and only now does he say…
CRUZ: That is absolutely false. What he said is knowingly false. And I would note, if you want to assess — if you want to assess…
RUBIO: Well, we’ll put on our Web site, marcorubio.com. We’re going to…
CRUZ: … who is telling the truth…
CRUZ: If you want to assess who is telling the truth…
CRUZ: … then you should look to Jeff Sessions, who said, without Ted Cruz the Rubio-Schumer amnesty bill would have passed, and Ted was responsible. You should look to Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin that said…
EVEN WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SORT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HARD CORE OPPONENTS OF IMMIGRATION TEND TO BE PEOPLE WHO LIKE CRUZ BETTER. CRUZ WINS THIS EXCHANGE IF ANYONE DOES.
GARRETT: Governor Bush, I want to bring this out to a little wider philosophical aspect, if you will.
BUSH: Thank you.
GARRETT: You have said illegal immigrants, quote, “broke the law but it’s not a felony,” still quoting you, “it’s an act of love, it’s an act of commitment to your family.”
Mr. Trump has, as you are well aware, denounced that statement over and over. Do you still believe it? What does that mean to you? And how does that inform your approach to immigration reform?
BUSH: Great question. I feel like I have to get into my inner Chris Christie, and point out that the reason why I should be president is listening to two senators talk about arcane amendments to bills that didn’t pass.
FOR ONCE, I AM IMPRESSED RATHER THAN DEPRESSED BY SOMETHING THAT JEB BUSH SAID IN THIS DEBATE. WELL DONE!
BUSH: This is — this is the problem. We need a leader to fix this problem. And I have a detailed plan to do just that, including controlling the border, dealing with the visa over-stayers, making sure that we have a path to legal status, not to citizenship, for those that come out from the shadows and pay a fine, learn English, don’t commit crimes, work and pay taxes.
That is the better approach.
GARRETT: Fundamentally, do you believe this rhetoric is insufficiently compassionate to this issue?
BUSH: The great majority of people that come to this country come because they have no other choice. They want to come to provide for their families. That doesn’t mean it’s right. That doesn’t mean it’s right.
We should pick who comes to our country. We should control our border. Coming here legally should be a lot easier than coming here illegally. But the motivation, they’re not all rapists, as you-know- who said. They’re not that.
These are people that are coming to provide for their families. And we should show a little more respect for the fact that they’re struggling. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be controlling the border. That’s exactly what we should be doing.
GARRETT: Mr. Trump…
TRUMP: … when I announced that I was running for president on June 16th, illegal immigration wasn’t even a subject. If I didn’t bring it up, we wouldn’t even be talking.
TRUMP: Now I don’t often agree with Marco, and I don’t often agree with Ted, but I can in this case. The weakest person on this stage by far on illegal immigration is Jeb Bush. They come out of an act of love, whether you like it or not. He is so weak on illegal immigration it’s laughable, and everybody knows it.
BUSH: … So, you know…
BUSH: … This is the standard operating procedure, to disparage me. That’s fine…
WHINE, WHINE WHINE
TRUMP: … Spend a little more money on the commercials…
BUSH: … But, if you want to talk about weakness, you want to talk about weakness? It’s weak to disparage women.
TRUMP: (INAUDIBLE). I don’t know what you’re talking about.
BUSH: It’s weak to denigrate the disabled. And, it’s really weak to call John McCain a loser because he was a…
TRUMP: … I never called him — I don’t call him..
BUSH: … That is outrageous. The guys an American hero.
TRUMP: He also said about language…
BUSH: … The simple fact is I’ve also laid out my plans on (INAUDIBLE) immigration…
TRUMP: … Language. Two days ago he said he would take his pants off and moon everybody, and that’s fine. Nobody reports that. He gets up and says that, and then he tells me, oh, my language was a little bit rough…
STRASSEL: … OK…
TRUMP: … My language. Give me a break…
GARRET: … Governor Kasich, here in South Carolina earlier this week you said the idea, the concept of deporting 11 million undocumented workers…
BUSH: (INAUDIBLE) Just, for the record (INAUDIBLE) make sure my mother’s listening, if she’s watching the debate. I didn’t say that I was going to moon somebody…
TRUMP: … You did say it, You did say it. Been reported in 10 different news…
GARRET: … We will leave the moon metaphors to be adjudicated later, I assure you. Governor Kasich, you said earlier this week in South Carolina, the concept, the idea of deporting 11 million undocumented workers in this country is nuts. Why is it you are so opposed to that idea? Senator Cruz has said it’s a simple application of existing law. The application of that is not inhumane, it is just. Why do you disagree?
KASICH: Before I get to that, this is the ninth or tenth debate. What I’ve been watching here, this back and forth, and these attacks, some of them are personal. I think we’re fixing to lose the election to Hillary Clinton if we don’t stop this.
KASICH: I mean, the fact is — you know what? I would suggest why don’t we take off all the negative ads, and all the negative comments down from television and let us just talk about what we’re for, and let’s sell that, and the Republican party will be stronger as a result…
GARRET: …What are you for on immigration?
KASICH: … (OFF MIKE) (INAUDIBLE) First of all, I’m for sealing the border, OK? And, then I’m for a guest worker program. People can come in, work, and go back home. We haven’t closed the border because special interests, I believe, blocked it. Then, we have 11 and a half million people here. If they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, make them pay a fine, and some back taxes, and give them a path to legalization, never to citizenship.
SO WE HAVE A SEMI=SLAVE CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO CAN LIVE HERE FOREVER BUT NEVER VOTE? THAT DOESN’T SOUND GOOD TO ME- IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN THE LONG RUN PEOPLE SHOULD BE EITHER CITIZENS OR DEPORTED. (THOUGH IN FAIRNESS, I REALIZE THAT THERE ARE GOOD REASONS WHY WE CAN’T DO EITHER ONE FOR 11 MILLION PEOPLE RIGHT NOW).
It is not going to happen that we’re going to run around and try to drag 11 and a half million people out of their homes.
I’ll tell you this. Within the first hundred days I will send a plan like this to the congress of the United States, and if I’m president, I’ll bet you dollar to donuts right now, it will pass.
ABOUT AS LIKELY AS BASHAR ASSAD BEING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. IMMIGRATION IS A HARD ISSUE POLITICALLY- THAT’S WHY NOTHING PASSES.
That is a reasonable proposal that the people of this country, in my judgement, will support, and so will the bulk of the congress of the United States.
STRASSEL: Moving subjects. Dr. Carson, this week Morgan Stanley agreed to pay a $3.2 billion dollar fine to state and federal authorities for contributing to the mortgage crisis. You have a lot of Democrats out saying that we should be jailing more executives, so two questions.
Should financial executives be held legally responsible for financial crisis, and do you think fines like these are an effective way to deter companies from future behavior like that?
CARSON: Well, first of all, please go to my website, Bencarson.com and read my immigration policy, OK? Because it actually makes sense.
Now, the — as far as these fines are concerned, you know? Here’s the big problem. We’ve got all these government regulators, and all they’re doing is running around looking for people to fine. And, we’ve got 645 different federal agencies, and sub-agencies. Way, way too many, and they don’t have anything else to do.
I think what we really need to do is start trimming the regulatory agencies rather than going after the people who are trying to increase the viability, economic viability of our society. Now, that doesn’t mean there aren’t some people out there who are doing bad things. But, I’m not sure that the way to solve that problem is by increasing all the regulatory burden. You know, when you consider how much regulations cost us each year, you know? $2 trillion dollars per family, $24,000 per family, that happens to be the same level as the poverty level…
SO THE PEOPLE WHO BANKRUPTED WALL STREET AND FORECLOSED ON MILLIONS OF HOMES WERE TRYING TO INCREASE THE VIABILITY OF OUR SOCIETY? THEY SURE WEREN’T GOOD AT IT. THIS SORT OF REMARK REMINDS ME HOW IGNORANT CARSON IS. ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE THE OTHER GUYS ALL THAT MUCH BETTER?
CARSON: … For a family of four. If you want to get rid of poverty, get rid of all the regulations.
DICKERSON: Senator Cruz, I have a question for you. Speaker Paul Ryan has made a big commitment to trying to lift the 50 million poor out of poverty. Arthur Brooks, who is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, says, quote, “If we are not warriors for the poor every day, free enterprise has no matter.” How you have been in your campaign a warrior for the poor?
CRUZ: I think it is a very important question because the people who have been hurt the most in the Obama economy had been the most vulnerable. It’s been young people. It’s been Hispanics. It’s been African-Americans. It’s been single moms. We have the lowest percentage of Americans working today in any year since 1977.
And the sad reality is big government, massive taxes, massive regulation, doesn’t work. What we need to do instead is bring back booming economic growth, let — small businesses are the heart of the economy. Two-thirds of all new jobs come from small businesses. If we want to lift people out of poverty — you know, I think of these issues from the perspective of my dad.
My dad fled Cuba in 1957. He was just 18. He couldn’t speak English. He had nothing. He had $100 in his underwear. And he washed dishes making 50 cents an hour and paid his way through school. Today, my dad is a pastor. He travels the country preaching the gospel.
Now, I think about all of these issues. How would it impact my dad when he was washing dishes? If we had Obamacare in place right now, the odds are very high my father would have been laid off because it’s teenaged kids like my dad who have gotten laid off. If he didn’t get laid off, the odds are high he would have had his hours forcibly reduced to 28, 29 hours a week.
We need to lift the burdens on small businesses so you have jobs and we need welfare reform that gets people off of welfare and back to work.
GARRETT: Mr. Trump — Mr. Trump.
I was with you in Pendleton, South Carolina earlier this week at the Rodeo Arena. It was a bit chilly there. You promised the crowd and they rose to their feet that if Ford or a company like were to move a factory to Mexico, you would try to stop it or threaten them with a 35 percent tax or tariff on every car sold. TRUMP: Or a tax.
GARRETT: Right. So my question is, based on your understanding of the presidency, where do you derive that power? Would you need the consent of Congress to go along? And do you see the presidency as a perch from which you can cajole and/or threaten private industry to do something you think is better for the U.S. economy?
TRUMP: I would build consensus with Congress and Congress would agree with me. I’ll give you an example because I don’t like the idea of using executive orders like our president. It is a disaster what he’s doing. I would build consensus, but consensus means you have to work hard. You have to cajole. You have to get them into the Oval Office and get them all together, and you have to make deals.
Let me just tell you, I mentioned before, China — big Chinese company bought the Chicago Exchange. Kerry is moving — and if you saw the people, because they have a video of the announcement that Carrier is moving to Mexico, OK?
Well, I’ll tell you what. I would go right now to Carrier and I would say I am going to work awfully hard. You’re going to make air conditioners now in Mexico. You’re going to get all of these 1400 people that are being laid off — they’re laid off. They were crying. They were — it was a very sad situation. You’re going to go to Mexico. You’re going to make air conditioners in Mexico, you’re going to put them across our border with no tax.
I’m going to tell them right now, I am going to get consensus from Congress and we’re going to tax you when those air conditioners come. So stay where you are or build in the United States because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers.
A BIT NAÏVE- SOMETIMES YOU CAN’T GET PEOPLE TO AGREE, AS I THINK THE CURRENT PRESIDENT HAS DISCOVERED. BUT STILL I LIKE TRUMP’S INSTINCTS AND WONDER IF THEY COULD SURVIVE A MONTH OR TWO IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
DICKERSON: Alright. Mr. Trump, thank you so much. We’re going to take a break for a moment. We’ll be back in a moment with the CBS News Republican debate.
DICKERSON: We’re back now from Greenville, South Carolina with the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination.
Mr. Trump, I have a question for you. Presidents have to, on the one hand, be firm, but also be flexible.
You have been flexible and changed your opinion on a number of things from abortion to Hillary Clinton. But you have said, rightly, that it’s just like Ronald Reagan, who changed his mind on things.
But at the same time, you’re criticizing Senator Cruz for what you say is a change on immigration. He disputes that, of course.
So, why is your change of opinion make you like Reagan, and when he changes his opinion, it’s a huge character flaw?
TRUMP: John, in life you have flexibility. You do have flexibility. When you’re fighting wars, you’re going one way, you have a plan. It’s a beautiful plan. It can’t lose. The enemy makes a change, and all of a sudden you have to change.
You have to have flexibility. In Ronald Reagan, though, in terms of what we’re talking about, was the great example. He was a somewhat liberal Democrat who became a somewhat, pretty strong conservative. He became — most importantly he became a great president. He made many of the changes that I’ve made — I mean, I’ve seen as a grew up, I’ve seen, and as I get older and wiser, and I feel that I am a conservative.
Now, I also feel I’m a common-sense conservative, because some of the views I don’t agree with. And I think a lot of people agree with me, obviously, based on what’s happening.
DICKERSON: Which conservative idea don’t you agree with?
TRUMP: Well, I think these people always hit me with eminent domain, and frankly, I’m not in love with eminent domain. But eminent domain is something you need very strongly.
When Jeb had said, “You used eminent domain privately for a parking lot.” It wasn’t for a parking lot. The state of New Jersey — too bad Chris Christie is not here, he could tell you — the state of New Jersey went to build a very large tower that was going to employ thousands of people.
I mean, it was going to really do a big job in terms of economic development. Now, just so you understand, I got hit very hard. It’s private, it’s private eminent domain. You understand that they took over a stadium in Texas, and they used private eminent domain, but he just found that out after he made the charge.
I FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE A TRUMP/ENGLISH GLOSSARY FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF SENTENCES
DICKERSON: All right. Governor Bush, I think by “they,” he is referring to your brother, these on the hook for your brother.
TRUMP: Yeah. Well, Jeb, wouldn’t have known about it.
BUSH: So, there — so, there is all sorts of intrigue about where I disagree with my brother, there would be one right there. You should not use eminent domain for private purposes.
A baseball stadium or a parking lot for a limo…
TRUMP: You shouldn’t have used it then, Jeb.
DICKERSON: But that was his brother.
BUSH: It’s very different. Transmission lines, pipe lines, bridges, and highways. All of that is proper use of imminent domain. Not to take an elderly woman’s’ home to build a parking lot so that high-rollers can come from New York City to build casinos in Atlantic City.
STRASSEL: Senator Cruz, you were mentioned in the mix here, your response?
CRUZ: You know flexibility is a good thing but it shouldn’t – you shouldn’t be flexible on core principles. I like Donald, he is an amazing entertainer but his policies for most of his life…
TRUMP: Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
CRUZ: For most of his life his policies have been very very liberal. For most of his life, he has described himself as very pro- choice and as a supporter of partial birth abortion. Right now today as a candidate, he supports federal tax payer funding for Planned Parenthood. I disagree with him on that.
That’s a matter of principle and I’ll tell you…
TRUMP: You probably are worse than Jeb Bush. You are single biggest liar.This guys lied – let me just tell you, this guy lied about Ben Carson when he took votes away from Ben Carson in Iowa and he just continues. Today, we had robo-calls saying. “Donald Trump is not going to run in South Carolina,” — where I’m leading by a lot.”
MORE ICKY BRIDGE BURNING RHETORIC. MY SENSE IS THAT TRUMP IS MORE SIMILAR TO CRUZ THAN ANYONE ELSE, AND IT DOESN’T DO EITHER MUCH GOOD TO ATTACK THE OTHER.
I’m not going to vote for Ted Cruz. This is the same thing he did to Ben Carson. This guy will say anything, nasty guy. Now I know why he doesn’t have one endorsement from any of his colleagues.
CRUZ: Don, I need to go on…
TRUMP: He’s a nasty guy.
CRUZ: I will say, it is fairly remarkable to see Donald defending Ben after he called, “pathological,” and compared him to a child molester. Both of which were offensive and wrong.
But let me say this – you notice Donald didn’t disagree with the substance that he supports taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. And Donald has this weird pattern, when you point to his own record he screams, “liar, liar, liar.” You want to go…
TRUMP: Where did I support it? Where did I…
CRUZ: You want to go…
TRUMP: Again, where did I support it?
CRUZ: If you want to watch the video, go to our website at Tedcruz.org.
TRUMP: Hey Ted, where I support it?
CRUZ: You can see it out of Donald’s own mouth.
TRUMP: Where did I support?
CRUZ: You supported it when we were battling over defunding Planned Parenthood. You went on…
TRUMP: That’s a lot of lies.
CRUZ: You said, “Planned Parenthood does wonderful things and we should not defund it.”
TRUMP: It does do wonderful things but not as it relates to abortion.
CRUZ: So I’ll tell you what…
TRUMP: Excuse me. Excuse me, there are wonderful things having to do with women’s health.
CRUZ: You see you and I…
TRUMP: But not when it comes to abortion.
CRUZ: Don, the reasoned principle matters. The reasoned principle matters sadly was illustrated by the first questions today. The next president is going to appoint, one, two, three, four Supreme Court Justices.
If Donald Trump is president, he will appoint liberals. If Donald Trump is president, your Second Amendment will gone…
TRUMP: Hold on…
CRUZL You know how I know that?
DICKERSON: Hold on gentleman, I’m going to turn this car around.
TRUMP: Ted Cruz told your brother that he wanted John Roberts to be on the United States Supreme Court. They both pushed him, he twice approved Obamacare.
DICKERSON: All right gentlemen.
BUSH: My name was mentioned twice.
