Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:17.000]  This Sunday, live from Des Moines on this New Year's Day, just 48 hours before the Iowa
[00:17.000 --> 00:23.920]  Caucuses, the official start of this presidential election year, Senator Rick Santorum surges
[00:23.920 --> 00:28.840]  in the closing days, but will it be enough to buy him a ticket out of the Hawkeye State?
[00:28.840 --> 00:33.480]  Iowa provides the spark, there's plenty of tinder on the ground that will start burning
[00:33.480 --> 00:35.480]  in these other states.
[00:35.480 --> 00:38.920]  Senator Santorum here with us for an exclusive interview this morning.
[00:38.920 --> 00:44.200]  Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is trying to keep his spot atop the polls as he makes his final
[00:44.200 --> 00:45.560]  push.
[00:45.560 --> 00:50.720]  This is an election not only to replace a president, it's an election to save the soul
[00:50.720 --> 00:51.720]  of America.
[00:51.720 --> 00:57.560]  And Newt Gingrich, still losing some support, but will his emotional moment in Iowa humanize
[00:57.560 --> 01:01.040]  him to voters?
[01:01.040 --> 01:07.080]  Dealing with, you know, the real problems of real people in my family.
[01:07.080 --> 01:11.440]  And so it's not a theory, it's in fact, you know, my mother.
[01:11.440 --> 01:15.520]  We'll break down the state of the race and the impact of the caucuses with the chairman
[01:15.520 --> 01:21.400]  of Iowa's Republican Party, Matt Strong, and NBC News political director Chuck Todd.
[01:21.400 --> 01:25.960]  Plus full analysis from our political roundtable, columnist for the Des Moines Register, Kathy
[01:25.960 --> 01:32.160]  Obradovich, Republican strategist Mike Murphy, New York Times columnist David Brooks, Time
[01:32.160 --> 01:38.280]  Magazine senior political analyst Mark Halpern, and host of Andrea Mitchell Reports, NBC's
[01:38.280 --> 01:39.280]  Andrea Mitchell.
[01:39.280 --> 01:58.960]  Live from Des Moines, Iowa, this is a special edition of Beat the Press with David Gregory.
[01:58.960 --> 01:59.960]  Good morning.
[01:59.960 --> 02:00.960]  Here we go.
[02:00.960 --> 02:05.000]  The presidential race of 2012 is about to officially begin as the voting starts here
[02:05.000 --> 02:06.860]  in Iowa on Tuesday.
[02:06.860 --> 02:11.080]  And here's how the race looks this morning with the Des Moines Register poll showing
[02:11.080 --> 02:16.800]  a three-way race now with Romney leading Ron Paul by two points and Rick Santorum with
[02:16.800 --> 02:17.880]  a late surge.
[02:17.880 --> 02:23.240]  We will talk to Santorum about his surprise momentum in the race in just a couple of moments.
[02:23.240 --> 02:27.560]  But first, we have with us NBC's political director Chuck Todd and the chairman of Iowa's
[02:27.560 --> 02:29.800]  Republican Party, Matt Strong.
[02:29.800 --> 02:30.800]  Welcome to both of you.
[02:30.800 --> 02:31.800]  Good morning.
[02:31.800 --> 02:32.800]  Happy New Year.
[02:32.800 --> 02:33.800]  Good morning.
[02:33.800 --> 02:34.800]  Welcome back.
[02:34.800 --> 02:37.080]  So Chuck Todd, partner, where are we this morning?
[02:37.080 --> 02:40.640]  Well I think we're trying to figure out this, is what are Iowa caucus goers going to do?
[02:40.640 --> 02:43.000]  What are these Republicans, are they going to come into these caucuses Tuesday night
[02:43.000 --> 02:44.200]  and pick a president?
[02:44.200 --> 02:47.960]  Or are they going to do what they've done in the past, which is send a message and winnow
[02:47.960 --> 02:48.960]  the field?
[02:48.960 --> 02:52.840]  If they come in and a lot of them want to pick a president, Mitt Romney is going to
[02:52.840 --> 02:57.320]  win, turnout's going to go up, you're going to see the casual voters show up, and that's
[02:57.320 --> 02:58.460]  good for Romney.
[02:58.460 --> 03:05.280]  If it's the old style, sort of the activists that show up, I think Santorum has enough
[03:05.280 --> 03:09.680]  momentum, there's a little bit of a wild card here on Rick Perry, but then Santorum does
[03:09.680 --> 03:13.660]  get out of here with some momentum, and I think that that's what we don't know.
[03:13.660 --> 03:15.400]  Let me stick with Santorum with you, Chuck.
[03:15.400 --> 03:19.960]  If you look inside the numbers of the poll, the last couple of days when they were in
[03:19.960 --> 03:25.320]  the field talking to folks, this is what you see, that Santorum is actually in 21 percent
[03:25.320 --> 03:29.960]  because in those last two days, his numbers actually shoot up 6 percent.
[03:29.960 --> 03:34.880]  So if you're measuring intensity, not looking at the full range of the poll, but just the
[03:34.880 --> 03:38.240]  last couple of days, you see Santorum's really got that buzz.
[03:38.240 --> 03:41.400]  And that was the big thing out of the NBC Marist poll, and if you look at both polls
[03:41.400 --> 03:44.360]  together, you can almost see they sort of fit together and you see this, and it was
[03:44.360 --> 03:48.320]  Santorum and Ron Paul, for instance, that had much more intensity than Mitt Romney.
[03:48.320 --> 03:53.200]  In fact, Rick Perry had more intense support in our poll than Mitt Romney did, and that's
[03:53.200 --> 03:54.360]  the Romney problem.
[03:54.360 --> 03:59.560]  He's got the, well, I guess I'm going to be for Romney voter, but does that person show
[03:59.560 --> 04:00.560]  up?
[04:00.560 --> 04:01.560]  And that's what we don't know.
[04:01.560 --> 04:05.120]  So, Matt Strawn, you're the chairman of the party here in the state.
[04:05.120 --> 04:06.120]  And this is important.
[04:06.120 --> 04:09.520]  I mean, this is the first voting in the presidential campaign.
[04:09.520 --> 04:12.760]  What's the mindset of an Iowa Republican going into this caucus?
[04:12.760 --> 04:16.120]  Well, I think the other key takeaway, not just in the NBC Marist poll, but in the Des
[04:16.120 --> 04:19.840]  Moines Register poll this morning, is the fact that two out of every five caucus scores
[04:19.840 --> 04:22.320]  could still change their mind between now and caucus day.
[04:22.320 --> 04:23.320]  And I think it gets to...
[04:23.320 --> 04:24.320]  That's a lot of volatility.
[04:24.320 --> 04:27.240]  Yes, and it's moved from three out of five, which it was just a couple weeks ago, and
[04:27.240 --> 04:31.920]  I think that's the juxtaposition between the desire to beat Barack Obama, but also making
[04:31.920 --> 04:36.440]  sure that we have a nominee that can aggressively articulate the Republican principled conservative
[04:36.440 --> 04:37.840]  message going into a general election.
[04:37.840 --> 04:38.960]  Well, so what's more important?
[04:38.960 --> 04:43.240]  Because we've seen Santorum's latest ad is really about electability.
[04:43.240 --> 04:44.640]  I can beat Barack Obama.
[04:44.640 --> 04:49.160]  But for the breadth of the campaigning in Iowa, it's been who's the true conservative?
[04:49.160 --> 04:50.440]  Has there been a change?
[04:50.440 --> 04:54.640]  Has there hasn't been a love affair among voters with Mitt Romney, who's been the front
[04:54.640 --> 04:56.760]  runner throughout most of this contest?
[04:56.760 --> 04:59.720]  But I think the first thing you see when you talk to any Iowa Republican is that desire
[04:59.720 --> 05:03.520]  to beat Barack Obama, because we understand that we can't afford former years in Obama
[05:03.520 --> 05:07.520]  administration that is hostile to our party's values and our principles.
[05:07.520 --> 05:11.080]  And that's the tension, why you still have two out of every five Iowa caucus scores have
[05:11.080 --> 05:12.880]  not yet made a decision.
[05:12.880 --> 05:16.160]  And that's really going to get down to on Tuesday night, you always hear the mantra
[05:16.160 --> 05:18.760]  organization, organization, organization.
[05:18.760 --> 05:23.400]  The organized campaign is going to have someone in each of those 1774 precincts to make the
[05:23.400 --> 05:27.600]  case not only why a candidate can beat Barack Obama, but why they have the principles of
[05:27.600 --> 05:29.640]  our party to carry the banner going into the general.
[05:29.640 --> 05:31.520]  You know, remember what happens on Tuesday night.
[05:31.520 --> 05:34.280]  There's a set of speeches that happened before the actual vote.
[05:34.280 --> 05:38.240]  And I think that that is why, for instance, Rick Santorum is making an electability argument,
[05:38.240 --> 05:41.420]  because that's the problem he himself said he was running into.
[05:41.420 --> 05:42.420]  We agree with you.
[05:42.420 --> 05:47.200]  He fits the Iowa Republican caucus electorate better, frankly, than any of these candidates,
[05:47.200 --> 05:51.960]  better than Rick Perry without all of the baggage that he accumulated himself, better than a
[05:51.960 --> 05:52.960]  Newt Gingrich.
[05:52.960 --> 05:57.040]  He fits it, the social conservative values that are very strong inside the Iowa Republican
[05:57.040 --> 05:58.040]  Party.
[05:58.040 --> 06:00.600]  But he said himself, people would come up to him, but I don't think you can win.
[06:00.600 --> 06:03.240]  Not only, I don't even think you can go on to other states.
[06:03.240 --> 06:06.120]  Well, he's got to make that case at the end.
[06:06.120 --> 06:09.840]  And if he does, he's got the biggest, he's got the most room to grow here.
[06:09.840 --> 06:13.680]  And that's why he, on paper, yes, Romney's ahead.
[06:13.680 --> 06:16.800]  I think it wouldn't surprise anybody if Santorum was the one that comes out of here with the
[06:16.800 --> 06:17.800]  actual victory.
[06:17.800 --> 06:19.240]  Chuck, talk about the volatility a little bit.
[06:19.240 --> 06:23.000]  As we've been covering this, anybody you talk to about the race is still shaking their head
[06:23.000 --> 06:26.720]  about, well, wait a minute, there was Bachmann, and then there was Perry, and then there was
[06:26.720 --> 06:29.600]  Herman Cain, and then there was Gingrich, and now he's falling back.
[06:29.600 --> 06:30.600]  What's going on?
[06:30.600 --> 06:31.600]  It's about Mitt Romney.
[06:31.600 --> 06:35.760]  Mitt Romney is not viewed as conservative enough for where this Republican Party is
[06:35.760 --> 06:36.760]  today.
[06:36.760 --> 06:37.760]  He's been trying to do this.
[06:37.760 --> 06:40.720]  We did a little word search on the word conservative with Mitt Romney.
[06:40.720 --> 06:44.640]  And in the first half of his campaign, he didn't even use the word very often.
[06:44.640 --> 06:49.280]  In the last six weeks, he talks about it all the time, tries to say, I am a conservative,
[06:49.280 --> 06:53.320]  and he talks about the electability, but that is ultimately the issue.
[06:53.320 --> 06:58.060]  We still have 75 percent, likely, of the Iowa Republican caucus electorate that's going
[06:58.060 --> 07:00.360]  to vote for somebody else.
[07:00.360 --> 07:04.760]  That's still a challenge for Romney, and I think that it may be what some activists here
[07:04.760 --> 07:10.160]  in Iowa decide to do is, hey, we've got to force Mitt Romney to keep proving his conservative
[07:10.160 --> 07:13.900]  credentials, to say, you're not going to end this early.
[07:13.900 --> 07:15.920]  You've got to go out there and earn the conservative vote.
[07:15.920 --> 07:17.200]  Now, what about turnout?
[07:17.200 --> 07:18.520]  Because this is a big key.
[07:18.520 --> 07:22.200]  Bigger turnout, presumably better for Romney, because a lot of strategists I've talked to
[07:22.200 --> 07:27.360]  say those could be moderates, those could be independents, even Democrats who come out
[07:27.360 --> 07:32.300]  and say, no, we don't want a Santorum, a Bachmann or Paul doing that well.
[07:32.300 --> 07:33.760]  We don't want to represent Iowa that way.
[07:33.760 --> 07:34.760]  We want to go with Romney.
[07:34.760 --> 07:39.000]  Well, I think one thing you see, in 2008, we had a record turnout with just under 120,000
[07:39.000 --> 07:40.320]  Iowa Republicans.