DICKERSON: Well hold on. We’re going to — gentleman, we’re in danger of driving this into the dirt.
DICKERSON: Senator Rubio, I’d like you to jump in here…
BUSH: He called me a liar.
DICKERSON: I understand, you’re on deck governor.
BUSH: Also, he talked about one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan, was a liberal maybe in the 1950’s. He was a conservative reformed governor for eight years before he became president and no one should suggest he made an evolution for political purposes. He was a conservative and he didn’t tear down people like Donald Trump is. He tore down the Berlin Wall.
TRUMP: OK, governor.
BUSH: He was a great guy..
DICKERSON: Senator Cruz, 30 seconds on this one.
CRUZ: I did not nominate John Roberts. I would not have nominated John Roberts.
TRUMP: You pushed him. You pushed him.
CRUZ: I supported…
TRUMP: You worked with him and you pushed him. Why do you lie?
CRUZ: You need to learn to not interrupt people.
TRUMP: Why do you lie?
CRUZ: Donald, adults learn…
TRUMP: You pushed him.
CRUZ: Adults learn not to interrupt people.
TRUMP: Yeah, yeah, I know, you’re an adult.
TRUMP REALLY HAS SOME ANGER MANAGEMENT ISSUES HERE.
CRUZ: I did not nominate him. I would not have nominated him. I would’ve nominated my former boss Liberman (ph) who was Justice Scalia’s first law clerk. And you know how I know that Donald’s Supreme Court Justices will be liberals? Because his entire life he support liberals from Jimmy Carter, to Hillary Clinton, to John Kerry.
In 2004, he contributed to John Kerry. Nobody who cares about judges would contribute to John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid.
DICKERSON: We’re going to switch…
CRUZ: That’s what Donald Trump does.
DICKERSON: We’re going to switch here to Senator Marco Rubio.
Senator Marco Rubio, please weigh in.
RUBIO: On anything I want?
DICKERSON: I thought you had a point?
RUBIO: Well, let me talk about poverty.
DICKERSON: I thought you had a point you wanted to make.
RUBIO: I do.
BUSH: That was me.
RUBIO: I had something important.
DICKERSON: You’re on deck sir.
RUBIO: The issue of poverty is critical, because for me, poverty is the — is — is free enterprise not reaching people. Today, we have antipoverty programs that don’t cure poverty. We don’t cure poverty in America. Our anti-poverty programs have become, in some instances, a way of life, a lifestyle.
Now, we do need anti-poverty programs, you can’t have free enterprise programs without them, but not as a way of life. And so I have a very specific proposal on this and I don’t — in 60 seconds, I can’t describe it all, but it basically turns the program over to states. It allows states to design innovative programs that cure poverty, because I think Nikki Haley will do a better job curing poverty than Barack Obama.
WHAT, MORE BLOCK GRANTS? RUBIO TRYING TO SOUND REASONABLE, BUT IT JUST SOUNDS INCOHERENT HERE.
DICKERSON: Senator, I wanted to ask you, just going back to immigration, in the last debate, you listed your series of accomplishments in the Senate. One thing you left off was — was immigration reform. Is it the case that in your list of accomplishments you can’t mention that?
RUBIO: Well, no. It’s not the case. It didn’t pass and we haven’t solved immigration in this country. It’s still a problem. It is worse today than it was three years ago, which is worse than it was five years ago. And it has to be confronted and solved.
But the only way forward on this issue — you asked a question about flexibility. Let me tell you about that. One of the things that you need in leadership is the ability to understand that to get things done, you must figure out the way to get it done. You will not pass comprehensive immigration reform. People do not trust the federal government.
They want to see the law being enforced. They want to see illegal immigration come under control. They want to see that wall. They want to see e-verify. They want to see all of these things working and then they will have a conversation with you about what do you do with people that have been here a long time that are otherwise, you know, not criminals. But they’re not going to do it until you first enforce the law.
DICKERSON: Dr. Carson, I have…
Dr. Carson, I have a question for you. Candidates are…
CARSON: Before you ask the question, can I respond to the — you know, they mentioned my name a couple of times.
DICKERSON: Alright. You have 30 seconds, Doctor.
CARSON: Alright. Well, first of all, you know, so many people have said to me, “You need to scream and jump and down — jump up and down like everybody else.” Is that really what you want? What we just saw? I don’t think so.
And you know, I — when I got into this race, I decided to look under the hood of the engine of what runs Washington, D.C., and my first inclination was to run away, but I didn’t do it because I’m thinking about our children and fact that we are the United States of America. And anybody up here is going to be much better than what’s going to come on the other side. And what happened tonight with — with Justice Scalia tells you that we cannot afford to lose this election and we cannot be tearing each other down.
GOOD, DESERVES THE APPLAUSE HE GOT.
DICKERSON: Dr. Carson, I — let me ask you a different question. When you were — you were the first one, really, to talk about political correctness. Everybody now talks about it, but that was really what sparked your — your rise. Politicians are often accused of glossing over any hard choices people have to make, just always selling happy, nice things. So in the — in the spirit of saying something that might be politically incorrect, tell the voters something that they need to hear but that might be politically incorrect?
CARSON: Well, first of all, I’m not a politician, so I’m never going to become a politician. But here’s what — here’s what people need to know. People need to know that free college is not — it’s a non-starter. You know, you have to look at our economic situation. We’re on the verge of economic collapse and, you know, we’re — it’s not just the $19 trillion, but it’s also the $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
What we need to think about is what does that do to the average person? When we have a debt of that nature, it causes the Fed to change their policy, it causes the central bank to keep the — the rates low, and who does does that affect? Mr. Average, who used to go to the bank every Friday and put part of his check in the bank and watch it grow over three decades and be able to retire with a nice nest egg, that’s gone. That part of the American dream is gone.
All of these things are disappearing, and Bernie Sanders and people like Hillary Clinton blame it on the rich. They say those evil rich people, if we take their money we can solve the problem. It’s not the evil rich people. It’s the irresponsible evil government.
DICKERSON: Governor Kasich. Governor Kasich, you’ve been described as the Democrats’ favorite Republican. You talked about in New Hampshire, Democrats would come up to you and say, “I hope you win.” Why will that help you win a Republican nomination?
KASICH: You know, John, I think all people are the same. Look, I did 106 town halls and I’ve been doing them left and right here in South Carolina. The first thing we have to do is grow the economy, and I know the formula because I was chairman in Washington when we balanced the budget and created so many jobs, and the same that we’ve been able to do in Ohio.
KASICH: You need common sense regulations so small business can flourish, you need lower taxes both on business and individuals, and you need a fiscal plan to be able to get ourselves in a situation where people can predict a little bit about the future when it comes to the fiscal issues.
And when you have that formula, combined with workforce that’s trained, you can explode the economy and create many jobs. I have done it twice, and I want to go back to Washington and do it again.
John, the thing is, is I think that there are people now, these blue-collar Democrats — my dad was a blue-collar Democrat — the Democratic party has left them. When they’re arguing about being socialists, they’ve left — they have lost those blue-collar Democrats.
And you know what I think they get out of me — is my sense of what they get out of me, and it’s embarrassment about campaigns, you brag about yourself.
But I think I’m a uniter, I think people sense it. I think they know I have the experience, and that I’m a man that can give people hope and a sense that they have the opportunity rise. And I’ll tell you, I love these blue-collar Democrats, because they’re going to vote for us come next fall, promise you that.
DICKERSON: Mr. Trump, let me ask you a question. Presidents in both parties say that the one thing you need in your administration is somebody who can tell you you’re wrong.
You don’t necessarily seem like somebody who has somebody who tells you you’re wrong a lot. Can you tell us of an instance where somebody has said, “Donald Trump, you’re wrong,” and you listened to them?
TRUMP: Well, I would say my wife tells me I’m wrong all the time. And I listen.
THIS STATEMENT WOULD BE MORE IMPRESSIVE IF HE WASN’T ON HIS THIRD WIFE. AND FROM WHAT I KNOW OF HER SHE DOESN’T SOUND ALL THAT HELPFUL. (THOUGH MY IMPRESSION IS THAT HIS DAUGHTER IS PRETTY STRONG).
DICKERSON: About what?
TRUMP: Oh, let me just say — look, I am very open — I hired top people. I’ve had great success. I built a great, great company. I don’t need to do this. I’m self-funding. I’m spending a lot of money. I’ve spent — like in New Hampshire, I spent $3 million. Jeb bush spent $44 million. He came in five, and I came in No. 1.
That’s what the country needs, folks. I spent $3, he spends 42 of their money, of special interest money. And it’s just — this is not going to make — excuse me. This is not going to make our country great again.
This is not what we need in our country. We need people that know what the hell they’re doing. And politicians, they’re all talk, they’re no action. And that’s why people are supporting me.
I do listen to people. I hire experts. I hire top, top people. And I do listen. And you know what? Sometimes they’re wrong. You have to know what to do, when to do it. But sometimes they’re wrong.
EXPERTS? HIRED BY TRUMP? NAME ONE!
DICKERSON: Let me — something, in talking to voters that they wish somebody would tell you to cut it out is the profanity. What’s your reaction to that?
TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you — over the years, I’ve made many speeches. People have asked me, big companies have asked me to make speeches, and friends of mine that run big companies on success.
And occasion, in order to sort of really highlight something, I’ll use a profanity. One of the profanities that I got credited with using, that I didn’t use, was a very bad word, two weeks ago, that I never used.
I said, “You.” And everybody said “Oh, he didn’t say anything wrong.” But you bleeped it, so everyone thinks I said the — I didn’t say anything. I never said the word.
It is very unfair, that criticism. Now, I will say this, with all of that being said, I have said I will not do it at all, because if I say a word that’s a little bit off color, a little bit, it ends up being a headline.
I will not do it again. I was a very good student at a great school not using — by the way — not using profanity is very easy.
DICKERSON: All right. OK. Governor Bush, I’d like to ask you…
BUSH: Yeah, well, I have got to respond to this.
DICKERSON: Well, can I — how about you respond, and then you can answer the question I’m about to ask you.
BUSH: Sounds like a good plan.
DICKERSON: It’ll be…
BUSH: Or you could ask me two questions, so I could get two minutes instead of one.
DICKERSON: If we adjudicate this, the night will be over.
Governor, in 2012, you said that your father and Ronald Reagan would have a hard time in today’s Republican Party, based on their records of trying to find accommodation and finding some degree of common ground.
Do you still feel that way?
BUSH: I think the dysfunction in Washington is really dangerous, that’s what I think. And we need a proven leader that has a record of solving problems, someone who doesn’t cut and run; someone who could be a commander-in-chief to unite our country around common purposes; someone who doesn’t disparage people.
I JUST WISH BUSH COULD APPLY THIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS FOREIGNERS AS HE DOES TOWARDS AMERICANS. I THINK HE’D ACTUALLY BE AN OK DOMESTIC PRESIDENT; I JUST DON’T TRUST HIM AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
Someone that doesn’t brag, for example, that he has been bankrupt four times and it was great, because he could use the legal system.
TRUMP: That’s not — let me respond. That’s another lie. I never went bankrupt!
NOT PERSONALLY, SO HE’S SORT OF RIGHT. JUST A FEW OF HIS MANY COMPANIES.
DICKERSON: Hold on, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: No, but it’s another lie.
DICKERSON: Hold on, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: No, but it’s another lie. This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Just a lie.
BUSH: We need someone with a proven record to be able to forge consensus to solve problems.
And right now, both Republicans and Democrats in Washington don’t get it.People are struggling — 63 percent of Americans can’t make a $500 car payment. Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. And we need someone has a proven record of growing the economy, reforming the things that are broken.
And I’m that person.
DICKERSON: OK, Mr. Trump, your response.
TRUMP: Let me just tell you. Jeb goes around saying, just like the biggest business leaders in this country, I’ve used the laws of the land to chapter — I bought a company, I threw it immediately into a chapter, I made a great deal. I uses the laws to my benefit, because I run a company.
TRUMP: Excuse me, Jeb!
TRUMP: I never went bankrupt, never.
Now — but you don’t want to say that. Now, let me just say, I’ve used it, just like the biggest leaders in the country. Let me tell you something — Florida.
TRUMP: Florida, he put so much debt on Florida. You know, we keep saying he’s a wonderful governor, wonderful governor. He put so much debt on Florida, and he increased spending so much that as soon as he got out of office, Florida crashed.
I happened to be there. It’s my second home. Florida crashed. He didn’t do a good job as governor.
BUSH: Here we go.
TRUMP: And you haven’t — excuse me, you haven’t heard that. You listen to the good record in Florida. You take a look at what happened, as soon as that year ended he got out, Florida crashed. Too much debt.
He loaded it up with debt, and his spending went through the roof.
TRUMP: By the way…
DICKERSON: The bells are ringing, sir.
TRUMP: … he was not a good governor.
BUSH: Here’s the record. Here’s the record. We led the nation in job growth seven out of eight years. When I left there was $9 billion of reserves, 35 percent of general revenue. No state came close to that.
TRUMP: Take a look at your numbers.
BUSH: When I — during my time, we were one of the two states to go to AAA bond rating.
BUSH’S BEST ARGUMENT, AND ONE REASON WHY I THINK HE’D PROBABLY BE BETTER THAN MOST OF THIS GROUP AT DAY TO DAY DOMESTIC GOVERNMENT. We didn’t go bankrupt like Trump did and call it success when people are laid off, when vendors don’t get paid. That’s not success.
What we did was create an environment where people had a chance to have income. Personal income during my time went up by 4.4 percent.
TRUMP: Florida went down the tubes right after he got out of office.
BUSH: The government grew by… TRUMP: Went right down because of what he did to it.
BUSH: … half of that.
DICKERSON: All right. Thank you.
Senator Rubio, I want to ask you a 30-second question, no president can…
RUBIO: Thirty seconds.
DICKERSON: No — well, I’ll ask the question, you do what you want.
RUBIO: I speak fast.
DICKERSON: No president can know everything, right? So a smart leader knows how to ask questions. So if you could talk to any previous president, what’s the smart question you would ask about that job that you would want to know?
RUBIO: Well, I think one of the presidents — well, the president I grew up under was Ronald Reagan. And Reagan had a vision for America’s future. And if you think about what Ronald Reagan inherited, it’s not unlike what the next president is going to inherit.
This is the worst president we’ve had in 35 years, 35 years back would have made it Jimmy Carter. That’s what Ronald Reagan inherited. And I think the question you would ask is how did you inspire again the American people to believe in the future?
How did you — what did it take to ensure that the American people, despite all of the difficulties of the time — you know, you look back at that time, the American military was in decline. Our standing in the world was in decline. We had hostages being held in Iran. Our economy was in bad shape.
The American people were scared about the future. They were scared about what kind of country their children were going to live in and inherit. And yet somehow Ronald Reagan was able to instill in our nation and in our people a sense of optimism.
And he turned America around because of that vision and ultimately because of that leadership. I wish Ronald Reagan was still around. This country needs someone just like that.
And if our next president is even half the president Ronald Reagan was, America is going to be greater than it has ever been.
TO HIM ITS ALL ABOUT SALESMANSHIP, NOT SUBSTANCE. ICK.
DICKERSON: All right. That’s going to have to be it there, Senator Rubio. We have got to go to a break. We will be right back with the CBS News Republican Debate in Greenville, South Carolina.
DICKERSON: Time now for closing statements. You will each have one minute, and we’ll begin with Governor Kasich.
KASICH: Well, I want to thank the people of South Carolina. You’ve been fantastic. And look, what I want you to know is I’m going to send a lot of power, money and influence back to where we all live. But as I’ve traveled around South Carolina, I’ve noticed something. You know, it’s that people have a sense that you’re not going to wait on a president. You know, when I was a kid, we didn’t wait on presidents to come to that little blue-collar town and fix things.
You know, the Lord made all of us special. The Lord wants us to be connected. I believe we’re part of a very big mosaic. And I’ll send the power back. And whoever gets elected president here, hopefully will take care of the issue of jobs and wages and Social Security and the border.
But the spirit of the America rests in all of us. It’s in our guts. It’s taking care of our children. It’s taking care of the lady next door who just lost her husband. It’s fixing the schools where we live and telling kids to stay off drugs. You see, I think what the Lord wants is for to us engage, and in America, the spirit of America doesn’t come from the top down. The spirit of America rests in us. And I want to call on everyone in America to double down and realize that you were made special to heal this country and lift it for everyone.
FLATTERING THE AUDIENCE ALWAYS HELPS!
Thank you all very much. And I hope I can have your vote in South Carolina.
DICKERSON: Dr. Carson — Dr. Carson, you’re next.
CARSON: This is the first generation not expected to do better than their parents. Some people say it’s the new normal, but there’s nothing normal about it in an exceptional American. I, like you, am a member of we, the people, and we know that our country is heading off the cliff.
Joseph Stalin said if you want to bring America down you, have to undermine three things: our spiritual life, our patriotism and our morality.
VERIFIABLY FALSE. SNOPES.COM SAYS SO. We, the people, can stop that decline, starting right here in South Carolina. If all the people who say, “I love Ben Carson and his policies, but he can’t win,” vote for me, not only can we win, but we can turn this thing around.