[07:40.320 --> 07:44.440]  And in that four year span since then, we've had 33 straight months of Republican registration
[07:44.440 --> 07:48.640]  gains here in Iowa, so we've got about 30,000 more Iowa Republicans.
[07:48.640 --> 07:52.720]  We had the second largest attendance we saw ever at the Ames Straw Poll in August.
[07:52.720 --> 07:56.520]  And it's the first chance anybody in the country gets to vote to start the process to replace
[07:56.520 --> 07:57.520]  Barack Obama.
[07:57.520 --> 08:01.240]  So I would be surprised if we didn't have a strong turnout Tuesday night.
[08:01.240 --> 08:04.680]  And with good weather for those senior citizens, when you look at the poll results, Mitt Romney
[08:04.680 --> 08:07.680]  does the best with 60 and over voters.
[08:07.680 --> 08:10.920]  So I think we are set up to have a strong turnout, and people do need to remember, in
[08:10.920 --> 08:14.480]  the Iowa caucuses, as an independent or a Democrat, you can register as a Republican
[08:14.480 --> 08:15.480]  that night and participate.
[08:15.480 --> 08:17.720]  He's making a pitch there, you see that?
[08:17.720 --> 08:20.720]  But higher, the more this is a primary, the better.
[08:20.720 --> 08:25.720]  If this were a primary and there were no speeches that night before you voted, Mitt Romney would
[08:25.720 --> 08:26.760]  win by 10 points.
[08:26.760 --> 08:30.480]  So we always have this debate about Iowa, but it's more intense now.
[08:30.480 --> 08:37.280]  The history of the Iowa caucuses, retail campaigning, a real chance to interact with voters one
[08:37.280 --> 08:38.280]  on one.
[08:38.280 --> 08:41.960]  The truth of the matter is that it's a lot like big time politics everywhere else now.
[08:41.960 --> 08:48.760]  More than $16 million of TV advertising blanketing the airwaves, so much of it negative.
[08:48.760 --> 08:52.320]  And here was the headline in the Wall Street Journal editorial on Tuesday.
[08:52.320 --> 08:56.080]  It was, as Iowa goes, so goes Iowa.
[08:56.080 --> 09:01.240]  Gail Collins piling on in the New York Times on Thursday writing, feel free to ignore Iowa.
[09:01.240 --> 09:04.680]  The Republicans hope to get more than 100,000 participants.
[09:04.680 --> 09:07.560]  That's about the same number of people in Pomona, California.
[09:07.560 --> 09:11.080]  Imagine your reaction to seeing a story saying that a plurality of people in Pomona thought
[09:11.080 --> 09:13.720]  Newt Gingrich would be the best GOP presidential candidate.
[09:13.720 --> 09:17.240]  Would you say, wow, I guess Newt is now the front runner?
[09:17.240 --> 09:18.240]  Possibly not.
[09:18.240 --> 09:23.720]  Now, I'm from the Los Angeles area, so I don't like anybody picking on Pomona.
[09:23.720 --> 09:26.080]  But is Iowa going to pick the president?
[09:26.080 --> 09:29.400]  Well, listen, this is the quad radial attack on the Hawkeye State.
[09:29.400 --> 09:30.800]  And I think Iowa is representative.
[09:30.800 --> 09:34.640]  If you look at the last four national presidential elections, Iowa's popular vote has been
[09:34.640 --> 09:36.480]  smeared, what has happened nationally.
[09:36.480 --> 09:38.920]  And you also have to think of what our role in the process is.
[09:38.920 --> 09:39.920]  We're first.
[09:39.920 --> 09:40.920]  We're not last.
[09:40.920 --> 09:41.920]  We're not the decider.
[09:41.920 --> 09:43.480]  We start winnowing the field.
[09:43.480 --> 09:46.240]  But the one thing you can't discount, though, is there are very few things the last two
[09:46.240 --> 09:48.600]  presidents of the United States have in common.
[09:48.600 --> 09:51.680]  But their path to the White House did start by winning the Iowa caucuses.
[09:51.680 --> 09:52.680]  Final point here, Chuck.
[09:52.680 --> 09:54.040]  Keys to Tuesday.
[09:54.040 --> 09:55.840]  What are you looking for in the next couple of days?
[09:55.840 --> 09:57.840]  Well, to me, it's the Rick Perry number.
[09:57.840 --> 09:59.240]  He is the wild card here.
[09:59.240 --> 10:01.800]  Newt, I think we clearly know Gingrich is on his way down.
[10:01.800 --> 10:05.280]  And he may, frankly, may end up in single digits before it's all said and done.
[10:05.280 --> 10:08.480]  So this little boom lit of his, an amazing rise and fall.
[10:08.480 --> 10:09.960]  But what happens to the Perry supporter?
[10:09.960 --> 10:13.960]  Does the Perry supporter that walks in on caucus night, who is also a social conservative,
[10:13.960 --> 10:15.220]  do they stick with him?
[10:15.220 --> 10:16.760]  How committed to him are they?
[10:16.760 --> 10:22.120]  Or do they end up buying the Santorum argument that says, you know what, I'm the conservative
[10:22.120 --> 10:25.200]  that can come out of here, that can win, that can keep going on.
[10:25.200 --> 10:27.400]  And where that, what happens to that?
[10:27.400 --> 10:30.040]  And by the way, Mitt Romney, he needs a strong Rick Perry.
[10:30.040 --> 10:33.800]  He needs Rick Perry just strong enough so that Perry will go to South Carolina and won't
[10:33.800 --> 10:34.800]  get out of the race.
[10:34.800 --> 10:37.720]  Does the field narrow after the results here?
[10:37.720 --> 10:42.400]  Well, I think it will narrow in the, in the actual, does the actual playing field narrow?
[10:42.400 --> 10:44.840]  Maybe by one candidate, maybe a Bachman ends up getting out.
[10:44.840 --> 10:46.880]  Newt has no incentive to get out.
[10:46.880 --> 10:48.240]  Perry, let's see what he does.
[10:48.240 --> 10:51.920]  If Perry is at 15, he stays in, he goes on to South Carolina.
[10:51.920 --> 10:56.460]  If he's closer to 10, I think then he may pack it in.
[10:56.460 --> 10:58.180]  That's not good for Mitt Romney, by the way.
[10:58.180 --> 11:01.440]  He needs a few more conservatives to hang around so he can steal South Carolina.
[11:01.440 --> 11:02.440]  We'll leave it there.
[11:02.440 --> 11:04.960]  Chuck Todd, Matt Strong, thank you both very much.
[11:04.960 --> 11:09.280]  We're going to turn now to a man who has been making a late surge here in Iowa, former two
[11:09.280 --> 11:13.080]  term Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.
[11:13.080 --> 11:17.160]  Santorum has spent more time in Iowa this cycle than any other candidate and was the
[11:17.160 --> 11:22.520]  first to visit all 99 counties in the state with limited resources and money and staff.
[11:22.520 --> 11:25.920]  He's been traveling from event to event in a pickup truck.
[11:25.920 --> 11:30.680]  Earlier this week, a CNN time poll showed him for the first time in the top three.
[11:30.680 --> 11:34.280]  And now he's suddenly turning out larger crowds and drawing more media attention.
[11:34.280 --> 11:39.000]  He's hoping to make a strong showing in Iowa by courting conservative voters just as previous
[11:39.000 --> 11:46.520]  caucus winner Mike Huckabee did four years ago.
[11:46.520 --> 11:48.280]  Senator Santorum, welcome back to Meet the Press.
[11:48.280 --> 11:49.280]  Thank you, David.
[11:49.280 --> 11:50.280]  Good to be with you.
[11:50.280 --> 11:53.520]  So this is the candidate that I'm sitting with who's got the hot hand in Iowa.
[11:53.520 --> 11:57.200]  Here's the Des Moines Sunday Register here, Romney Paul-Lead.
[11:57.200 --> 11:59.040]  Santorum closes in.
[11:59.040 --> 12:03.200]  We just talked about in that last segment how you have had this surge, particularly
[12:03.200 --> 12:05.920]  in the last couple of days.
[12:05.920 --> 12:06.920]  What does it mean?
[12:06.920 --> 12:08.600]  What does it say to you about what's going on here in the state?
[12:08.600 --> 12:12.280]  Well, the people of Iowa, I've been saying this from the very beginning.
[12:12.280 --> 12:13.880]  People have asked me, when are you going to get your surge?
[12:13.880 --> 12:14.920]  You're not going anywhere.
[12:14.920 --> 12:16.320]  Your message must not be resonating.
[12:16.320 --> 12:20.560]  I said, my surge is going to come on January 3rd after the people of Iowa do what they
[12:20.560 --> 12:25.620]  do, which is actually analyze the candidates, figure out where their positions are, find
[12:25.620 --> 12:30.480]  out who's the right leader, who's got what it takes to defeat Barack Obama and to lead
[12:30.480 --> 12:31.480]  this country.
[12:31.480 --> 12:35.560]  And I've always relied that when that crunch time comes in these last two weeks, that's
[12:35.560 --> 12:36.800]  when we're going to start to pick up.
[12:36.800 --> 12:37.960]  And that's exactly what's happened.
[12:37.960 --> 12:43.280]  You talked about needing a miracle here in Iowa, but expectations have changed now.
[12:43.280 --> 12:46.480]  Is anything less than a win here?
[12:46.480 --> 12:48.040]  Not measuring up to expectations?
[12:48.040 --> 12:51.480]  That's really pretty funny, actually, because 10 days ago I was at 5 percent.
[12:51.480 --> 12:54.840]  And every question I got was, you know, why don't you pack it up?
[12:54.840 --> 12:56.800]  Why don't you endorse another candidate?
[12:56.800 --> 13:01.200]  And now 10 days later you're saying, oh, you've got to win and other needs exceed expectations.
[13:01.200 --> 13:04.960]  Look, we feel very good about the way things are going on the ground.
[13:04.960 --> 13:06.280]  We've got a great grassroots organization.
[13:06.280 --> 13:09.040]  We've got a great team of people who are out helping us.
[13:09.040 --> 13:13.520]  And they're committed to making sure that this isn't a Pyrrhic victory in November,
[13:13.520 --> 13:17.840]  that we actually elect someone who's exactly what America needs to turn this country around,
[13:17.840 --> 13:22.200]  not someone who, well, just might be able to win and then not really do the change that's
[13:22.200 --> 13:23.200]  necessary in Washington.
[13:23.200 --> 13:26.080]  But one more on just flat expectations.
[13:26.080 --> 13:29.600]  You feel at this point, particularly, you've got to do better than a Michelle Bachman or
[13:29.600 --> 13:31.400]  Rick Perry in order to continue in this race.
[13:31.400 --> 13:33.080]  Yeah, I've always said there's really three primaries.
[13:33.080 --> 13:36.600]  I mean, you have the conservative primary, and you mentioned the other two people who
[13:36.600 --> 13:38.480]  I think are in the conservative primary.
[13:38.480 --> 13:40.840]  You have the libertarian primary.
[13:40.840 --> 13:45.080]  And then you have Gingrich and Romney sort of fighting for the establishment vote.
[13:45.080 --> 13:51.440]  And our feeling was from the very beginning, if we can pace ahead of Perry and or Bachman,
[13:51.440 --> 13:52.520]  that we'd be in good shape.
[13:52.520 --> 13:54.960]  And we're moving in that direction, certainly, right now.
[13:54.960 --> 13:56.360]  You talk about electability.
[13:56.360 --> 13:58.240]  You talk about conservative credentials.
[13:58.240 --> 14:03.880]  But we've been checking on this, you know, it'd be 20 years ago this week, actually,
[14:03.880 --> 14:05.520]  that you began your service in Washington.
[14:05.520 --> 14:10.440]  And had you not lost for reelection, you'd still be in Washington as a senator.
[14:10.440 --> 14:15.360]  But you spent 16 years as a member of Congress, four in the House, 12 in the Senate.
[14:15.360 --> 14:19.240]  And yet there's nobody who served with you who's endorsed you, have they?
[14:19.240 --> 14:20.240]  It's funny.
[14:20.240 --> 14:21.240]  I haven't asked anybody.
[14:21.240 --> 14:25.760]  And the reason I haven't asked anybody, I'm sitting at three percent in the national polls.
[14:25.760 --> 14:29.020]  And I really haven't gone out and asked any ask any United States senator, I haven't asked
[14:29.020 --> 14:33.800]  a single one to endorse me because I felt like I had to earn it first, that I had to
[14:33.800 --> 14:37.120]  go out and prove to the you know, I lost my last race.