You know, we have this manipulation by the political class and by the media telling us who we’re supposed to pick and how we’re supposed to live. We, the people, are the only people who will determine that. And if you elect me as your next president, I promise you that you will get somebody who is accountable to everybody and beholden to no one. Thank you.
DICKERSON: Governor — Governor Bush.
BUSH: Thank you all very much. The next president is going to be confronted with an unforeseen challenge. That’s almost certain. It could be a pandemic, a major natural disaster or an attack on our country. The question for South Carolinians and Americans is you who do you want to have sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office? Because that’s the question. It’s not the things we’re talking about today. It’s the great challenge that may happen.
BUSH: I believe I will have a steady hand as Commander in Chief and President of the United States. I will unite this country around common purposes because I did it as governor of the state of Florida.
When I was governor, we had eight hurricanes and four tropical storms in 16 months. Our state was on it’s back. We recovered far faster than what people thought because we led.
We want to challenge rather than cutting and running. That’s what we need in Washington , D.C. We need someone with a servant’s heart that has a backbone that isn’t going to focus on polls and focus groups. The focus will be on the American people to keep them safe and secure.
EXCELLENT CLOSING STATEMENT- REALLY HITS BUSH’S STRENGTHS (AT LEAST AS I PERCEIVE THEM). IF I COULD ONLY ELECT A SEPARATE PRESIDENT JUST FOR DOMESTIC POLICY, JEB BUSH WOULD BE A TEMPTING CHOICE.
I ask for your vote next Saturday.
GARRETT: Thank you governor.
STRASSEL: And now, Marco Rubio.
RUBIO: Thank you and thank you for watching tonight.
This is a difficult time in our country. Our economy’s flat, it’s not creating the jobs it once did and people struggle living paycheck to paycheck. Our culture’s in trouble. Wrong is considered right and right is considered wrong.
All the things that once held our families together are now under constant assault. And around the world, America’s reputation is in decline. Our allies don’t trust us, our adversaries don’t fear us, Iran captures our sailors and parades them before the world on video.
These are difficult times but 2016 can be a turning point. That’s why I’m running for president and that’s why I’m here today to ask you for your vote. If you elect me president, we are going to re- embrace free enterprise so that everyone can go as far as their talent and their work will take them.
We are going to be a country that says that, “life begins at conception and life is worthy of the protection of our laws.” We’re going to be a country that says. “that marriage is between one man and one woman.” We are going to be a country that says, “the constitution and the rights that it talks about do not come from our president, they come from our creator.” We are going to be loyal to our allies like Israel, not enemies like Iran. And we will rebuild the U.S. military so no one will there test it.
Vote for me. I will unify this party. I will grow it. We will win this election and we will make the 21st century a new American century.
HE CERTAINLY HITS ALL THE OBVIOUS REPUBLICAN NOTES- LIKE MONDALE IN ’84, HE APPEALS TO EVERY CONCIEVABLE REPUBLICAN INTEREST GROUP.
DICKERSON: Senator Cruz? Senator Cruz, your closing statement?
CRUZ: South Carolina, you have a critical choice to make. Our country literally hangs in the balance.
Do you want another Washington deal maker who will do business as usual, cut deals with the democrats, grow government, grow debt and give up our fundamental liberties? Or do you want a conservative, a proven conservative that will stand and fight with you each and every day?
Listen, repealing Obamacare is not going to be easy. Passing a simple flat tax that abolishes the IRS is not going to be easy but if we stand with the American people we can do it.
And today, we saw just how great the stakes are, two branches of government hang in the balance. Not just the presidency but the Supreme Court. If we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidates, the Second Amendment, life, marriage, religious, liberty – everyone of those hangs in the balance.
My little girls are here. I don’t want to look my daughters in the eyes and say, “we lost their liberties.” Who do you know will defend The Constitution and Bill of Rights? And as a Commander in Chief, who do you know will stand up to our enemies as the clam, steady, deliberate, strength to defeat our enemies, to secure our borders and to keep America safe.
A BIT OVERDRAMATIC.
DICKERSON: Mr. Trump, your closing statements?
TRUMP: Thank you.
Politicians are all talk, no action. You’ve seen where they’ve take you to. We are 19 trillion dollars right now. It’s going to be increased with that horrible budget from a month ago that was just approved by politicians.
We need a change. We need a very big change. We’re going to make our country great again.
I say this every night, every day, every afternoon and it’s so true – we don’t win anymore. We don’t win with healthcare, we don’t win with ISIS and the military, we don’t take care of our vets, we don’t care of our borders, we don’t win. We are going to start winning again. We are not going to be controlled by people that are special interests and lobbyists that everybody here has contributed to. And you know what, they do exactly what those folks want them to do.
We are going to make our country great and we’re going to do the right thing. I’m working for you. I’m not working for anybody else.
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
My comments, as always, are in CAPS.
You can find some fact checking at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/fact-checking-the-sixth-democratic-debate/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_factchecker-1214am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
MY BOTTOM LINE: ON PAPER, SANDERS WON THIS DEBATE IN MY EYES, THOUGH CLINTON WAS OK. WHY? MY IMPRESSION OF HIM IN THE PAST HAD BEEN THAT HE IS COMPLETELY SHALLOW ON FOREIGN POLICY. BUT TONIGHT HIS LEVEL OF HISTORICAL LITERACY WAS REALLY IMPRESSIVE. HE BROUGHT IN EVERYONE FROM CHURCHILL TO SIHANOUK(!). I’M NOT SAYING I’D VOTE FOR HIM, BUT HE SOUNDED MUCH MORE LIKE A PLAUSIBLE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF THAN HE DID A FEW MONTHS AGO.
SANDERS: Well, Gwen and Judy, thank you very much for hosting this event. And, PBS, thank you.
Nine months ago, our campaign began. And when it began, we had no political organization, no money, and not much name recognition outside of the state of Vermont. A lot has happened in nine months.
And what has happened is, I think, the American people have responded to a series of basic truths, and that is that we have today a campaign finance system which is corrupt, which is undermining American democracy, which allows Wall Street and billionaires to pour huge sums of money into the political process to elect the candidates of their choice.
SANDERS: And aligned with a corrupt campaign finance system is a rigged economy. And that’s an economy where ordinary Americans are working longer hours for low wages. They are worried to death about the future of their kids. And yet they are seeing almost all new income and all new wealth going to the top 1 percent.
And then in addition to that, the American people are looking around and they see a broken criminal justice system. They see more people in jail in the United States of America than any other country on earth, 2.2 million. We’re spending $80 billion a year locking up fellow Americans.
They see kids getting arrested for marijuana, getting in prison, getting a criminal record, while they see executives on Wall Street who pay billions of dollars in settlements and get no prosecution at all. No criminal records for them.
I think what our campaign is indicating is that the American people are tired of establishment politics, tired of establishment economics. They want a political revolution in which millions of Americans stand up, come together, not let the Trumps of the world divide us, and say, you know what, in this great country, we need a government that represents all of us, not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors.
IFILL: Thank you, Senator Sanders.
IFILL: Thank you, Senator Sanders.
CLINTON: I’m running for president to knock down all the barriers that are holding Americans back, and to rebuild the ladders of opportunity that will give every American a chance to advance, especially those who have been left out and left behind.
I know a lot of Americans are angry about the economy. And for good cause.Americans haven’t had a raise in 15 years. There aren’t enough good-paying jobs, especially for young people. And yes, the economy is rigged in favor of those at the top.
We both agree that we have to get unaccountable money out of our political system and that we have to do much more to ensure that Wall Street never wrecks main street again.
But I want to go further. I want to tackle those barriers that stand in the way of too many Americans right now. African-Americans who face discrimination in the job market, education, housing, and the criminal justice system.
Hardworking immigrant families living in fear, who should be brought out of the shadows so they and their children can have a better future. Guaranteeing that women’s work finally gets the pay, the equal pay that we deserve.
I think America can only live up to its potential when we make sure that every American has a chance to live up to his or her potential. That will be my mission as president. And I think together we will make progress.
WOODRUFF: Thank you both.
WOODRUFF: Thank you both. And we’ll be right back after a short break to begin questions.
WOODRUFF: And, welcome back to this PBS Newshour debate, Democratic debate, here in Milwaukee. Let’s get right to the questions.
Senator Sanders, to you first. Coming off the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, there are many voters who are taking a closer look at you, and your ideas, and they’re asking how big a role do you foresee for the federal government? It’s already spending 21% of the entire U.S. economy. How much larger would government be in the lives of Americans under a Sanders presidency?
SANDERS: Well, to put that in a context, Judy, I think we have to understand that in the last 30 years in this country there has been a massive transfer of wealth going from the hands of working families into the top one-tenth of 1% whose percentage of wealth has doubled. In other words, the very rich are getting richer, almost everybody is going — getting poorer.
What I believe is the United States, in fact, should join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee healthcare to all people. Our Medicare for all single-payer proposal will save the average middle class family $5,000 a year.
I do believe that in the year 2016 we have to look in terms of public education as colleges as part of public education making public colleges and universities tuition free. I believe that when real unemployment is close to 10%, and when our infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our water systems, Flint, Michigan comes to mind. Our waste water plants, our rail, our airports, in many places are disintegrating.
Yeah, we can create 13 million jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure at a cost of a trillion dollars.
WOODRUFF: But, my question is how big would government be? Would there be any limit on the size of the role of government…
SANDERS: … Of course there will be a limit, but when today you have massive levels of income and wealth inequality, when the middle class is disappearing, you have the highest rate of child poverty of almost any major country on Earth. Yes, in my view, the government of a democratic society has a moral responsibility to play a vital role in making sure all of our people have a decent standard of living.
A BIT EVASIVE BUT A GOOD ANSWER AT THE SAME TIME- BASICALLY SAYING, WHO CARES? HIS POINT IS THAT ITS BETTER TO PAY 30 PERCENT OF SOMETHING THAN 21 PERCENT OF NOTHING. (LEAVING ASIDE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS POLICIES ARE LIKELY TO INCREASE INCOMES …)
CLINTON: Judy, I think that the best analysis that I’ve seen based on Senator Sanders plans is that it would probably increase the size of the federal government by about 40%, but what is most concerning to me is that in looking at the plans — let’s take healthcare for example.
Last week in a CNN town hall, the Senator told a questioner that the questioner would spend about $500 dollars in taxes to get about $5,000 dollars in healthcare. Every progressive economist who has analyzed that says that the numbers don’t add up, and that’s a promise that cannot be kept, and it’s really important now that we are getting into the rest of the country that both of us are held to account for explaining what we are proposing because, especially with healthcare, this is not about math. This is about people’s lives, and we should level with the American people about what we can do to make sure they get quality affordable healthcare.
WHY DON’T THE NUMBERS ADD UP? A BIT VAGUE
SANDERS: Well, let us level with the American people. Secretary Clinton has been going around the country saying Bernie Sanders wants to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, people are going to lose their MedicAid, they’re going to lose their CHIP program.
REALLY? SEEMS LIKE AN IMPLAUSIBLE ACCUSATION
I have fought my entire life to make sure that healthcare is a right for all people. We’re not going to dismantle everything. But, here is the truth.
Twenty-nine million people have no health insurance today in America. We pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. One out of five Americans can’t even afford the prescriptions their doctors are writing. Millions of people have high deductibles and co-payments. What I said, and let me repeat it, I don’t know what economists Secretary Clinton is talking to, but what I have said, and let me repeat it, that yes, the middle — the family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 dollars more in taxes, and get a reduction in their healthcare costs of $5,000 dollars.
In my view healthcare is a right of all people, not a privilege, and I will fight for that.
CLINTON: I can only say that we both share the goal of universal health care coverage. You know, before it was called Obamacare, it was called Hillarycare.And I took on the drug companies and I took on the insurance companies to try to get us universal health care coverage.
And why I am a staunch supporter of President Obama’s principal accomplishment — namely the Affordable Care Act — is because I know how hard it was to get that done. We are at 90 percent coverage. We have to get the remaining 10. I’ve set forth very specific plans about how to get costs down, especially prescription drug costs.
And it is difficult to in any way argue with the goal that we both share. But I think the American people deserve to know specifically how this would work.If it’s Medicare for all, then you no longer have the Affordable Care Act, because the Affordable Care Act, as you know very well, is based on the insurance system, based on exchanges, based on a subsidy system. The Children’s Health Insurance Program, which I helped to create, which covers 8 million kids, is also a different kind of program.
So if you’re having Medicare for all, single-payer, you need to level with people about what they will have at the end of the process you are proposing. And based on every analysis that I can find by people who are sympathetic to the goal, the numbers don’t add up, and many people will actually be worse off than they are right now.
I’M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE CRITIQUE HERE. IF 90 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE ARE COVERED TODAY AND 100 PERCENT WILL BE COVERED UNDER THE SANDERS PLAN (AS THE PHRASE “MEDICARE FOR ALL” INDICATES) HOW WILL PEOPLE BE WORSE OFF? I’M NOT SAYING THERE ISN’T A GOOD SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST SINGLE PAYER, BUT I DON’T THINK SHE’S MAKING IT HERE
IFILL: Final thought, Senator.
SANDERS: That is absolutely inaccurate. Look, here is the reality, folks. There is one major country on Earth that does not guarantee health care to all people. There is one major country — the United States — which ends up spending almost three times per capita what they do in the U.K. guaranteeing health care to all people, 50 percent more than they do in France guaranteeing health care to all people, far more than our Canadian neighbors, who guarantee health care to all people.
Please do not tell me that in this country, if — and here’s the if — we have the courage to take on the drug companies, and have the courage to take on the insurance companies, and the medical equipment suppliers, if we do that, yes, we can guarantee health care to all people in a much more cost effective way.
CLINTON: Well, let me just — let me just say, once again…
… that, having been in the trenches fighting for this, I believe strongly we have to guarantee health care. I believe we are on the path to doing that. The last thing we need is to throw our country into a contentious debate about health care again.
BECAUSE? I THINK IS SEE HER POINT THOUGH- GIVEN THAT REPUBLICANS ARE LIKELY TO CONTROL CONGRESS, ITS NOT POLITICALLY FEASIBLE TO DO MORE. BUT TO MAKE THE POINT SHE HAS TO CONCEDE THAT THE DEMOCRATS AREN’T GOING TO GET CONGRESS BACK ANYTIME SOON.
And we are not England. We are not France. We inherited a system that was set up during World War II; 170 million Americans get health insurance right now through their employers. So what we have tried to do and what President Obama succeeded in doing was to build on the health care system we have, get us to 90 percent coverage. We have to get the other 10 percent of the way to 100. I far prefer that and the chances we have to be successful there than trying to start all over again, gridlocking our system, and trying to get from zero to 100 percent.
IFILL: I’d like to move along. I’d like to move along.
Secretary Clinton, you might — you also have proposed fairly expansive ideas about government. You may remember this pledge from a State of the Union Address at which I believe you were present, in which these words were said: “The era of big government is over.” You may remember that.
When asked your feelings about the federal government this week, 61 percent of New Hampshire Democrats told exit pollsters that they are angry or at least dissatisfied. Given what you and Senator Sanders are proposing, an expanding government in almost every area of our lives, is it fair for Americans who fear government to fear you?
CLINTON: No. But it is absolutely fair and necessary for Americans to vet both of our proposals, to ask the really hard questions about, what is it we think we can accomplish, why do we believe that, and what would be the results for the average American family?
In my case, whether it’s health care, or getting us to debt-free tuition, or moving us toward paid family leave, I have been very specific about where I would raise the money, how much it would cost, and how I would move this agenda forward.
I’ve tried to be as specific to answer questions so that my proposals can be vetted, because I feel like we have to level with people for the very reason, Gwen, that you are mentioning. There is a great deal of skepticism about the federal government. I’m aware of that. It comes from the right, from the left, from people on all sides of the political spectrum.
CLINTON: So we have a special obligation to make clear what we stand for, which is why I think we should not make promises we can’t keep, because that will further, I think, alienate Americans from understanding and believing we can together make some real changes in people’s lives.
IFILL: But I haven’t heard either of you put a price tag on your — you say…
CLINTON: I will put a price tag. My price tag is about $100 billion a year. And again, paid for. And what I have said is I will not throw us further into debt. I believe I can get the money that I need by taxing the wealthy, by closing loopholes, the things that we are way overdue for doing.
And I think once I’m in the White House we will have enough political capital to be able to do that.
But I am conscious of the fact that we have to also be very clear, especially with young people, about what kind of government is going to do what for them and what it will cost.
SO WHAT DO WE GET IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT $100 BILLION?
SANDERS: Well, Secretary Clinton, you’re not in the White House yet. And let us be clear that every proposal that I have introduced has been paid for. For example, all right, who in America denies that we have an infrastructure that is crumbling? Roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants, who denies that?
Who denies that real unemployment today, including those who have given up looking for work and are working part-time is close to 10 percent? Who denies that African-American youth unemployment, real, is over 50 percent.
We need to create jobs. So yes, I will do away with the outrageous loopholes that allow profitable multinational corporations to stash billions of dollars in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and in a given year pay zero, zero in federal income tax.
Yes, I’m going to do away with that. We will use those proceeds, a hundred billion a year, to invest in rebuilding our infrastructure. Yes, I believe that as a result of the illegal behavior on Wall Street, that they are a Wall Street that drove this country into the worst economic downturn since the Great Recession — Great Depression.