[14:37.120 --> 14:42.900]  And the general consensus was, you know, we like Rick, but you know, who goes from losing
[14:42.900 --> 14:46.280]  their last Senate race to winning the presidential nomination?
[14:46.280 --> 14:48.380]  My answer to that was, well, Abraham Lincoln.
[14:48.380 --> 14:51.160]  But other than Abraham Lincoln, this is not a common occurrence.
[14:51.160 --> 14:52.160]  And so I didn't want to put-
[14:52.160 --> 14:56.200]  But nobody was going out on a limb to offer, given having served with you, knowing your
[14:56.200 --> 14:58.320]  credentials, knowing your principles.
[14:58.320 --> 15:03.840]  Yeah, again, no one's going to call you and say, you know, gee, can I help your campaign
[15:03.840 --> 15:05.940]  at three percent?
[15:05.940 --> 15:09.280]  And I would have said to them, you know what, wait, because it doesn't matter.
[15:09.280 --> 15:12.180]  I don't really need or want Washington endorsements.
[15:12.180 --> 15:13.480]  That's not what I'm here to do.
[15:13.480 --> 15:14.680]  I'm here to change Washington.
[15:14.680 --> 15:16.880]  And so I didn't really seek out endorsements.
[15:16.880 --> 15:18.240]  I didn't really want their endorsements.
[15:18.240 --> 15:19.560]  I didn't think they would help very much.
[15:19.560 --> 15:20.720]  Would you seek them out now?
[15:20.720 --> 15:22.600]  If people want to endorse me, I'd love their endorsement.
[15:22.600 --> 15:24.880]  But that's that's that's not what I'm coming here to do.
[15:24.880 --> 15:30.000]  I'm not coming to to be buddies with my with, you know, my friends in the Senate, the House.
[15:30.000 --> 15:33.120]  I'm coming to change the entire nature of Washington, D.C.
[15:33.120 --> 15:37.800]  It's one one been one of the benefits, frankly, of being out and looking in and seeing what
[15:37.800 --> 15:42.280]  what, you know, sometimes you said, you know, I was, you know, running as a consistent
[15:42.280 --> 15:43.280]  conservative.
[15:43.280 --> 15:47.120]  There are votes that I took, not that I advocated these things, but I voted for some things.
[15:47.120 --> 15:49.320]  I look back and say, why the heck did I do that?
[15:49.320 --> 15:54.680]  You get involved in sort of the the idea that, well, you got to make things happen and you
[15:54.680 --> 15:59.520]  forget sometimes, you know, sometimes making some things happen is not is better.
[15:59.520 --> 16:00.520]  You're better off making.
[16:00.520 --> 16:03.120]  I wonder if one of those examples might be pork barrel spending because you're getting
[16:03.120 --> 16:07.080]  hit by Rick Perry about that by supporting the notorious Bridge to Nowhere and other
[16:07.080 --> 16:11.360]  pork barrel projects where you deliver cash for folks back in your home state.
[16:11.360 --> 16:15.120]  Do you regret voting for some of those projects?
[16:15.120 --> 16:16.920]  You've defended pork barrel spending in the past.
[16:16.920 --> 16:21.560]  What I've said is that your role is as a member of Congress, if you look at the Constitution
[16:21.560 --> 16:23.120]  is to appropriate money.
[16:23.120 --> 16:25.240]  And of course, your appropriate money, you're going to say where that money is going to
[16:25.240 --> 16:26.240]  go.
[16:26.240 --> 16:27.440]  You're not going to say, well, here's the money, Mr. President, spend it any way you
[16:27.440 --> 16:28.440]  want.
[16:28.440 --> 16:32.920]  And historically, Congress has taken the role of, you know, allocating those resources.
[16:32.920 --> 16:38.480]  And Jim DeMint, who led the charge on pork barrel spending earmarked things for years
[16:38.480 --> 16:39.480]  and years.
[16:39.480 --> 16:43.480]  And so what happened after I left Congress was budgets began to explode.
[16:43.480 --> 16:47.320]  When I was in the Senate, I voted for tough budgets.
[16:47.320 --> 16:51.000]  I voted for restrictions on spending and made sure that that didn't happen.
[16:51.000 --> 16:54.680]  And as president, I proposed cutting five trillion dollars over five years.
[16:54.680 --> 16:58.680]  I proposed we're going to balance the budget and at least five years, hopefully sooner.
[16:58.680 --> 17:02.720]  So if you're looking for someone who's voted for tough budgets, voted for spending restraints
[17:02.720 --> 17:03.720]  and.
[17:03.720 --> 17:04.720]  But that wasn't my question.
[17:04.720 --> 17:07.400]  Do you regret supporting earmarks when you did?
[17:07.400 --> 17:11.840]  I don't regret going out at the time and making sure that the people of Pennsylvania, who
[17:11.840 --> 17:15.680]  I was elected to represent, got resources back into the state after spending money.
[17:15.680 --> 17:16.680]  So if there's a surplus, that's OK.
[17:16.680 --> 17:18.080]  But if the budget's tighter, it's not?
[17:18.080 --> 17:19.600]  What happened was abuse.
[17:19.600 --> 17:21.560]  There was abuse of this process.
[17:21.560 --> 17:22.640]  And I agreed with that.
[17:22.640 --> 17:26.480]  There was an abuse and it was leading to more spending, it was leading to bigger spending
[17:26.480 --> 17:27.480]  bills.
[17:27.480 --> 17:28.480]  And it had to end.
[17:28.480 --> 17:29.480]  And I supported it.
[17:29.480 --> 17:30.480]  Rick Perry calls it the fleecing of America.
[17:30.480 --> 17:31.480]  Do you agree that's what it is?
[17:31.480 --> 17:35.200]  Well, that's pretty funny because Rick Perry was hiring lobbyists to fleece America then
[17:35.200 --> 17:39.240]  because he was hiring lobbyists to represent the state of Texas to get more money back.
[17:39.240 --> 17:43.240]  And I suspect if you ask Kay Hutchison or if you ask John Cornyn or any of the Texas
[17:43.240 --> 17:46.720]  delegation whether Rick Perry wanted money coming back to the state of Texas that Texans
[17:46.720 --> 17:49.040]  sent there, they'd say yes, he did.
[17:49.040 --> 17:53.480]  So look, there is a legitimate role for Congress to allocate resources.
[17:53.480 --> 17:55.820]  That's what the Constitution requires them to do.
[17:55.820 --> 17:57.960]  When there's abuse, then you curb the abuse.
[17:57.960 --> 17:58.960]  And I supported that.
[17:58.960 --> 18:00.920]  Let's talk about final arguments here in Iowa.
[18:00.920 --> 18:04.640]  Your latest ad talks about conservative credentials and electability.
[18:04.640 --> 18:05.640]  Let me play a portion of it.
[18:05.640 --> 18:09.080]  Who has the best chance to beat Obama?
[18:09.080 --> 18:12.160]  Rick Santorum, a full-spectrum conservative.
[18:12.160 --> 18:17.480]  Rick Santorum is rock solid on values issues.
[18:17.480 --> 18:23.400]  So you've been making that contrast, consistently questioning Governor Romney, calling him a
[18:23.400 --> 18:27.880]  liberal Massachusetts governor, arguing, in fact, that he is a moderate.
[18:27.880 --> 18:31.240]  Yet back in 2008 when he was running for the presidency, you were singing a different tune.
[18:31.240 --> 18:33.240]  This was your press release back then.
[18:33.240 --> 18:37.120]  You said, Governor Romney is the candidate who will stand up for the conservative principles
[18:37.120 --> 18:38.480]  that we hold dear.
[18:38.480 --> 18:42.240]  He has a deep understanding of the important issues confronting our country today, and
[18:42.240 --> 18:46.840]  he is the clear conservative candidate that can go into the general election with a united
[18:46.840 --> 18:48.320]  Republican party.
[18:48.320 --> 18:51.120]  Will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold dear.
[18:51.120 --> 18:54.480]  You even praised his work on fighting same-sex marriage.
[18:54.480 --> 18:55.480]  What changed?
[18:55.480 --> 18:57.880]  Well, what changed was who he's running against.
[18:57.880 --> 19:02.040]  At the time, that was five days or four days before Super Tuesday.
[19:02.040 --> 19:03.040]  It was after Florida.
[19:03.040 --> 19:06.760]  And it became clear to me that there were two candidates in the race at that point.
[19:06.760 --> 19:11.920]  I thought Mike Huckabee, I would have loved to have Mike Huckabee out there, but I made
[19:11.920 --> 19:16.240]  the political judgment right or wrong that the best chance to stop John McCain, which
[19:16.240 --> 19:17.560]  was what my concern was.
[19:17.560 --> 19:20.040]  I had served 12 years with John McCain.
[19:20.040 --> 19:24.800]  I like and respect John McCain immensely personally, and he's done a lot of great things, obviously,
[19:24.800 --> 19:25.800]  for this country.
[19:25.800 --> 19:29.180]  But I did not think he was the right person, based on my experience and deep knowledge
[19:29.180 --> 19:32.480]  of his record, that he was the right person to be the nominee.
[19:32.480 --> 19:36.240]  But you said that Romney will stand up for the conservative principles that we hold
[19:36.240 --> 19:37.240]  dear.
[19:37.240 --> 19:38.240]  But you didn't say compare to.
[19:38.240 --> 19:39.240]  Well, of course I'm not going to say compare to.
[19:39.240 --> 19:42.800]  I mean, I'm trying to advocate for his candidacy at a time when I don't...
[19:42.800 --> 19:43.800]  So you didn't mean that then?
[19:43.800 --> 19:46.560]  Well, I was saying it relative to John McCain.
[19:46.560 --> 19:47.560]  And that's what I meant then.
[19:47.560 --> 19:49.800]  And remember, it's not like I was an early supporter of Romney.
[19:49.800 --> 19:53.000]  I endorsed him actually seven days before he dropped out of the race.
[19:53.000 --> 19:54.780]  So maybe I was a little bit of a...
[19:54.780 --> 19:57.800]  Does he have conservative values, conservative principles?
[19:57.800 --> 19:58.800]  Of course.
[19:58.800 --> 20:03.920]  Everybody on that stage that is in these debates has conservative values vis-a-vis President
[20:03.920 --> 20:06.920]  Obama and generally reflects the Republican Party.
[20:06.920 --> 20:12.360]  The question is, are those values the ones that you can trust when they become president
[20:12.360 --> 20:13.360]  of the United States?
[20:13.360 --> 20:17.760]  Or the one who you know is going to fight not just for certain things, but for the entire
[20:17.760 --> 20:19.440]  Republican platform at Planck?
[20:19.440 --> 20:20.440]  Why?
[20:20.440 --> 20:22.440]  Because those things integrate together.
[20:22.440 --> 20:24.040]  And you've heard me talk about this many times.
[20:24.040 --> 20:28.240]  You can't have a strong economy and just a strong economic plan unless you have strong
[20:28.240 --> 20:30.760]  families and you have moral values in this country.
[20:30.760 --> 20:31.760]  Why?
[20:31.760 --> 20:32.760]  Because that's the underpinning of our society.
[20:32.760 --> 20:34.960]  But you talk about trust as a conservative.
[20:34.960 --> 20:37.760]  You talk about trust as a conservative.
[20:37.760 --> 20:42.600]  And you have accused Romney of tacking back and forth as he sought election, calling him
[20:42.600 --> 20:44.920]  a liberal governor from Massachusetts.
[20:44.920 --> 20:49.960]  But we look at your own record as well, running for reelection to the Senate in 2006 in a
[20:49.960 --> 20:52.200]  democratic state of Pennsylvania.
[20:52.200 --> 20:55.960]  Now here in Iowa, you've taken the pledge opposing abortion.
[20:55.960 --> 21:01.600]  Back on this program this summer, you said you oppose abortion without exception.
[21:01.600 --> 21:05.380]  And yet when you were running for reelection in 2006, you had a different view.
[21:05.380 --> 21:07.100]  And this is what you saw at the Associated Press.
[21:07.100 --> 21:10.800]  The question was, do you support legalized abortion if a woman has been raped or if she
[21:10.800 --> 21:12.320]  is the victim of incest?
[21:12.320 --> 21:15.060]  What about if a woman's health or life is in danger?
[21:15.060 --> 21:16.360]  Please explain your answer.
[21:16.360 --> 21:20.840]  Back then you said, I would support laws that include exceptions in cases of rape and incest
[21:20.840 --> 21:23.360]  and when the life of the mother is at risk.