Yes, I do believe that now after the American people bailed Wall Street out, yes, they should pay a Wall Street speculation tax so that we can make public colleges and universities tuition-free.
A “SPECULATION TAX”? WHAT’S THAT?
We bailed them out. Now it is their time to help the middle class.
CLINTON: You know, I think, again, both of us share the goal of trying to make college affordable for all young Americans. And I have set forth a compact that would do just that for debt-free tuition.
We differ, however, on a couple of key points. One of them being that if you don’t have some agreement within the system from states and from families and from students, it’s hard to get to where we need to go.
And Senator Sanders’s plan really rests on making sure that governors like Scott Walker contribute $23 billion on the first day to make college free. I am a little skeptical about your governor actually caring enough about higher education to make any kind of commitment like that.
ALSO NOT WELL EXPLAINED. BOTH SANDERS AND CLINTON ARE KIND OF HINDERED BY THE FORMAT: BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO LITTLE TIME TO DISCUSS COMPLEX ISSUES, THEIR ARGUMENTS KIND OF PRESUPPOSE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH I DON’T.
WOODRUFF: Next, we’re going to…
SANDERS: A brief response.
WOODRUFF: Very brief, thank you.
SANDERS: Here is where we are with public education. A 100, 150 years ago incredibly brave Americans said, you know what, working class kids, low income kids should not have to work in factories or on the farms. Like rich kids, they deserve to get a free education.
And that free education of extraordinary accomplishment was from first grade to 12th grade. The world has changed. This is 2016. In many ways, a college degree today is equivalent to what a high school degree was 50, 60 years ago.
IS THAT BECAUSE WE NEED TO KNOW MORE, OR BECAUSE HIGH SCHOOL HAS BEEN DUMBED DOWN TO WHAT JUNIOR HIGH WAS 60 YEARS AGO?
So, yes, I do believe that when we talk about public education in America, today, in a rapidly changing world, we should have free tuition at public colleges and universities. That should be a right of all Americans regardless of the income of their families.
WOODRUFF: Secretary Clinton, your campaign — you and your campaign have made a clear appeal to women voters. You have talked repeatedly about the fact, we know you would be, if elected, the first woman president.
But in New Hampshire 55 percent of the women voters supported and voted for Senator Sanders. What are women missing about you?
CLINTON: Well, first, Judy, I have spent my entire adult life working toward making sure that women are empowered to make their own choices, even if that choice is not to vote for me. I believe that it’s most important that we unleash the full potential of women and girls in our society.
And I feel very strongly that I have an agenda, I have a record that really does respond to a lot of the specific needs that the women in our country face. So I’m going to keep making that case. I’m going to keep making sure that everything I’ve done, everything that I stand for is going to be well known.
But I have no argument with anyone making up her mind about who to support. I just hope that by the end of this campaign there will be a lot more supporting me. That’s what I’m working towards.
WOODRUFF: As you know, just quickly, as you know, your strong supporter, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, said the other day that there’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t support other women. Do you agree with what she said?
CLINTON: Well, look, I think that she’s been saying that for as long as I’ve known her, which is about 25 years. But it doesn’t change my view that we need to empower everyone, women and men, to make the best decisions in their minds that they can make. That’s what I’ve always stood for.
I GUESS THIS WAS THE ONLY WAY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT DIDN’T INVOLVE SAYING “MY FRIEND MADELINE ALBRIGHT IS UNHINGED”
And when it comes to the issues that are really on the front lines as to whether we’re going to have equal pay, paid family leave, some opportunity for, you know, women to go as far as their hard work and talent take them, I think that we still have some barriers to knock down, which is why that’s at the core of my campaign.
I would note, just for a historic aside, somebody told me earlier today we’ve had like 200 presidential primary debates, and this is the first time there have been a majority of women on the stage. So, you know, we’ll take our progress wherever we can find it.
WOODRUFF: Senator Sanders, you’re in the minority, but we still want to hear from you.
(LAUGHTER) SANDERS: Look, we are fighting for every vote that we can get from women, from men, straight, gay, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans. We are trying to bring America together around an agenda that works for working families and the middle class.
I am very proud, if my memory is not correct — I think I am — that I have a lifetime — and I’ve been in Congress a few years — a lifetime 100 percent pro-choice voting record. I am very proud that over the years we have had the support in my state of Vermont from very significant majorities of women.
I’m very proud that I support legislation that is currently in the Congress, got support of almost all progressive Democrats in the House and Senate, which says we will end the absurdity of women today making 79 cents on the dollar compared to men. And we will join the rest of the other — the industrialized world in saying that paid family and medical leave should be a right of all working families.
IFILL: Senator, do you worry at all that you will be the instrument of thwarting history, as Senator Clinton keeps claiming, that she might be the first woman president?
SANDERS: Well, you know, I think, from a historical point of view, somebody with my background, somebody with my views, somebody who has spent his entire life taking on the big money interests, I think a Sanders victory would be of some historical accomplishment, as well.
CLINTON: You know, I have said — I have said many times, you know, I’m not asking people to support me because I’m a woman. I’m asking people to support me because I think I’m the most qualified, experienced, and ready person to be the president and the commander- in-chief.
And I appreciate greatly Senator Sanders’ voting record. And I was very proud to get the endorsement of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, because I’ve been a leader on these issues. I have gone time and time again to take on the vested interests who would keep women’s health care decisions the province of the government instead of women ourselves.
CLINTON: I’m very proud that NARAL endorsed me because when it comes to it we need a leader on women’s issues. Somebody who, yes, votes right, but much more than that, leads the efforts to protect the hard-fought gains that women have made, that, make no mistake about it, are under tremendous attack, not just by the Republican presidential candidates but by a whole national effort to try to set back women’s rights.
So I’m asking women, I’m asking men, to support me because I’m ready to go into the White House on January 20th, 2017 and get to work on both domestic and foreign policy challenges.
WOODRUFF: Final comment.
SANDERS: Let me concur with the secretary, no question women’s rights are under fierce attack all over this country. And I will tell you something that really galls me. I will not shock anybody to suggest that in politics there is occasionally a little bit of hypocrisy. Just a little bit.
All over this country we have Republican candidates for president saying we hate the government. Government is the enemy. We’re going to cut Social Security to help you. We’re going to cut Medicare and Medicaid, federal aid to education to help you, because the government is so terrible.
But, by the way, when it comes to a woman having to make a very personal choice, ah, in that case, my Republican colleagues love the government and want the government to make that choice for every woman in America.
If that’s not hypocrisy, I don’t know what hypocrisy is.
IFILL: Thank you both.
IFILL: We turn now to the first of several questions from our partners at Facebook. They were selected from a curated group of people we’ve been following of undecided voters.
The first comes from Claudia Looze, a 54-year-old woman who works as a program manager at a public affairs cable network in Madison, Wisconsin. And she writes: “Wisconsin is number one in African-American male incarceration, according to a University of Wisconsin study. They found that Wisconsin’s incarceration rate for black men, which is at 13 percent, was nearly double the country’s rate. What can we do across the nation to address this?”
SANDERS: This is one of the great tragedies in our country today. And we can no longer continue to sweep it under the rug. It has to be dealt with. Today a male African-American baby born today stands a one-in-four chance of ending up in jail. That is beyond unspeakable.
So what we have to do is the radical reform of a broken criminal justice system.
SANDERS: What we have to do is end over-policing in African- American neighborhoods. The reality is that both the African-American community and the white community do marijuana at about equal rates.
The reality is four times as many blacks get arrested for marijuana. Truth is that far more blacks get stopped for traffic violations. The truth is that sentencing for blacks is higher than for whites.
We need fundamental police reform, clearly, clearly, when we talk about a criminal justice system. I would hope that we could all agree that we are sick and tired of seeing videos on television of unarmed people, often African-Americans, shot by police officers.
What we have got to do is make it clear that any police officer who breaks the law will, in fact, be held accountable.
WHO COULD BE AGAINST THAT? PRETTY VAGUE STUFF.
CLINTON: You know, I completely agree with Senator Sanders. The first speech I gave in this campaign back in April was about criminal justice reform and ending the era of mass incarceration.
The statistics from Wisconsin are particularly troubling, because it is the highest rate of incarceration for African-Americans in our nation, twice the national average. And we know of the tragic, terrible event that lead to the death of Dontre Hamilton right here in Milwaukee, a young man unarmed, who should still be with us.
NICE PANDERING TO LOCAL CROWD
His family certainly believes that. And so do I. So we have work to do. There have been some good recommendations about what needs to happen. President Obama’s policing commission came out with some. I have fully endorsed those.
CLINTON: But we have to restore policing that will actually protect the communities that police officers are sworn to protect.
WHO COULD BE AGAINST THAT? WHO’S GOING TO SAY “I’M FOR POLICING THAT DOESN’T PROTECT THE COMMUNITIES?”
And, then we have to go after sentencing, and that’s one of the problems here in Wisconsin because so much of what happened in the criminal justice system doesn’t happen at the federal level, it happens at the state and local level.
WHAT DOES “GOING AFTER SENTENCING” MEAN?
But, I would also add this. There are other racial discrepancies. Really systemic racism in this state, as in others, education, in employment, in the kinds of factors that too often lead from a position where young people, particularly young men, are pushed out of school early, are denied employment opportunities. So, when we talk about criminal justice reform, and ending the era of mass incarceration, we also have to talk about jobs, education, housing, and other ways of helping communities.
SANDERS: Nothing that Secretary Clinton said do I disagree with. This mandatory sentencing, a very bad idea. It takes away discretion from judges. We have got to demilitarize local police departments so they do not look like occupying armies.
We have got to make sure that local police departments look like the communities they serve in their diversity. And, where we are failing abysmally is in the very high rate of recidivism we see. People are being released from jail without the education, without the job training, without the resources that they need to get their lives together, then they end up — we’re shocked that they end up back in jail again. So, we have a lot of work to do.
But, here is a pledge I’ve made throughout this campaign, and it’s really not a very radical pledge. When we have more people in jail, disproportionately African American and Latino, than China does, a communist authoritarian society four times our size. Here’s my promise, at the end of my first term as president we will not have more people in jail than any other country.
WE’RE MORE VIOLENT THAN CHINA, SO THIS IS A STUPID PROMISE (ALSO, FORTUNATELY, ONE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS LIMITED CONTROL OVER).
We will invest in education, and jobs for our kids, not incarceration and more jails.
(APPLAUSE) WOODRUFF: Secretary Clinton, I was talking recently with a 23 year old black woman who voted for President Obama because she said she thought relations between the races would get better under his leadership, and his example. Hardly anyone believes that they have. Why do you think race relations would be better under a Clinton presidency? What would you do that the nation’s first African American has not been able to?
CLINTON: Well, I’m just not sure I agree completely with that assessment. I think under President Obama we have seen a lot of advances, the Affordable Care Act has helped more African Americans than any other group to get insurance, to be taken care of, but we also know a lot more than we did. We have a lot more social media, we have everybody with a cellphone.
So, we are seeing the dark side of the remaining systemic racism that we have to root out in our society. I think President Obama has set a great example. I think he has addressed a lot of these issues that have been quite difficult, but he has gone forward. Now, what we have to do is to build on an honest conversation about where we go next.
We now have much more information about what must be done to fix our criminal justice system. We now have some good models about how better to provide employment, housing and education. I think what President Obama did was to exemplify the importance of this issue as our first African American president, and to address it both from the President’s office, and through his advocacy, such as working with young men, and Mrs. Obama’s work with young women.
But, we can’t rest. We have work to do, and we now know a lot more than we ever did before. So, it’s going to be my responsibility to make sure we move forward to solve these problems that are now out in the open. Nobody can deny them. To use the Justice Department, as we just saw, they have said they are going to sue Ferguson, that entered into a consent agreement, and then tried to back out. So, we’re going to enforce the law, we’re going to change policing practices, we’re going to change incarceration practices, but we’re also going to emphasize education, jobs, and housing.
WOODRUFF: Senator Sanders?
SANDERS: Well, I think, Judy, what has to be appreciated is that, as a result of the disastrous and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of lives were hurt. People lost their jobs, their homes, their life savings. Turns out that the African-American community and the Latino community were hit especially hard. As I understand it, the African-American community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse.
WHAT WAS ILLEGAL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON WALL STREET?
So when you have childhood African-American poverty rates of 35 percent, when you have youth unemployment at 51 percent, when you have unbelievable rates of incarceration — which, by the way, leaves the children back home without a dad or even a mother — clearly, we are looking at institutional racism. We are looking at an economy in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And sadly, in America today, in our economy, a whole lot of those poor people are African-American.
WOODRUFF: So race relation was be better under a Sanders presidency than they’ve been?
SANDERS: Absolutely, because what we will do is say, instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires, we are going to create millions of jobs for low-income kids so they’re not hanging out on street corners. We’re going to make sure that those kids stay in school or are able to get a college education.
And I think when you give low-income kids — African-American, white, Latino kids — the opportunities to get their lives together, they are not going to end up in jail. They’re going to end up in the productive economy, which is where we want them.
THIS ALL SOUNDS LIKE WARMED-OVER GREAT SOCIETY. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW GREAT RACE RELATIONS WERE IN 1968 (OF COURSE I’M BEING SARCASTIC- THE LBJ ADMINISTRATION WAS THE GOLDEN AGE OF RACE RIOTS! PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT RIOTING IN FERGUSON OR BALTIMORE BECAUSE SOME IDIOT BURNS DOWN A CVS; IN THE 60S RIOTS, THERE WERE OFTEN ONE OR TWO DOZEN PEOPLE DEAD. NOW THOSE WERE RIOTS!
IFILL: Let me turn this on its head, because when we talk about race in this country, we always talk about African-Americans, people of color. I want to talk about white people, OK?
SANDERS: White people?
IFILL: I know. (LAUGHTER)
So many people will be surprised to find out that we are sitting in one of the most racially polarized metropolitan areas in the country. By the middle of this century, the nation is going to be majority nonwhite. Our public schools are already there. If working- class, white Americans are about to be outnumbered, are already underemployed in many cases, and one study found they are dying sooner, don’t they have a reason to be resentful, Senator — Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Look, I am deeply concerned about what’s happening in every community in America, and that includes white communities, where we are seeing an increase in alcoholism, addiction, earlier deaths. People with a high school education or less are not even living as long as their parents lived. This is a remarkable and horrifying fact.
And that’s why I’ve come forward with, for example, a plan to revitalize coal country, the coalfield communities that have been so hard hit by the changing economy, by the reduction in the use of coal. You know, coal miners and their families who helped turn on the lights and power our factories for generations are now wondering, has our country forgotten us? Do people not care about all of our sacrifice?
And I’m going to do everything I can to address distressed communities, whether they are communities of color, whether they are white communities, whether they are in any part of our country.
I particularly appreciate the proposal that Congressman Jim Clyburn has — the 10-20-30 proposal — to try to spend more federal dollars in communities with persistent generational poverty. And you know what? If you look at the numbers, there are actually as many, if not more white communities that are truly being left behind and left out.
WILL MORE “FEDERAL DOLLARS” MAKE PEOPLE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE STOP USING HEROIN? WHY?
So, yes, I do think it would be a terrible oversight not to try to address the very real problems that white Americans — particularly those without a lot of education whose jobs have — you know, no longer provided them or even no longer present in their communities, because we have to focus where the real hurt is. And that’s why, as president, I will look at communities that need special help and try to deliver that.
IFILL: Senator — Senator, I want you to respond to that, but I also want you to — am I wrong? Is it even right to be describing this as a matter of race?
SANDERS: Yeah, you can, because African-Americans and Latinos not only face the general economic crises of low wages, and high unemployment, and poor educational opportunities, but they face other problems, as well. So, yes, we can talk about it as a racial issue. But it is a general economic issue.
SANDERS: And here’s what the economic issue is.
The wages that high school graduates receive today are significantly less, whether you are white or black, than they used to be. Why is that? Because of a series of disastrous trade policies which have allowed corporate America through NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, Secretary Clinton and I disagree on those issues.
But view is those trade policies have enabled corporate America to shut down in this country, throw millions of people out on the street. Now no one thinks that working in the factory is the greatest job in the world. But you know what, you can make a middle class wage, you have decent health care, decent benefits.
You once had a pension. Those jobs, in many cases, are now gone. They’re off to China. Now you are a worker, white worker, black worker, who had a decent job, that manufacturing job is gone.
What have you got now? You are working at McDonald’s? That is why there is massive despair all over this country. People have worked their entire lives. They’re making a half, two-thirds what they used to make. Their kids are having a hard time finding any work at all.
And that’s why this study, which shows that if you can believe it today, for white working class people between 45 and 54, life expectancy is actually going down.
Suicide, alcoholism, drugs, that’s why we need to start paying attention to the needs of working families in this country, and not just a handful of billionaires who have enormous economic and political power.
WOODRUFF: Thank you.
Senator Sanders, one of the causes of anxiety for working class Americans is connected to immigrants. President Obama, as you know, has issued executive actions to permit some 5 million undocumented immigrants who are living now in the United States to come out of the shadows without fear of deportation to get work permits.
Would you go further than that? And if so, how specifically would you do it? Should an undocumented family watching this debate tonight, say, in Nevada, rest easy, not fear of further deportations under a Sanders presidency?
SANDERS: The answer is yes. We’ve got 11 million undocumented people in this country. I have talked to some of the young kids with tears rolling down their cheeks, are scared to death that today they may or their parents may be deported.
I believe that we have got to pass comprehensive immigration reform, something that I strongly supported. I believe that we have got to move toward a path toward citizenship. I agree with President Obama who used executive orders to protect families because the Congress, the House was unable or refused to act.
And in fact I would go further. What would motivate me and what would be the guiding light for me in terms of immigration reform, Judy, is to bring families together, not divide them up.
And let me say this also. Somebody who is very fond of the president, agrees with him most of the time, I disagree with his recent deportation policies. And I would not support those.
Bottom line is a path towards citizenship for 11 million undocumented people, if Congress doesn’t do the right thing, we use the executive orders of the president.
SO DOES THIS MEAN AMNESTY FOR EVERYONE WHO’S CURRENTLY HERE ILLEGALLY? AND IF SO, WON’T THAT ATTRACT MORE PEOPLE TRYING TO COME IN? AND IF SO, ARE YOU FOR THAT?
THE MODERATORS AREN’T FOLLOWING UP VERY MUCH.
CLINTON: I strongly support the president’s executive actions. I hope the Supreme Court upholds them. I think there is constitutional and legal authority for the president to have done what he did.
I am against the raids. I’m against the kind of inhumane treatment that is now being visited upon families, waking them up in the middle of the night, rounding them up. We should be deporting criminals, not hardworking immigrant families who do the very best they can and often are keeping economies going in many places in our country.
I’m a strong supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. Have been ever since I was in the Senate. I was one of the original sponsors of the DREAM Act. I voted for comprehensive immigration reform in 2007.
Senator Sanders voted against it at that time. Because I think we have to get to comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship. And as president I would expand enormous energy, literally call every member of Congress that I thought I could persuade.
Hopefully after the 2016 election, some of the Republicans will come to their senses and realize we are not going to deport 11 or 12 million people in this country. And they will work with me to get comprehensive immigration reform.
SANDERS: Secretary Clinton, I do have a disagreement here. If my memory is correct, I think when we saw children coming from these horrendous, horrendously violent areas of Honduras and neighboring countries, people who are fleeing drug violence and cartel violence, I thought it was a good idea to allow those children to stay in this country. That was not, as I understand it, the secretary’s position.
IF PEOPLE ARE COMING FROM VIOLENT PLACES, AREN’T THEY PRETTY HIGH RISK FOR COMMITTING VIOLENT ACTS IN THE UNITED STATES?
In terms of 2007 immigration reform, yeah, I did vote against it. I voted against it because the Southern Poverty Law Center, among other groups, said that the guest-worker programs that were embedded in this agreement were akin to slavery. Akin to slavery, where people came into this country to do guest work were abused, were exploited, and if they stood up for their rights, they’d be thrown out of this country.
So it wasn’t just me who opposed it. It was LULAC, one of the large Latino organizations in this country. It was the AFL-CIO. It was some of the most progressive members of the United States Congress who opposed it for that reason.
But we are where we are right now. And where we are right now is we have got to stand up to the Trumps of the world who are trying to divide us up. What we have to do right now is bring our people together and understand that we must provide a path towards citizenship for 11 million undocumented people.
CLINTON: Two quick responses. One, with respect to the Central American children, I made it very clear that those children needed to be processed appropriately, but we also had to send a message to families and communities in Central America not to send their children on this dangerous journey in the hands of smugglers.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE GIVE AMNESTY TO EVERYONE WE’LL ATTRACT MORE. GOOD POINT THOUGH NOT VERY CLEARLY STATED. IN OTHER WORDS, SHE DOES SEEM A BIT MORE MODERATE ON IMMIGRATION THAN SANDERS.
I’ve also called for the end of family detention, for the end of privately-run detention centers, along with private prisons, which I think are really against the common good and the rule of law.
And with respect to the 2007 bill, this was Ted Kennedy’s bill. And I think Ted Kennedy had a very clear idea about what needed to be done. And I was proud to stand with him and support it.
WOODRUFF: I’d like… SANDERS: Well, let me just respond. I worked with Ted Kennedy. He was the chairman of my committee. And I loved Ted Kennedy. But on this issue, when you have one of the large Latino organizations in America saying vote no, and you have the AFL-CIO saying vote no, and you have leading progressive Democrats, in fact, voting no, I don’t apologize for that vote.
But in terms of the children, I don’t know to whom you’re sending a message. Who are you sending a message to? These are children who are leaving countries and neighborhoods where their lives are at stake. That was the fact. I don’t think we use them to send a message. I think we welcome them into this country and do the best we can to help them get their lives together.
IF HONDURAS IS SO DANGEROUS WHY CAN’T THEY JUST MOVE TO MEXICO OR EL SALVADOR? DOES THE U.S. HAVE TO BE THE DESTINATION FOR EVERYONE WHOSE HOME COUNTRY IS A MESS? (ON THE OTHER HAND, I’M SURE MEXICANS ARE PROBABLY SAYING “IF HONDURAS IS SO DANGEROUS WHY CAN’T THEY LIVE IN THE U.S. INSTEAD OF HERE”?)
CLINTON: Well, that just wasn’t — that just wasn’t the fact, Senator. The fact is that there was a great effort made by the Obama administration and others to really send a clear message, because we knew that so many of these children were being abused, being treated terribly while they tried to get to our border.
So we have a disagreement on this. I think now what I’ve called for is counsel for every child so that no child has to face any kind of process without someone who speaks and advocates for that child so that the right decision hopefully can be made.
IFILL: If you would allow me now to move on, we’ve been talking about children. I want to talk about seniors. That takes us to our second Facebook question from Farheen Hakeem, who writes, “My father” — she’s a 40-year-old woman who works for a nonprofit here in Milwaukee. And she writes, “My father gets just $16 in food assistance per month as part of Medicaid’s family community program in Milwaukee County for low-income seniors. How will you as president work to ensure low-income seniors get their basic needs met?”
Start with you, Senator Sanders.
SANDERS: OK. You know, you judge a nation not by the number of millionaires and billionaires it has, but by how you treat, we treat, the most vulnerable and fragile people in our nation. And by those standards, we’re not doing particularly well.
SANDERS: We have the highest rate of childhood poverty among almost any major country on Earth. And in terms of seniors, there are millions of seniors — and I’ve talked to them in my state of Vermont and all over this country — who are trying to get by on $11,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year Social Security. And you know what? You do the arithmetic. You can’t get by on $11,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year.
And here’s an area where Secretary Clinton and I believe we have a difference. I have long supported the proposition that we should lift the cap on taxable income coming into the Social Security Trust Fund, starting at $250,000.
And when we — and when we do that, we don’t do what the Republicans want, which is to cut Social Security. We do what the American people want, to expand Social Security by $1,300 a year for people under $16,000, and we extend the life of Social Security for 58 years.
Yes, the wealthiest people, the top 1.5 percent, will pay more in taxes. But a great nation like ours should not be in a position where elderly people are cutting their pills in half, where they don’t have decent nutrition, where they can’t heat their homes in the wintertime. That is not what America should be about. If elected president, I will do everything I can to expand Social Security benefits, not just for seniors, but for disabled veterans, as well.
CLINTON: I think — I think it’s fair to say we don’t have a disagreement. We both believe there has to be more money going into the Social Security system. I’ve said I’m looking at a couple of different ways, one which you mentioned, Senator, but also trying to expand the existing tax to passive income that wealthy people have so that we do get more revenue into the Social Security Trust Fund.
I have a slightly different approach, though, about what we should do with that initially. First, rather than expand benefits for everyone, I do want to take care of low-income seniors who worked at low-wage jobs. I want to take care of women. When the Social Security program was started in the 1930s, not very many women worked. And women have been disadvantaged ever since. They do not get any credit for their care-taking responsibilities. And the people who are often the most hard-hit are widows, because when their spouse dies, they can lose up to one-half of their Social Security monthly payment. So we have no disagreement about the need to buttress Social Security, get more revenue into the program. But I want to start by helping those people who are most at risk, the ones who, yes, are cutting their pills in half, who don’t believe they can make the rent, who are worried about what comes next for them.
SANDERS: In all due respect…
SANDERS: In all due respect, Secretary Clinton, a lot of the progressive groups, the online groups have really asked you a simple question. Are you coming onboard a proposal? And what is that proposal?
Now, the proposal that I have outlined, you know, should be familiar to you, because it is what essentially Barack Obama campaigned on in 2008. You opposed him then.
I would hope that you would come onboard and say that this is the simple and straightforward thing to do. We’re asking the top 1.5 percent, including passive income, to start paying a little bit more so that the elderly and disabled vets in this country can live with security and dignity. I hope you will make a decision soon on this.
CLINTON: Well, Senator, look, I think we’re in vigorous agreement here. We both want to get more revenue in. I have yet to see a proposal that you’re describing that the — raising the cap would apply to passive income. That has not been…
SANDERS: That’s my bill. Check it out.
CLINTON: Well, that has not been a part of most of the proposals that I’ve seen. I’m interested in making sure we get the maximum amount of revenue from those who can well afford to provide it. So I’m going to come up with the best way forward. We’re going to end up in the same place. We’re going to get more revenue. I’m going to prioritize those recipients who need the most help first.
NONE OF THESE COULD GET THROUGH ANY CONGRESS THAT I COULD IMAGINE BEING ELECTED IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. AND GIVEN THE LONG-TERM CHALLENGES OF SOCIAL SECURITY, I WONDER IF THE TAX INCREASES THEY PROPOSE WILL BE NECESSARY JUST TO KEEP THE SYSTEM SOLVENT.
BUT THEY ALL AT LEAST SOUNDED LIKE THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, SO I GUESS THEY BOTH BENEFIT.
WOODRUFF: We’re going to move on. Secretary Clinton, your campaign has recently ramped up criticism of Senator Sanders for attending Democratic Party fundraisers from which you say he benefited. But nearly half of your financial sector donations appear to come from just two wealthy financiers, George Soros and Donald Sussman, for a total of about $10 million.
WOODRUFF: You have said that there’s no quid pro quo involved. Is that also true of the donations that wealthy Republicans give to Republican candidates, contributors including the Koch Brothers?
CLINTON: I can’t speak for the Koch Brothers, you’re referring to a Super PAC that we don’t coordinate with, that was set up to support President Obama, that has now decided that they want to support me. They are the ones who should respond to any questions.
Let’s talk about our campaigns. I’m very proud of the fact that we have more than 750 thousand donors, and the vast majority of them are giving small contributions. So, I’m proud of Senator Sanders, and his supporters. I think it’s great that Senator Sanders, President Obama and I have more donors than any three people who have every run, certainly on the Democratic side. That’s the way it should be, and I’m going to continue to reach out to thank all my online contributors for everything they are doing for me, to encourage them and help me do more just as Senator Sanders is.
I think that is the real key here. We both have a lot of small donors. I think that sets us apart from a lot of what’s happening right now on the Republican side.
The Koch Brothers have a very clear political agenda. It is an agenda, in my view, that would do great harm to our country. We’re going to fight it as hard as we can, and we’re going to fight whoever the Republicans nominate who will depend on the Koch Brothers, and others.
WOODRUFF: I’m asking if Democratic donors are different than Republican donors.
SANDERS: What we are talking about in reality is a corrupt campaign finance system, that’s what we’re talking about. We have to be honest about it. It is undermining American democracy.
When extraordinarily wealthy people make very large contributions to Super PACs, and in many cases in this campaign, Super PACs have raised more money than individual candidates have, OK? We had a decision to make early on, do we do a Super PAC? And, we said no. We don’t represent Wall Street, we don’t represent the billionaire class, so it ends up I’m the only candidate up here of the many candidates who has no Super PAC. But, what we did is we said to the working families of this country, look, we know things are tough, but if you want to help us go beyond establishment politics, and establishment economics, send us something. And, it turns out that up until — and this has blown me away, never in a million years would I have believed that I would be standing here tonight telling you that we have received three and a half million individual contributions from well over a million people.
Now, Secretary Clinton’s Super PAC, as I understand it, received $25 million dollars last reporting period, $15 million dollars from Wall Street. Our average contribution is $27 dollars, I’m very proud of that.
IFILL: Senator Sanders, are you saying…
CLINTON: We are mixing apples and oranges. My 750,000 donors have contributed more than a million and a half donations. I’m very proud. That, I think, between the two of us demonstrates the strength of the support we have among people who want to see change in our country.
But, the real issue, I think, that the Senator is injecting into this is that if you had a Super PAC, like President Obama has, which now says it wants to support me. It’s not my PAC. If you take donations from Wall Street, you can’t be independent.
I would just say, I debated then Senator Obama numerous times on stages like this, and he was the recipient of the largest number of Wall Street donations of anybody running on the Democratic side ever.
Now, when it mattered, he stood up and took on Wall Street. He pushed through, and he passed the Dodd-Frank regulation, the toughest regulations since the 1930’s. So, let’s not in anyway imply here that either President Obama or myself, would in anyway not take on any vested interested, whether it’s Wall Street, or drug companies, or insurance companies, or frankly, the gun lobby to stand up to do what’s best for the American people.
SANDERS: The people aren’t dumb. Why in God’s name does Wall Street…
But let’s not — but let’s not — let’s not insult — let’s not insult the intelligence of the American people. People aren’t dumb. Why in God’s name does Wall Street make huge campaign contributions? I guess just for the fun of it; they want to throw money around.
Why does the pharmaceutical industry make huge campaign contributions? Any connection maybe to the fact that our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs?
Why does the fossil fuel industry pay — spend huge amounts of money on campaign contributions? Any connection to the fact that not one Republican candidate for president thinks and agrees with the scientific community that climate change is real and that we have got to transform our energy system?
And when we talk about Wall Street, let’s talk about Wall Street. I voted for Dodd-Frank, got an important amendment in it. In my view, it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. But when we talk about Wall Street, you have Wall Street and major banks have paid $200 billion in fines since the great crash. No Wall Street executive has been prosecuted.
CLINTON: Well, let’s just — let’s just follow up on this, because, you know, I’ve made it very clear that no bank is too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail, and because of Dodd-Frank, we now have in law a process that the president, the Federal Reserve, and others can use if any bank poses a systemic risk. I think that’s a major accomplishment.
I agree, however, it doesn’t go far enough, because what it focuses on are the big banks, which Senator Sanders has talked about a lot, for good reason. I go further in the plan that I’ve proposed, which has been called the toughest, most effective, comprehensive plan for reining in the other risks that the financial system could face. It was an investment bank, Lehman Brothers, that contributed to our collapse. It was a big insurance company, AIG. It was Countrywide Mortgage. My plan would sweep all of them into a regulatory framework so we can try to get ahead of what the next problems might be.
And I believe that not only Barney Frank, Paul Krugman, and others, have said that what I have proposed is the most effective. It goes in the right direction. We have Dodd-Frank. We can use it to break up the banks, if that’s appropriate. But let’s not kid ourselves. As we speak, there are new problems on the horizon. I want to get ahead of those, and that’s why I’ve proposed a much more comprehensive approach to deal with all of these…
WOODRUFF: We have to go to a break. We…
SANDERS: Let me, you know, again, respectfully disagree with Secretary Clinton here. When you have three out of the four largest financial institutions in this country bigger today than they were when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, when you have six financial institutions having assets equivalent to 58 percent of the GDP of America, while issuing two-thirds of the credit cards and a third of the mortgages, look, I think if Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, that great trust-buster would have said break them up. I think he would have been right. I think he would have said bring back a 21st-century Glass-Steagall legislation. I think that would have been right, as well. That’s my view.
WOODRUFF: All right. Thank you both. It is time for a break. And when we come back, we’re going to turn to some new topics, including how these candidates will keep America safe.
IFILL: There’s a lot more to come in just a few minutes. Stay with us for more of the PBS NewsHour Democratic Debate.
WOODRUFF: Welcome back to the Democratic presidential debate. Before we return to our questions, we have a follow-up question from our Facebook group. And it is to Senator Sanders.
Senator, it comes from Bill Corfield. He is a 55-year-old musician from Troy, Ohio. And he asks: “Are there any areas of government you would like to reduce?”
SANDERS: Hey, I’m in the United States Senate, and anyone who doesn’t think that there is an enormous amount of waste and inefficiency and bureaucracy throughout government would be very, very mistaken.
I believe in government, but I believe in efficient government, not wasteful government.
AH YES. THE FAMOUS DEPARTMENT OF WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE THAT EVERYONE PROMISES TO CUT.
IFILL: How about you, Senator Clinton — Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Absolutely. And, you know, there are a number of programs that I think are duplicative and redundant and not producing the results that people deserve. There are a lot of training programs and education programs that I think can be streamlined and put into a much better format so that if we do continue them they can be more useful, in public schools, community colleges, and colleges and universities.
I would like to take a hard look at every part of the federal government and really do the kind of analysis that would rebuild some confidence in people that we’re taking a hard look about what we have, you know, and what we don’t need anymore. And that’s what I intend to do.