[21:23.360 --> 21:27.800]  So didn't you, when you were running for reelection, do the same thing you've accused Romney of,
[21:27.800 --> 21:31.240]  which is moderating your stance to try to win a democratic state?
[21:31.240 --> 21:35.480]  Today I would support laws that would provide for those exceptions, but I'm not for them.
[21:35.480 --> 21:37.640]  In other words, I support the Hyde Amendment.
[21:37.640 --> 21:41.140]  The Hyde Amendment provides exception for rape and incest in the life of the mother.
[21:41.140 --> 21:46.960]  And so yes, I support laws that provide those exceptions because if we can get those passed,
[21:46.960 --> 21:47.960]  then we need to do that.
[21:47.960 --> 21:51.200]  That's not a violation of your pledge that you took here in Iowa?
[21:51.200 --> 21:53.640]  I supported the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.
[21:53.640 --> 21:55.000]  Does that ban all abortions?
[21:55.000 --> 21:57.440]  No, but it moves the country in the right direction.
[21:57.440 --> 22:01.920]  And so what I've said in the past consistently is I'll support laws that move the ball forward.
[22:01.920 --> 22:05.440]  That doesn't mean that's my position and that's where I'd like to go, but that's exactly
[22:05.440 --> 22:08.240]  the direction that we need to go in.
[22:08.240 --> 22:13.700]  The issue of moderation goes beyond abortion.
[22:13.700 --> 22:17.920]  Back in 2006, you were fighting the idea that you were seen as too conservative.
[22:17.920 --> 22:23.400]  You had television ads heralding the fact that you oppose reductions in the minimum
[22:23.400 --> 22:27.000]  wage, that you were fighting cuts against Amtrak.
[22:27.000 --> 22:32.680]  Isn't your history to try to moderate, both when fighting for reelection, but also as
[22:32.680 --> 22:35.960]  a member of Congress, to try to find common ground and to compromise?
[22:35.960 --> 22:39.040]  Of course, my background is to find compromise.
[22:39.040 --> 22:40.800]  That's what you have to do in order to get things done.
[22:40.800 --> 22:42.720]  You don't compromise on your principles.
[22:42.720 --> 22:45.040]  I use welfare reform as an example.
[22:45.040 --> 22:50.360]  I went out and helped author the welfare reform bill that became the Contract with America
[22:50.360 --> 22:51.360]  bill.
[22:51.360 --> 22:54.640]  And then when I was in the United States Senate, I managed that bill as a first term, first
[22:54.640 --> 22:56.080]  year member of the United States Senate.
[22:56.080 --> 23:00.820]  I went up against Daniel Patrick Bornehan and Ted Kennedy and battled over two vetoes
[23:00.820 --> 23:02.920]  of President Clinton, was able to get it done.
[23:02.920 --> 23:03.920]  Did I make compromises?
[23:03.920 --> 23:04.920]  You bet.
[23:04.920 --> 23:09.960]  The compromises I made were not fundamental to the transformation that was important in
[23:09.960 --> 23:12.480]  welfare, which was to end the federal entitlement.
[23:12.480 --> 23:16.160]  The only bill that I'm aware of, the only law that's actually ever ended a broad-based
[23:16.160 --> 23:19.280]  federal entitlement, I was the author and manager of the bill on.
[23:19.280 --> 23:24.360]  And we put time limits on welfare and we put a work requirement in place.
[23:24.360 --> 23:27.200]  Those were the things that I believe were transformational.
[23:27.200 --> 23:29.080]  Was I willing to compromise on daycare funding?
[23:29.080 --> 23:30.080]  Yes, I was.
[23:30.080 --> 23:33.760]  Was I willing to compromise on transportation to get folks from welfare to work?
[23:33.760 --> 23:34.960]  Yes, I was.
[23:34.960 --> 23:39.800]  But what we did was something that was moving the direction of more limited government.
[23:39.800 --> 23:44.320]  And in order to get the necessary votes to get that done, you have to make compromise.
[23:44.320 --> 23:49.760]  But we did a direction of limited government, maybe less than what we wanted to.
[23:49.760 --> 23:53.460]  But we weren't going in the direction of more government and getting less of more.
[23:53.460 --> 23:56.860]  That's where Republicans have been in error for so many years.
[23:56.860 --> 24:01.800]  And that is compromising on just a little less big government instead of saying, no,
[24:01.800 --> 24:04.080]  no more compromises and less big government.
[24:04.080 --> 24:09.800]  We'll compromise on less, less government, but not going the other way.
[24:09.800 --> 24:16.600]  One of the things you look at as an insurgent party trying to beat an incumbent president,
[24:16.600 --> 24:21.480]  and you said that a second term for President Obama would be dangerous for the country,
[24:21.480 --> 24:24.100]  is that you look at the party that's making the challenge.
[24:24.100 --> 24:29.040]  And here's the reality, disapproval for the Republican Party right now in Congress, I
[24:29.040 --> 24:34.120]  should say approval of Republicans in Congress stands at 26 percent.
[24:34.120 --> 24:36.600]  That's far less than the president's approval rating.
[24:36.600 --> 24:41.120]  And Dan Balls writes this in The Washington Post in his column on Tuesday, for GOP candidates
[24:41.120 --> 24:42.680]  worries about the party's brand.
[24:42.680 --> 24:46.220]  A year ago, after their big victory in the midterm elections, Republicans were full of
[24:46.220 --> 24:49.680]  confidence and anticipation as Americans look toward next November.
[24:49.680 --> 24:53.760]  The question that many will be asking is, are the Republicans really ready to lead?
[24:53.760 --> 24:57.880]  In three political arenas, Congress, the states, and the presidential campaign trail, Republicans
[24:57.880 --> 25:00.840]  have left a checkered record in the past year.
[25:00.840 --> 25:08.000]  In Congress, it was the debt debacle forcing a near shutdown of the government, the payroll
[25:08.000 --> 25:12.480]  tax debate that looked to go in the president's favor, you had the fight with the unions in
[25:12.480 --> 25:14.560]  the states like Wisconsin.
[25:14.560 --> 25:18.840]  Do you fault Republican leaders in Congress for not doing more to make government work
[25:18.840 --> 25:20.840]  better through more compromise with the president?
[25:20.840 --> 25:25.560]  You have to have someone you can work with, and this president has done more to divide
[25:25.560 --> 25:28.120]  than any other president that I've ever witnessed in my lifetime.