SANDERS: If I could just answer that, we have also got to take a look at the waste and inefficiencies in the Department of Defense, which is the one major agency of government that has not been able to be audited. And I have the feeling you’re going to find a lot of cost overruns there and a lot of waste and duplicative activities.
IFILL: We spent the first part of this debate talking about domestic insecurity. The second part, we want to talk about our foreign policy insecurities. And we want to start with a question for you, Secretary Clinton, about America’s role in the world.
Americans are becoming increasingly worried that attacks abroad are coming home, that they already are, in fact, here. According to exit polls from last week, from earlier this week, more than two- thirds of Democrats in New Hampshire are concerned about sending their children to fight in wars they can’t win. They fret that the next attack is just around the corner and we are not ready. Are we?
CLINTON: Look, I think we are readier than we used to be, but it’s a constant effort that has to be undertaken to make sure we are as ready as we need to be. We have made a lot of improvements in our domestic security since 9/11, and we have been able to foil and prevent attacks, yet we see the terrible attack in San Bernardino and know that we haven’t done enough.
So we have to go after this both abroad and at home. We have to go after terrorist networks, predominantly ISIS — that’s not the only one, but let’s focus on that for a minute. We have to lead a coalition that will take back territory from ISIS. That is principally an American-led air campaign that we are now engaged in.
We have to support the fighters on the ground, principally the Arabs and the Kurds who are willing to stand up and take territory back from Raqqa to Ramadi. We have to continue to work with the Iraqi army so that they are better prepared to advance on some of the other strongholds inside Iraq, like Mosul, when they are able to do so. And we have to cut off the flow of foreign funding and foreign fighters.
THIS ALL SOUNDS LIKE STATUS QUO- IS IT WORKING?
And we have to take on ISIS online. They are a sophisticated purveyor of propaganda, a celebrator of violence, an instigator of attacks using their online presence.
Here at home, we’ve got to do a better job coordinating between federal, state, and local law enforcement. We need the best possible intelligence not only from our own sources, but from sources overseas, that can be a real-time fusion effort to get information where it’s needed.
But the final thing I want to say about this is the following. You know, after 9/11, one of the efforts that we did in New York was if you see something or hear something suspicious, report it. And we need to do that throughout the country.
But we need to understand that American Muslims are on the front line of our defense. They are more likely to know what’s happening in their families and their communities, and they need to feel not just invited, but welcomed within the American society. So when somebody like Donald Trump and others…
… stirs up the demagoguery against American Muslims, that hurts us at home. It’s not only offensive; it’s dangerous. And the same goes for overseas, where we have to put together a coalition of Muslim nations. I know how to do that. I put together the coalition that imposed the sanctions on Iran that got us to the negotiating table to put a lid on their nuclear weapons program.
And you don’t go tell Muslim nations you want them to be part of a coalition when you have a leading candidate for president of the United States who insults their religion.
So this has to be looked at overall, and we have to go at it from every possible angle.
IFILL: Senator Sanders…
SANDERS: Let me just say this. What a president of the United States has got to do — and what is his or her major, I think, responsibility — is to, A, make certain that we keep our people safe, that we work with allies around the world to protect…
… president of the United States has got to do, and what is his or her major, I think, responsibility, is to, A, make certain that we keep our people safe. Thatwe work with allies around the world to protect democratic values. That we do all that we can to create a world of peace and prosperity.
I voted against the war in Iraq because I listened very carefully to what President Bush and Vice President Cheney had to say and I didn’t believe them. And if you go to my Web site, berniesanders.com, what you find is not only going to help lead the opposition to that war, but much of what I feared would happen when I spoke on the floor of the House, in fact, did happen in terms of the instability that occurred.
Now I think an area in kind of a vague way, or not so vague, where Secretary Clinton and I disagree is the area of regime change. Look, the truth is that a powerful nation like the United States, certainly working with our allies, we can overthrow dictators all over the world.
And God only knows Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. We could overthrow Assad tomorrow if we wanted to. We got rid of Gadhafi. But the point about foreign policy is not just to know that you can overthrow a terrible dictator, it’s to understand what happens the day after.
And in Libya, for example, the United States, Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, working with some other countries, did get rid of a terrible dictator named Gadhafi. But what happened is a political vacuum developed. ISIS came in, and now occupies significant territory in Libya, and is now prepared, unless we stop them, to have a terrorist foothold.
WELL DONE! GREAT HIT!
But this is nothing new. This has gone on 50 or 60 years where the United States has been involved in overthrowing governments. Mossadegh back in 1953. Nobody knows who Mossadegh was, democratically-elected prime minister of Iran. He was overthrown by British and American interests because he threatened oil interests of the British. And as a result of that, the shah of Iran came in, terrible dictator. The result of that, you had the Iranian Revolution coming in, and that is where we are today. Unintended consequences.
So I believe as president I will look very carefully about unintended consequences. I will do everything I can to make certain that the United States and our brave men and women in the military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.
CLINTON: If I could just respond. Two points. One, Senator Sanders voted in 1998 on what I think is fair to call a regime change resolution with respect to Iraq, calling for the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
He voted in favor of regime change with Libya, voted in favor of the Security Council being an active participate in setting the parameters for what we would do, which of course we followed through on.
HILLARY’S NOT BOTHERING TO DEFEND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S RECORD IN LIBYA, AS SHE DID IN EARLIER DEBATES. INSTEAD SHE’S JUST KIND OF SAYING “YOU’RE RESPONSIBLE TOO.”
PS THE WASHINGTON POST FACT CHECKER SAYS CLINTON MISLEADING ABOUT LIBYA- HE VOTED FOR RESOLUTION FAVORING DEMOCRACY IN LIBYA BUT THAT’S NOT QUITE THE SAME AS SUPPORTING A SUCCESSFUL ARMED UPRISING AGAINST THE REGIME AS SHE DID
I do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat ISIS in 2016. It’s very important we focus on the threats we face today, and that we understand the complicated and dangerous world we are in.
When people go to vote in primaries or caucuses, they are voting not only for the president, they are voting for the commander-in- chief. And it’s important that people really look hard at what the threats and dangers we face are, and who is best prepared for dealing with them.
As we all remember, Senator Obama, when he ran against me, was against the war in Iraq. And yet when he won, he turned to me, trusting my judgment, my experience, to become secretary of state.
I was very honored to be asked to do that and very honored to serve with him those first four years.
YES, AND THE WORLD IS IN SUCH GREAT SHAPE (SARCASM). IN 2009, IRAQ SEEMED TO BE PRETTY MUCH UNDER CONTROL. NOW WE HAVE ISIS. IF THIS COUNTS AS SUCCESS, THE REPUBLICANS MIGHT AS WELL NOMINATE RUMSFELD AND BRAG ABOUT THEIR SUCCESS IN IRAQ.
SANDERS: Judy, if I can, there is no question, Secretary Clinton and I are friends, and I have a lot of respect for her, that she has enormous experience in foreign affairs. Secretary of state for four years. You’ve got a bit of experience, I would imagine.
But judgment matters as well. Judgment matters as well. And she and I looked at the same evidence coming from the Bush administration regarding Iraq. I lead the opposition against it. She voted for it.
But more importantly, in terms of this Libya resolution that you have noted before, this was a virtually unanimous consent. Everybody voted for it wanting to see Libya move toward democracy, of course we all wanted to do that.
SANDERS: That is very different than talking about specific action for regime change, which I did not support.
CLINTON: You did support a U.N. Security Council approach, which we did follow up on. And, look, I think it’s important to look at what the most important counterterrorism judgment of the first four years of the Obama administration was, and that was the very difficult decision as to whether or not to advise the president to go after bin Laden.
I looked at the evidence. I looked at the intelligence. I got the briefings. I recommended that the president go forward. It was a hard choice. Not all of his top national security advisors agreed with that. And at the end of the day, it was the president’s decision. So he had to leave the Situation Room after hearing from the small group advising him and he had to make that decision. I’m proud that I gave him that advice. And I’m very grateful to the brave Navy SEALs who carried out that mission.
WHO WOULD BE AGAINST GOING AFTER BIN LADEN? THAT SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY EASY DECISION. AND DID IT REALLY DO ANY GOOD?
SANDERS: Judy, one area very briefly…
WOODRUFF: Just a final word.
SANDERS: Where the secretary and I have a very profound difference, in the last debate — and I believe in her book — very good book, by the way — in her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.
I WONDER IF ANY OF THE REPUBLICANS HAVE THIS LEVEL OF CULTURAL LITERACY. RUBIO WAS A BABY WHEN THE US BOMBED CAMBODIA- DOES HE KNOW WHO SIHANOUK IS? HAVING SAID THAT, I ALSO WONDER WHETHER THE US COULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO PROP UP LON NOL (THE GUY BETWEEN SIHANOUK AND THE KHMER ROUGE).
IFILL: Secretary Clinton? CLINTON: Well, I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is.
SANDERS: Well, it ain’t Henry Kissinger. That’s for sure.
CLINTON: That’s fine. That’s fine.
You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America.
So if we want to pick and choose — and I certainly do — people I listen to, people I don’t listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it’s a big, complicated world out there.
SANDERS: It is.
CLINTON: And, yes, people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States.
SANDERS: I find — I mean, it’s just a very different, you know, historical perspective here. Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do. I do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. That’s what he talked about, the great threat of China.
REALLY MORE THE GREAT THREAT OF RUSSIA, AND RUSSIA TAKING OVER LAOS, CAMBODIA, THAILAND ET AL. THERE WAS SOME TRUTH TO THE DOMINO THEORY, SINCE LAOS WENT THE SAME WAY VIETNAM DID. CAMBODIA ALSO WENT COMMUNIST, BUT THE KHMER ROUGE WAS SO DIFFERENT, AND HAD SUCH DIFFERENT GEOPOLITICAL SUPPORT, THAT I’M NOT SURE YOU CAN USE IT TO JUSTIFY THE DOMINO THEORY.
And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you’re right, he opened up relations with China, and now pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he’s urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy.
WOULD WE BE BETTER OFF IF CHINA WAS STILL MAOIST, A BIG NORTH KOREA? I’M NOT SURE, BUT ITS AN INTERESTING COUNTERFACTUAL QUESTION.
WOODRUFF: Senator, let me — let me move on to another country with which the U.S. has a complicated relationship, Senator Sanders, and that’s Russia. On the one hand, we’re aware that Russia is a country that the United States needs to cooperate with.
WOODRUFF: Just tonight, Secretary of State John Kerry has announced what appears to be an agreement with the Russians to lead — that could lead toward a ceasefire in Syria, would be the first cessation of conflict in that country, in that civil war in five years, but it comes at a very high price, because not only have all — have we seen the deaths, the removal of so many people, millions of people, we now see the Russians in the last few weeks have bombed in a way that benefits President Assad, has not gone after ISIS.
So my question to you is, when it comes to dealing with Russia, are you prepared — how hard are you prepared to be? Are you prepared to institute further economic sanctions? Would you be prepared to move militarily if Russia moves on Eastern Europe? It seems to me that Russia recently has gotten the better of the United States.
SANDERS: Well, this is what I would say. It is a complicated relationship. I congratulate Secretary of State John Kerry and the president for working on this agreement.
As you’ve indicated, what is happening in Syria, the number of people, the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed — men, women, 20,000 children, the people who are forced to flee their own country — their own country — it is unspeakable. It is a real horror.
Now, what I think is that right now we have got to do our best in developing positive relations with Russia. But let’s be clear: Russia’s aggressive actions in the Crimea and in Ukraine have brought about a situation where President Obama and NATO — correctly, I believe — are saying, you know what, we’re going to have to beef up our troop level in that part of the world to tell Putin that his aggressiveness is not going to go unmatched, that he is not going to get away with aggressive action.
I DON’T AGREE, BUT AT LEAST SANDERS DOESN’T VIEW RUSSIA AS COMPLETELY AN ENEMY. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE US AND RUSSIA ARE THE WORLD’S TWO GREATEST NON-ISLAMIC POWERS, AND IF THEY FIGHT THE ONLY WINNER IS RADICAL ISLAM. BUT I DON’T THINK ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (EXCEPT MAYBE TRUMP) WOULD GO THAT FAR.
I happen to believe that Putin is doing what he is doing because his economy is increasingly in shambles and he’s trying to rally his people in support of him. But bottom line is: The president is right. We have to put more money. We have to work with NATO to protect Eastern Europe against any kind of Russian aggression.
BECAUSE IF PUTIN GRABS ANOTHER 10 MILES OF THE UKRAINE, THAT WOULD CAUSE … WHAT? WHY WOULD WE CARE?
SANDERS: Well, with respect to Syria, I really do appreciate the efforts that Secretary Kerry has made. The agreement on humanitarian relief now needs to be implemented, because there are enclaves that are literally filled with starving people throughout Syria.
The agreement on a cease-fire, though, is something that has to be implemented more quickly than the schedule that the Russians agreed to. You know, the Russians wanted to buy time. Are they buying time to continue their bombardment on behalf of the Assad regime to further decimate what’s left of the opposition, which would be a grave disservice to any kind of eventual cease-fire? So I know Secretary Kerry is working extremely hard to try to move that cease-fire up as quickly as possible.
I WOULD THINK THAT IF THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION LEFT THAT WOULD CERTAINLY CREATE A CEASE-FIRE, RATHER THAN BEING A “GRAVE DISSERVICE” TO SAME. BUT I REALIZE THAT THE U.S. (ESPECIALLY LIBERALS) BELIEVES THAT BLOWING UP YOUR ENEMIES IS A WAR CRIME.
But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.
This is incredibly complicated, because we’ve got Iran as a big player, in addition to Russia. We have Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others who have very important interests in their view.
This is one of the areas I’ve disagreed with Senator Sanders on, who has called for Iranian troops trying to end civil war in Syria, which I think would be a grave mistake. Putting Iranian troops right on the border of the Golan right next to Israel would be a nonstarter for me. Trying to get Iran and Saudi Arabia to work together, as he has suggested in the past, is equally a nonstarter.
IRANIAN TROOPS IN THE GOLAN? REALLY? SEEMS KINDA HARD TO BELIEVE? ALSO, IF IRANIANS WANTED TO SEND TROOPS IN SYRIA WOULDN’T THEY BE DOING THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE US WANTED?
So let’s support what Secretary Kerry and the president are doing, but let’s hope that we can accelerate the cease-fire, because I fear that the Russians will continue their bombing, try to do everything they can to destroy what’s left of the opposition. And remember, the Russians have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.
So as we get a cease-fire and maybe some humanitarian corridors, that still leaves the terrorist groups on the doorstep of others in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and the like. So we’ve got some real work to do, and let’s try to make sure we actually implement what has been agreed to with the Russians.
SANDERS: Let me just — just say this. For a start, the secretary and I disagree — and I think the president does not agree with her — in terms of the concept of a no-fly zone in Syria.
WELL DONE! THOUGH HE KIND OF BLEW AN OPPORTUNITY BY NOT SHOWING HOW THIS COULD LEAD TO WORLD WAR III WITH RUSSIA, AS RAND PAUL DID. (I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SEE RAND PAUL GOING AT IT WITH THOSE TWO…)
I think you do have a humanitarian tragedy there, as I mentioned a moment ago. I applaud Secretary Kerry and the president for trying to put together this agreement. Let’s hope that it holds.
SANDERS: But furthermore, what we have got to do, I’m sorry, yes, I do believe that we have got to do everything that we can, and it will not happen tomorrow. But I do hope that in years to come, just as occurred with Cuba, 10, 20 years ago, people would say, reach normalized relations with Cuba.
And by the way, I hope we can end the trade embargo with Cuba as well. But the idea that we some day maybe have decent relations with Iran, maybe put pressure on them so they end their support for terrorism around the world, yes, that is something I want to achieve.
And I believe that the best way to do that is to be aggressive, to be principled, but to have the goal of trying to improve relations. That’s how you make peace in the world. You sit down and you work with people, you make demands of people, in this case demanding Iran stop the support of international terrorism.
CLINTON: Well, I respectfully disagree. I think we have achieved a great deal with the Iranian nuclear agreement to put a lid on the Iranian nuclear weapons program. That has to be enforced absolutely with consequences for Iran at the slightest deviation from their requirements under the agreement.
I do not think we should promise or even look toward normalizing relations because we have a lot of other business to get done with Iran. Yes, they have to stop being the main state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, they have to stop trying to destabilize the Middle East, causing even more chaos.
SANDERS DIDN’T SAY HE’D NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH IRAN TOMORROW. HE SAID “SOME DAY” WHICH MEANS IN THE LONG RUN, WHICH SOUNDS A LOT LIKE HER POSITION.
Yes, they’ve got to get out of Syria. They’ve got to quit sponsoring Hezbollah and Hamas. They have got to quit trying to ship rockets into Gaza that can be used against Israel.
We have a lot of work to do with Iran before we ever say that they could move toward normalized relations with us.
SANDERS: We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do.
I THINK ONCE WAS ENOUGH ON THAT ONE
But I recall when Secretary Clinton ran against then-Senator Obama, she was critical of him for suggesting that maybe you want to talk to Iran, that you want to talk to our enemies.
I have no illusion. Of course you are right. Iran is sponsoring terrorism in many parts of the world, destabilizing areas. Everybody knows that. But our goal is, in fact, to try over a period of time to, in fact, deal with our enemies, not just ignore that reality.
CLINTON: … Senator Sanders, from a debate in 2008, quote what I said. The question was, would you meet with an adversary without conditions? I said no. And in fact, in Obama administration, we did not meet with anybody without conditions. That is the appropriate approach in order to get the results that you are seeking.
SANDERS: No, I think the idea was that president — then-Senator Obama was wrong for suggesting that it is a good idea to talk to your opponents. It’s easier to talk to your friends. It’s harder to talk to your enemies. I think we should do both.
IFILL: Let me move on. You have both mentioned the humanitarian tragedies which have been an outgrowth in part of what has happened in Syria and in Libya. More than a million refugees entered Europe in 2015. Another 76,000 just last month, that is about 2,000 arrivals every day.
Nearly 400 people have been lost at sea so far this year, crossing the Mediterranean. And there are reports that 10,000 children are missing.
If we are leaders in this world, where should the U.S. be on this? What should the United States be doing, Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, I was pleased that NATO announced just this week that they’re going to start doing patrols in the Mediterranean, in the Aegean, to try to interdict the smugglers, to try to prevent the kind of tragedies that we have seen all too often, also to try to prevent more refugees from coming to the European Union.
And it’s especially significant that they are working with both Turkey and Greece in order to do this.
With respect to the United States, I think our role in NATO, our support for the E.U., as well as our willingness to take refugees so long as they are thoroughly vetted and that we have confidence from intelligence and other sources that they can come to our country, we should be doing our part.
NOT REALISTIC; WE’VE ALREADY HAD IRAQI REFUGEES ENGAGED IN JIHADIST ACTIVITY SO I CAN’T IMAGINE SYRIANS BEING ANY EASIER TO VET.
And we should back up the recent donors conference to make sure we have made our contribution to try to deal with the enormous cost that these refugees are posing to Turkey and to members of the E.U. in particular.
CLINTON: This is a humanitarian catastrophe. There is no other description of it. So we do as the United States have to support our friends, our allies in Europe. We have to stand with them. We have to provide financial support to them. We have to provide the NATO support to back up the mission that is going on. And we have to take properly vetted refugees ourselves.
SANDERS: A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to go on a congressional delegation. And I went to one of these Turkish refugee camps right on the border of Syria. And what a sad sight that was: Men, women, children forced out of their homes. And Turkey, by the way, did a very decent thing, providing what was reasonable housing and conditions for those people.
It seems to me that given our history as a nation that has been a beacon of hope for the oppressed, for the downtrodden, that I very strongly disagree with those Republican candidates who say, you know what, we’ve got to turn our backs on women and children who left their home with nothing, nothing at all. That is not what America is supposed to be about.
OH PLEASE, SPARE ME THE “WOMEN AND CHILDREN” LINE. I DON’T THINK SANDERS IS ANY MORE WILLING TO EXCLUDE MEN THAN HE IS TO EXCLUDE WOMEN AND CHILDREN. BESIDES, THE WOMEN CAN BE JIHADISTS TOO (SEE BERARDINO, SAN), AND THE CHILDREN GROW UP TO BE BORED TEENAGERS WHO SOMETIMES BECOME JIHADISTS, OR AT LEAST BEAT UP LOCAL JEWS (SEE EUROPE, WESTERN).
So I believe that working with Europe — and, by the way, you know, we’ve got some very wealthy countries there in that part of the world. You got Kuwait and you got Qatar and you got Saudi Arabia. They have a responsibility, as well.
But I think this is a worldwide — that the entire world needs to come together to deal with this horrific refugee crisis we’re seeing from Syria and Afghanistan, as well.
ENDING THE WAR WOULD END THE REFUGEE CRISIS.
WOODRUFF: And we have a final question from our Facebook family. And it goes to Senator Sanders. It comes from Robert Andrews. He’s a 40-year-old stay-at-home dad in Dover, Massachusetts. He says, “The world has seen many great leaders in the course of human history. Can you name two leaders — one American and one foreign — who would influence your foreign policy decisions? And why do you see them as — why are they influential?”
SANDERS: You know, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the oath of office in 1933 at a time when 25 percent of the American people were unemployed, country was in incredible despair. And he stood before the American people and he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” a profound statement that gave the American people the courage to believe that, yes, we could get out of that terrible depression.
And then what he did is redefine the role of government. You know, you had Herbert Hoover before that saying, no, we got to only worry about the deficit. So what if mass unemployment exists? So what if children are going hungry? That’s not the role of the government.
And when FDR said, “Yeah, it is,” that we’re going to use all of the resources that we have to create jobs, to build homes, to feed people, to protect the farmers, we are a nation which if we come together there is nothing that we could not accomplish.
And kind of — that’s what I see our campaign is about right now. In this particular moment of serious crises, saying to the American people don’t give up on the political process. don’t listen to the Trumps of the world and allowing them to divide us. If we reengage and get involved, yeah, we can have health care for all people, we can make public colleges and universities tuition-free. We do not have to have massive levels of income and wealth inequality.
In the same light, as the foreign leader, Winston Churchill’s politics were not my politics. He was kind of a conservative guy in many respects. But nobody can deny that as a wartime leader, he rallied the British people when they stood virtually alone against the Nazi juggernaut and rallied them and eventually won an extraordinary victory. Those are two leaders that I admire very much.
VERY GOOD CLOSING STATEMENT.
CLINTON: I certainly agree with FDR for all the reasons Senator Sanders said. And I agree about the role that he played both in war and in peace on the economy and defeating fascism around the world. I would choose Nelson Mandela for his generosity of heart, his understanding of the need for reconciliation.
WHAT ABOUT NELSON MANDELA’S CAREER IS RELEVANT TO AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY?
CLINTON: But I want to — I want to follow up on something having to do with leadership, because, you know, today Senator Sanders said that President Obama failed the presidential leadership test. And this is not the first time that he has criticized President Obama. In the past he has called him weak. He has called him a disappointment.
He wrote a forward for a book that basically argued voters should have buyers’ remorse when it comes to President Obama’s leadership and legacy.
And I just couldn’t agree — disagree more with those kinds of comments. You know, from my perspective, maybe because I understand what President Obama inherited, not only the worst financial crisis but the antipathy of the Republicans in Congress, I don’t think he gets the credit he deserves for being a president…
CLINTON: … who got us out of that…
CLINTON: … put us on firm ground, and has sent us into the future. And it is a — the kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans. I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama.
SANDERS: That is…
SANDERS: Madam Secretary, that is a low blow. I have worked with President Obama for the last seven years. When President Obama came into office we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, 800,000 jobs a month. We had a $1.4 trillion deficit. And the world’s financial system is on the verge of collapse.
As a result of his efforts and the efforts of Joe Biden against unprecedented, I was there in the Senate, unprecedented Republican obstructionism, we have made enormous progress.
SANDERS: But you know what? Last I heard we lived in a democratic society. Last I heard, a United States senator had the right to disagree with the president, including a president who has done such an extraordinary job.
So I have voiced criticisms. You’re right. Maybe you haven’t. I have. But I think to suggest that I have voiced criticism, this blurb that you talk about, you know what the blurb said? The blurb said that the next president of the United States has got to be aggressive in bringing people into the political process.
That’s what I said. That is what I believe.
SANDERS: President Obama and I are friends. As you know, he came to Vermont to campaign for me when he was a senator. I have worked for his re-election. His first election and his re-election.
But I think it is really unfair to suggest that I have not been supportive of the president. I have been a strong ally with him on virtually every issue. Do senators have the right to disagree with the president? Have you ever disagreed with a president? I suspect you may have.
CLINTON: You know, Senator, what I am concerned about, is not disagreement on issues, saying that this is what I would rather do, I don’t agree with the president on that, calling the president weak, calling him a disappointment, calling several times that he should have a primary opponent when he ran for re-election in 2012, you know, I think that goes further than saying we have our disagreements.
As a senator, yes, I was a senator. I understand we can disagree on the path forward. But those kinds of personal assessments and charges are ones that I find particularly troubling.
IFILL: Senator, if you would like respond to — you may respond to that but it is time for closing statements and you can use your time for closing statements to do that.
SANDERS: Well, one of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.
SANDERS: All right, look, this has been a great debate. A lot of interesting issues have come together. Let me conclude by just saying this.
There is no president, in my view, not Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, who has the capability or the power to take on Wall Street, large campaign donors, the corporate media, the big money interests in this country alone.
This campaign is not just about electing a president. What this campaign is about is creating a process for a political revolution in which millions of Americans, working people who have given up on the political process, they don’t think anybody hears their pains or their concerns.
Young people for whom getting involved in politics is as, you know, it’s like going to the moon. It ain’t going to happen. Low income people who are not involved in the political process.
SANDERS: What this campaign is not only about electing someone who has the most progressive agenda, it is about bringing tens of millions of people together to demand that we have a government that represents all of us and not just the 1 percent, who today have so much economic and political power.
EXPECTING A POLITICAL REVOLUTION TO MAKE BERNIE SANDERS POPULAR SEEMS LIKE MAGICAL THINKING. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT MOST WHITE PEOPLE OVER THE AGE OF 30 ARE REALLY TICKED OFF AT OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS. I DON’T THINK EITHER CANDIDATE HAS ANY IDEA WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT.
Thank you all very much.
WOODRUFF: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: You know, we — we agree that we’ve got to get unaccountable money out of politics. We agree that Wall Street should never be allowed to wreck Main Street again.
But here’s the point I want to make tonight. I am not a single- issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it’s poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it’s the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that’s what I want to take on.
I’M SURPRISED NO ONE MENTIONED FLINT UNTIL THEN
And here in Wisconsin, I want to reiterate: We’ve got to stand up for unions and working people who have done it before…
… the American middle class, and who are being attacked by ideologues, by demagogues. Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence? You’re right.
But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday. And we would still have governors like Scott Walker and others trying to rip out the heart of the middle class by making it impossible to organize and stand up for better wages and working conditions. So I’m going to keep talking about tearing down all the barriers that stand in the way of Americans fulfilling their potential, because I don’t think our country can live up to its potential unless we give a chance to every single American to live up to theirs.
TYPICAL UNINSPIRATIONAL HILLARY LAUNDRY LIST.
IFILL: Thank you. Thank you Senator Clinton. Thank you, Senator Sanders. We also want to thank our partners at Facebook and our hosts here at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
WOODRUFF: And we want to thank our audience, our quiet audience here in Helen Bader Concert Hall, and to all of you watching at home. Thank you all. Stay tuned for analysis of the debate and the overall race for the Democratic nomination. That’s coming up next here on PBS stations and online at PBS.org/NewsHour.
IFILL: I’m going to remain here in Milwaukee tomorrow evening for a special edition of Washington Week here on PBS.
WOODRUFF: And I’m going to be returning to Washington. I hope you’ll join us for the PBS NewsHour tomorrow and every night. That’s it from all of us here in Milwaukee. We thank you.
IFILL: Good night.
before 9:10 Missed half the opening statements.
Rubio- too red-meaty for my taste. Scores Obama for wanting to make America learn like someplace else. Like its terrible to learn from others. Rubs me the wrong way. Yuck.
Christie- not very substantive but emphasizes experience nicely. Nice style.
Bush- calls Bush the Elder “the greatest man alive.” Emphasizes transparency. Likable as always.
9:13 Paul emphasizes differences with Cruz- NSA, Audit the Fed (Cruz missed votes).
Cruz responds “I had to be in New Hampshire but I supported the bill.” Nice parry.
Rubio- Blathers about how he is for a “strong” America. (meaningless). He is so irritating when he screams.
Paul- Let’s use the Fourth Amendment, let’s use the name on a warrant. Has a few really loud supporters.
9:16 Kasich- “we are up 400K jobs since I became governor.” Isn’t that true in every state? Comes out against division- always a better general election argument than a primary argument. Invokes newspaper endorsements, like Republicans want a media-approved candidate. Has run such an incompetent campaign- not that other candidates haven’t failed, but I can see what Kasich is doing wrong.
9:18 Carson says its important to be able to think out of the box. Vague statements about “different solutions.” Carson’s problem isn’t that he ran a bad campaign- its that he’s selling a hopeless product, which is to say himself.
9:19 Wallace asked Cruz if he’s really a dove. Cruz emphasizes ISIS, accuses Obama of “degrading” military. Says he’s for “1100 air attacks a day” while Obama launching “15 to 30.” Says (falsely) O. not arming Kurds. Not sure how this is going to work with a guerilla group. Cruz didn’t really answer question did he?
9:20 Rubio says Cruz has never voted for a defense budget, and quickly segues to how much he hates ISIS too.
Had some computer difficulties for awhile, so missed 8 minutes of blather.
9:30 Bush says he’ll train Syrian Sunni force to take out ISIS. Like that worked out so well with the Iraqi army.
9:30 Cruz has cute line aimed at Trump- “If you guys ask one more mean question, I may have to leave the stage.” Says moderator has had too many attack questions= “Rand, attack Cruz…; Marco, attack Cruz..” Nice.
9:32 Rand comes out against bombing both sides of the Syrian war- if we defeat Assad we’ll give ISIS all of Syria. Go get ’em! (This sort of literacy is why I’m for Rand).
9:33 Kelly asks softball, asks whether jihadists protected by 1st Amendment. Rubio says, quite properly, that criminal conspiracy not protected by First Amendment. goes on about ISIS’s sophistication. Blah blah blah.
9:35 Paul talks about border security, suggests more scrutiny of refugees. Says Rubio opposed his amendment because he would oppose any conservative amendments. (Wonder what was really going on)
9:36 Rubio agrees we should vet people, says “Rand’s amendment was not right way to do it.” (Wonder if Rubio remembers what Paul is talking about).
9:37 Christie says we don’t need profiling, we need law enforcement. Not sure what he means. Says if you see something suspicious you call cops. But how do you decide what’s suspicious?
Says Obama “made law enforcement the enemy.” A bit overdone. Promises to stop terrorism.
9:41 Kasich says we will win against ISIS, and we’ll do it like the First Gulf War, with troops and regional powers. He’s running for the 1992 nomination. Does he have any idea how different a guerrilla/terrorist war is from the 1991 Gulf War? But sounds optimistic and reassuring- like the music more than the words.
9:43 Bush says something about VA, sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
9:44 Paul gives shout-out to Ferguson, notes abuse of fine system.
Am looking at pundit twitter feeds on Slate. As usual, most of them are in the tank for Rubio. The man could convert to Islam on stage and the Republican pundit class would declare him the winner.
My computer messed up again and I apparently missed ten more minutes.
10:02 Kelly asks tough question- didn’t you say “path to citizenship” is same as amnesty? Rubio responds that his path to citizenship isn’t the same as other people’s path to citizenship. As William Jefferson Clinton would say, It all depends on the meaning of the words “path to citizenship.” Promises more border security blah blah blah, comes out against Obama executive orders.
Bush praises Rubio for supporting path to citizenship, says Rubio “cut and run” from his proposal.
10:05 Rubio says we can’t do anything until we get illegal immigration under control. How do you do that? Seriously? Also says Bush favored path to legalization, not path to citizenship.
10:06 Rubio sounds robotic-says “put illegal immigration under control” again and again and again. I don’t really have any faith in Rubio’s magic wand on this issue. As long as the United States will be worth moving to, we’ll be arguing about this decades from now. Then again, if anyone can make the U.S. a place that exports people instead of importing them, its Marco Rubio.
10:10 Paul and Cruz and moderator all get into beltway-ease tangle. All I can say is: huh?
10:11 Cruz gives shout-out to Iowa activists- says essentially, the sort of people who you KNOW are tough on immigration are with me. That seems credible to me, but I am not sure it is credible to nonactivist audience out there.
10:11 Rubio gets ugly with Cruz.
10:12 Christie- this is why you need to send someone outside of Washington. “I feel like I need a Washington-English dictionary converter. ” Christie 1, Rubio 0, Cruz 0!!!!!!!
10:15 Carson asked question about immigrant entrepreneurs, and he responds by saying he’s against ISIS. Yawn.
10:15 Bush says country should be “aspirational.”
10:15 Rubio says no country is as generous as America. But we are a sovereign country and has to choose who comes in. Says immigration should be more merit-based and less family-based. Well put!
10:20 Rubio avoids question by invoking Jesus as his Savior. Ick. Nice line about Hillary pardoning herself, throws mud about Benghazi.
10:22 Wallace hits Christie hard on Bridgegate. Christie responds investigations prove “I knew nothing.” Not sure this is reassuring.
10:27 Kasich gives good sounding answer about Medicaid. But realistically, Rubio and Cruz are front runners because they are good at red meat. Kasich isn’t.
10:30 Christie pivots from accommodating a court clerk in Kentucky to ISIS and religious liberty. Nicely done.
10:31 One respect in which Rubio is like Obama – he is at his best when he says “America is great blah blah blah”. Flaunts religion but not in a divisive way.
10:35 Carson asked: What if Putin invades Estonia? Carson says do military exercises in Baltic states. Says we should give Ukraine “offensive weapons.” Carson says low prices keep Putin contained.
10:36 Rubio asked about Iran deal – hasn’t Iran got all the benefits from the deal already? Rubio rants about how evil Iran is. Says he will cancel deal with Iran- “they can do business with Iran or they can do business with America.”
10:38 Kasich- if they violate agreement, he slap back sanctions, but we need to be laying groundwork with allies. If they develop nuclear weapon we have to take it out. Says “the opportunity is there” because Europe is “under threat.” Yes, but the threat is from Muslim immigration (and ISIS) , NOT Iran.
10:40 Christie asked about Libya- emphasizes Hillary messed up Libya. Says same thing as Kasich- work with allies blah blah blah. It seems to me that the “Arab allies” can’t be bothered with ISIS; the only people who seem to mind ISIS enough to fight it are people that the US isn’t getting along so well with – Iran, Iraqi Shiites, Russia.
10:47 Paul mentions Clintons have taken millions from Muslim regimes who treat “women like cattle.” Are those the same ones that his rivals think we can work with to fight ISIS?
10: 48 Like when Bush says other Arab nations are “as threatened as we are.”
10:52 Cruz talks straight on ethanol. Not sure I understand what Carson said next.
10:56 Closing statements, finally!
Paul- Mentions debt. You mean Republicans still care about that stuff? Who knew?
Kasich- seems to be running for 1976 Republican nomination. Calls for positive, optimistic conservatism. Blah.
Christie- 9/11 again? Governor, you’re no Rudy Giuliani.
Bush- didn’t say anything. But seemed less hesitant tonight than in earlier debates. If this Jeb Bush had been running a few months ago I might still have a chance.
Carson- quotes from Constitution preamble. In other words “I’ve run outta stuff to say.”
Rubi0- American is great! Yay! Light “dimming” after seven years of Obama. Like Obama, he’s a great 4th of July speaker and reminded me of it in his last few seconds. For President… not so much.
Cruz- kill the terrorists, abolish Obamacare. Goes straight to the substance- excellent closing, whether you agree with him or not.
Any winner? The media (by which I mean, the Republican chattering classes – the Dems are focused on their own primary) will say Rubio w0n because they always say Rubio won, and even I have to admit he had a better debate than last week. But generally I think the other candidates (excepting Carson) did better than Cruz and Rubio, who just seemed to be slinging mud at each other.
The Strong Towns website is sponsoring “No New Roads” week; the website will contain a variety of articles etc. on transportation issues related to that theme. So I thought I would revive something I wrote on the topic some years ago (if you want to look at the footnotes download this article)
If state and federal policy caused our urban crisis, the logical solution is to stop the policies that led to the crisis. Because highway spending has been a significant cause of suburban sprawl, [FN472] we can take a significant bite out of both sprawl and big government by eliminating sprawl-generating highway spending. Specifically, state and federal governments should prohibit the use of their funds to build or widen roads in newer suburban areas. Because highway spending totaled $101 billion in 1997, [FN473] such a ‘paving moratorium’ would give taxpayers a significant break (including, ironically, drivers, whose fuel taxes pay for more than half of government highway spending). [FN474] A paving moratorium would not prevent settlement in existing suburbs–but would prevent government from creating new suburbs by building more highways, and would thus prevent government from turning today’s suburbs into deserted slums. Government justifies new and widened roads on the ground that more roads, not fewer, are needed to deal with traffic congestion. [FN475] Butthe*367 claim that new roads eliminate congestion is at best speculative. Admittedly, if new and widened roads did not affect development patterns, a new or widened road might reduce traffic congestion. But in reality, highway building affects where people live and work. If government builds highway X to suburb Y, homeowners and businesses will soon move to subdivisions near X’s interchanges, thereby increasing traffic along the interchanges. [FN476] Thus, ‘[b] uilding more highways to reduce traffic congestion is an exercise in futility. Whenever it is done, more people take to their cars, and before long the roads are as clogged as ever.’ [FN477] Even people and groups sometimes identified as pro-sprawl admit as much. As Joel Garreau of the Washington Post has written, ‘[t]he more capacity you add, the more likely you are to make the place more popular . . . creating more traffic.’ [FN478] Mr. Garreau is hardly an anti-sprawl activist; for example, he has described the status quo as the ‘manifest pattern of millions of individual American desires over seventy-five years.’ [FN479] Similarly, the National Association of Home Builders (which advocates accelerated road construction) [FN480] conducted a survey that reveals that highway access would influence 55% of respondents to move to a new community–more than any other amenity. [FN481] By admitting that highways encourage movement to areaswith *368 highway access, the NAHB has effectively conceded that highways shift development to suburbs (thus making those suburbs more rather than less congested). [FN482] Numerous studies suggest that ‘induced traffic’ eliminates some or all of the reduction of congestion caused by new roads and road widenings. For example, Mark Hansen, a professor of transportation engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, used statewide California statistics in concluding that new road capacity is almost entirely offset by induced traffic within five years. [FN483] A study conducted by Robert B. Noland, a former transportation analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, similarly found that a 10% expansion in roads produced a 2.8% rise in travel over two to four years. [FN484] These traffic increases arise because in the short run, motorists switch from other routes, because they abandon mass transit and drive instead, and because development may shift people and jobs to areas near the highway. [FN485] In fact, studies such as Hansen’s, if accurate, may actually overestimate the benefits of new roads by failing to account for the medium- and long-run changes in development plans caused by new and widened roads (that is, the changes that occur more than four or five years after the road is built or widened). For example, in 1991, Montgomery County, Maryland (a suburb of Washington) widened Interstate 270 to as many as twelve lanes to reduce traffic congestion. [FN486] According to Sidney Kramer, Montgomery County executive from 1986 to 1990, ‘[y]ou saw a tide of development go forward because of that improvement.’ [FN487] One of the high-growth suburbs created by the I-270 widening, Germantown, Maryland, grew from just over 41,000 people in 1980 to 70,000 people in 1998. [FN488] In turn, the growth of Germantown and nearby suburbs caused traffic to increase. In fact, traffic along I-270 has surpassed the levels statehighway *369 planners forecast for 2010 in their 1984 study of the proposed widening. [FN489] The Maryland highway department reported that the ‘1997 volume at Route 28 in Rockville was 193,000 vehicles [per] day– 2,000 more than the 2010 projection.’ [FN490] According to David Palank, an area real estate broker, ‘[w]ith all the lanes that are there, it just doesn’t seem to be moving that quickly . . . I haven’t found any relief at any time. It seems like it was congested and continues to be congested.’ [FN491] If I-270 was an aberration, areas that increased road space would have experienced a reduction in congestion during the 1990s, or at least less congestion than areas that did less road-building. But recent studies show otherwise. The Hartford, Ct., and Providence, R.I., areas experienced similar population growth between 1982 and 1997. [FN492] But Hartford’s road capacity stagnated, while Providence increased its road mileage by 59%. [FN493] If road-building reduced congestion, Providence would have far less congestion than Hartford. But a study by the Texas Transportation Institute (the official research agency for the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Railroad Commission) [FN494] revealed that the two areas had similar levels of traffic growth and traffic congestion. In 1997, the cost of congestion per eligible driver was $390 in Hartford and $360 in Providence (Nos. 49 and 50 of 68 areas surveyed). [FN495] Rush-hour congestion increased by 200% from Hartford and 225% in Providence between 1982 and 1997. [FN496] Annual delay per driver increased by 283% in Hartford and 320% in Providence between 1982 and 1997. [FN497] In other words, Providence built far more roads, yet congestion increased in Providence just as rapidly as in Hartford. The correlation between free-flowing traffic and free-spending road builders is equally weak in fast-growing metro areas. For example, Charlotte and Fresno had comparable population growth rates (64% and 57%). [FN498] But Charlotte increased its highway mileage by 113hile *370 Fresno’s road-building lagged behind its population growth (with only a 27% increase). [FN499] Charlotte’s congestion cost $680 per driver, while Fresno’s cost only $315. [FN500] Annual delay per driver increased by 356% in Charlotte and only 171% in Fresno, [FN501] while peak hour congestion increased by about the same amount in both areas (229% in Charlotte and 225% in Fresno). [FN502] Ironically, drivers are sometimes the biggest losers from road-building: When states favor road-building over routine street maintenance, roads become rutted and packed with potholes. A recent survey by The Road Information Program, a group financed by the road construction industry, shows that 35% of roads in Detroit and New Orleans are in poor condition. [FN503] Over 30% of roads were in poor condition in three other metro areas (Los Angeles, Indianapolis, and San Jose), and 20% to 30% of roads were poor in fourteen others (San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, Sacramento, Grand Rapids, Norfolk/Virginia Beach, Oklahoma City, Denver, Dallas, Houston, New York, Washington, Philadelphia, and Austin). [FN504] By an odd coincidence, all of these areas increased highway capacity in the 1980s and 1990s. [FN505] For example, Detroit’s highway mileage increased by 21% (far ahead of its anemic 5% population growth) while New Orleans’s highway mileage increased by 45% (despite that region’s 4% population growth). [FN506] It, therefore, appears that some states are letting existingroads *371 deteriorate so that they can build new roads instead. In sum, both common sense and actual experience support the view that suburban road-building creates sprawl without mitigating congestion. Thus, continued road widening and roadbuilding is pointless, if not harmful.
9:07 Kasich preaches old-time Republican religion. Solid but unimpressive.
9:09 Moderator asks when “should President use military force to restore order?” When was the last time US military force succeeded in restoring order? Boo, moderator. Christie responds by attacking Hillary Clinton. After being forced to sort of answer question, Christie gives appropriately vague answer.
9:12 Bush hits Obama on ISIS, says America’s “leadership is necessary for peace and stability.” “Leadership”= another meaningless platitude. Says he will “have the back of the military” blah blah. Says Clinton would continue down path of “Iran, Benghazi, Dodd-Frank…” Dodd-Frank? Like the other Bushes, Jeb has issues with coherence. Good hit on Clinton’s legal troubles though, suggesting that those might weigh her down.
9:15 Rubio says “Hillary Clinton is disqualified from being Commander-in-Chief”. Um, no- the voters decide that, not him. Rubio sounds a little more fiery than usual, even though he’s not saying anything interesting.
Unlike Megyn Kelly, the Fox moderators are serving up softballs.
9:17 Carson says President doesn’t realize war is different in 21st century. I think that criticism would be better directed at neocons who like to invade countries with conventional wars. Tails off with nonsense about omnipotentence of US military. Even if he’s not always sensible, at least he sounds woken up.
9:20 Trump has a point about refugees, but he could be much more coherent. He should have mentioned Cologne. Still gets applause.
9:21 Cruz finally gets tough question about Goldman Sachs loans. Cruz turns it into a “paperwork error”. I’m not convinced, but maybe audience is. It seems to me that the real story is that after claiming to be Mr. Anti-Establishment, Cruz is getting loans from Goldman Sachs, which sounds pretty Establishment to me.
9:28 Cruz get hits on “natural born citizen” issue. (Is Fox biased against Cruz? As GOP house organ would make sense that they are on Rubio’s team). Cruz responds: “Its nice that we are looking at important topics this interesting.” Gets crowd on his side. Points out that Trump saw no issue in September, and says McCain just like him (child of US citizen born abroad). Cruz sounds masterful. Says to Trump: “I’m not going to use your mother’s birth against you.” Crowd goes wild.
9:33 Trump turns birth issue into electability issue. Witty response. But I think that instead of saying the Dems would bring a suit (which I doubt the Court would be interested in), he should have said that they’d be using the issue in attack ads.
9:35 Rubio: “I hate to interrupt this episode of Court TV, but…” (nice work!) but then silly attacks on Obama blah blah blah. But people like it.
9:38 In response to Gov. Haley’s statement about “anger”, Trump says he’s angry because country run badly
9:39 In response to question about negative ads, Rubio goes after Obama. He seems threatened by Christie, saying Christie supports same positions as Obama.
9:41 Christie spanks Rubio- says two years ago, Rubio called HIM a good conservative etc
9:43 Jeb plays peacemaker.
9:45 Kasich has keen grasp of obvious- people concerned about economy. Yawn.
9:48 Carson fearlessly comes out for “right and wrong.” Gets applause for pious platitude.
9:54 Jeb deflects gun control, pointing out that Fla puts people in prison for a long time if they commit crimes with guns. (Sounds good, don’t know if its true). Mentions mental health- but when did GOP care about mental health?
9:55 Trump panders to NRA. I don’t think he believes this stuff.
OMG- Trump actually mentions deinstitutionalization, something very few politicians in either party are against. Though I doubt he has any idea what to do about it.
9:57 Rubio says criminals steal guns. Maybe, but they steal their guns from law abiding gun owners.
9:58 Rubio is doing well with red meat.
9:59 Christie asked about his support of some gun laws. Says we’ve made it easier to have concealed carry permit.
10:01 Cruz says Obama appoints liberals.
10:03 Cruz says everyone knows what “New York values” are. They are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage. Wish America’s Mayor was running to take his head off. Gets off on bad start, but uses Trump’s own words against him.
10:05 Trump: “Conservatives do come out of Manhattan, including William F. Buckley and others.” YES!
Trump invokes 9/11 – but Cruz steals his thunder by joining in the applause. I think Cruz knows he went too far, and walked it back with that gesture.
10:08 Jeb dances to Saudis’ tune. Does being a conservative mean you have to be in the tank for the nation that gave us the 9/11 hijackers?
10:11 Kasich incoherent. He says we have to back Saudi Arabia but tell them to knock off supporting radical clerics. I’m glad he’s aware of the radical cleric problem, but if you promise to support Saudi Arabia no matter what, how can you get them to do anything? This guy is still stuck in a permanent Sept. 10, 2001.
The threat to Jews all around the world, and to the West generally, isn’t the Iranian army. Its freelance jihadists (and ISIS but only because it inspires them). And who else creates the freelance jihadists? Saudi Arabia.
10:17 Re ISIS, Carson says trust the military, which sounds to me like “I don’t know.” Also says a bunch of things that probably would make Obama say sarcastically “Gee, I never thought of that.”
10:18 Christie blathers about no fly zone in Syria. Says you can’t have peace in Syria with Assad in charge- presumably there’d be more peace with no one in power. Like overthrowing local dictators worked SOOOOOO well in Iraq. Says we are going to bring Arab countries together (like they care? seriously?).
10:20 Trump says political correctness blah blah blah. “Indonesia bomb bomb bomb”- sounds like it could be a song. Mentions his “Muslim friends” (who live in a phone booth somewhere I suspect). “We can’t be the stupid country anymore”.
10:22 Bush points out that the Kurds are our strongest allies and how come they can’t be in our country. I have to admit the man has a point.
10:23 Bush says make it harder for people who’ve been in Syria to come into the USA.
10:25 Trump: “there’s something going on and its bad.”
10:25 Kasich wants to bring back George H.W. Bush coalition in First Gulf War. Such pre-9/11 thinking.
10:27 Kasich, Christie all come out against Syrian refugees. I’m surprised no one was mentioned Cologne.
10:28 Rubio: Obama has “consistently underestimated the threat of ISIS.” For once he’s right.
10:29 Cruz points out that two Iraqi refugees just got arrested- promises to destroy ISIS. (Nice work if you can get it…)
10:30. Carson says problems can be resolved with “common sense”- just bring in some experts. (English translation: I don’t know).
10:33 When asked about tariff with China, Trump says we put on tariff only if they stop devaluing.
10:38 Rubio makes orthodox free trade argument. Then pivots to the old-time Republican religion.
10:40 Trump gets booed by calling Bush “a weak person.”
10:41 I’m not sure I understand Cruz on taxes and tariffs but he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. He could read the phone book and sound authoritative!
10:52 Moderator describes Social Security as a big problem. No bias there, no sir.
10:53 Rubio accuses Cruz of favoring VAT tax. Really? Cruz crushes him, pointing out all the taxes that his tax eliminates. (On the other hand, I can’t imagine how a 10 percent flat tax raises enough revenue). Parades Laffer endorsement.
10:55 Rubio stays with VAT tax argument, sounds like he’s ignoring Cruz. Sounds like broken tape recorder.
10:56 Christie breaks in- hey, original questions not about taxes, but about entitlements. BASE HIT! Then lapses into Beltwayese about Congress.
11:05 Christie comes out against pot. Seriously?
11:06 Kasich talks about police/community relationships, sounds too non-demagogic to be running for President. I think he would actually be an OK president on domestic policy. Too bad that he’s in the bottom half of the class on foreign policy.
11:09 Rubio sounds more hawkish on immigration, because of ISIS. I don’t know if anything he says is true, but he’s certainly reasonable in saying he’s reassessed his position.
11:10 Good hit from Cruz- radical Islam was an issue years ago.
11:11 Rubio hits Cruz on flip flops. I don’t know who is telling the truth, but Rubio sounds clear and concise. Though being accused of political calculation by Rubio seems like being accused of loose lips by Donald Trump. But Rubio won the exchange by going on the offensive.
Closing statements- Bush has no red meat instinct- what I like about him. Christie talks about what a fighter he is. Rubio throws in too much red meat, going a bit overbroad in Obama bashing for my tastes- but it works with this audience. Cruz sounds like a pale echo of Rubio. Trump had best closing statement, playing to audience emotions by referring to American sailors hassled by Iranians.
My bottom line: no clear winner. I thought Cruz and Trump mostly had a good night, but Rubio was better than usual- not because he has any substance, but he just sounded better stylistically. The other candidates were a little better than usual, but its too late for them (except maybe Christie). No one was worse than usual.