[25:28.120 --> 25:31.800]  This president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide America
[25:31.800 --> 25:36.800]  between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups.
[25:36.800 --> 25:39.200]  This is the great divider in chief.
[25:39.200 --> 25:43.160]  And it's very difficult when you're being lampooned by the president on a regular basis,
[25:43.160 --> 25:48.080]  not just as a party, but individually, to then, and the president, who I don't believe
[25:48.080 --> 25:53.320]  has met with Boehner or any of the Republican leadership in now six months, hard to compromise
[25:53.320 --> 25:57.640]  and work with someone who won't meet with you, who won't sit down and try to negotiate
[25:57.640 --> 25:58.680]  things and try to talk.
[25:58.680 --> 26:04.000]  And so I'm not surprised at all that Republicans are having a difficult time with someone who
[26:04.000 --> 26:05.000]  has no interest.
[26:05.000 --> 26:06.000]  Clearly, he's met with him.
[26:06.000 --> 26:09.320]  I mean, even the debt fight over the summer was a constant set of meetings, so that can't
[26:09.320 --> 26:10.320]  be accurate.
[26:10.320 --> 26:14.200]  Well, if you look at it, the last time he's had meetings, I know it's been several months.
[26:14.200 --> 26:18.760]  And I know that President Bush, when I was there, and President Reagan, routinely met
[26:18.760 --> 26:23.800]  on a regular basis with the other side and developed relationships.
[26:23.800 --> 26:24.800]  It's just about trust.
[26:24.800 --> 26:28.840]  And you don't build trust by going up and running around the country, beating up on
[26:28.840 --> 26:29.840]  your opponent.
[26:29.840 --> 26:31.960]  He's the president of everybody in this country.
[26:31.960 --> 26:35.280]  As president of the United States, I would be someone who would meet regularly, who would
[26:35.280 --> 26:37.760]  talk and try to build relationships of trust.
[26:37.760 --> 26:39.480]  And this president has not done that.
[26:39.480 --> 26:46.200]  So you don't fault Republicans for intransigence on taxes or spending or other areas of potential
[26:46.200 --> 26:48.120]  compromise with the president?
[26:48.120 --> 26:55.200]  Again, we go back to the basic fact, the federal government now is spending about 25% of GDP.
[26:55.200 --> 26:58.480]  That's historically, the average is about 18%.
[26:58.480 --> 27:01.280]  We have an explosion of spending.
[27:01.280 --> 27:06.200]  And the problem in this country is government oppression, spending, and that's leading to
[27:06.200 --> 27:08.200]  huge debts and deficits.
[27:08.200 --> 27:11.280]  What the Republicans have said is, no more.
[27:11.280 --> 27:13.900]  We are going to move in the direction of smaller government.
[27:13.900 --> 27:16.640]  And President Obama has no interest in doing that.
[27:16.640 --> 27:20.040]  I think Republicans are right to stand and fight on this.
[27:20.040 --> 27:24.280]  And the president seems to be absolutely disinterested in listening to what the American public said
[27:24.280 --> 27:27.580]  in the last election, which is we want more limited government.
[27:27.580 --> 27:28.840]  He did not get the message.
[27:28.840 --> 27:31.720]  I guess he's going to have to get this message hopefully in November.
[27:31.720 --> 27:33.840]  Before you go, I want to ask you about foreign policy.
[27:33.840 --> 27:37.480]  You've been very critical of the president, particularly on the issue of Iran, which has
[27:37.480 --> 27:39.680]  been a big issue of debate here in Iowa.
[27:39.680 --> 27:42.920]  Let me play a portion of that.
[27:42.920 --> 27:50.600]  In this president, for every thug and hooligan, for every radical Islamist, he has had nothing
[27:50.600 --> 27:52.940]  but appeasement.
[27:52.940 --> 28:00.280]  We saw that during the lead up to World War II, appeasement.
[28:00.280 --> 28:04.920]  How can that possibly be accurate if you've taken an objective look at the foreign policy
[28:04.920 --> 28:06.240]  of this administration?
[28:06.240 --> 28:10.820]  What on Iran specifically separates the approach that President Obama has taken and that of
[28:10.820 --> 28:11.820]  President Bush?
[28:11.820 --> 28:15.520]  Well, first of all, he didn't support the pro-democracy movement in Iran in 2009 during
[28:15.520 --> 28:17.360]  the Green Revolution.
[28:17.360 --> 28:22.120]  Almost immediately after the election, excuse me, like with hours after the polls closed,
[28:22.120 --> 28:25.880]  Ahmadinejad announced that he won with 62% of the vote.
[28:25.880 --> 28:29.600]  Within a few days, President Obama basically said that that election was a legitimate one.
[28:29.600 --> 28:31.120]  What would that have done specifically to disarm?
[28:31.120 --> 28:35.200]  I understand why the president would understand that someone announcing a minute after the
[28:35.200 --> 28:38.200]  polls closed that he won, I mean, he comes from Chicago, so I get it.
[28:38.200 --> 28:43.080]  But the problem is that this was an illegitimate election, the people in the streets were rioting
[28:43.080 --> 28:45.700]  saying please support us, President Obama.
[28:45.700 --> 28:47.080]  We are the pro-democracy movement.
[28:47.080 --> 28:51.000]  We want to turn this theocracy that has been at war with the United States, that's developing
[28:51.000 --> 28:56.240]  a nuclear weapon, that's killing our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with IEDs, and the
[28:56.240 --> 28:58.480]  president of the United States turned his back on them.
[28:58.480 --> 29:03.280]  At the same time, a few years later, we have the same situation where Muslim Brotherhood
[29:03.280 --> 29:08.400]  and Islamists are in the streets of Egypt, opposing an ally of ours, not a sworn enemy
[29:08.400 --> 29:13.480]  like Iran, but an ally of ours in Mubarak, and he joins the radicals instead of standing
[29:13.480 --> 29:14.480]  with our friends.
[29:14.480 --> 29:17.400]  First of all, that's patently contradictory.
[29:17.400 --> 29:21.800]  If you say you support democracy, there was a democratic movement in Egypt, and the Muslim
[29:21.800 --> 29:22.840]  Brotherhood got elected.
[29:22.840 --> 29:26.640]  So how could you be for democracy in some countries and not others, which is inconsistent?
[29:26.640 --> 29:29.480]  No, the Muslim Brotherhood is not about democracy.
[29:29.480 --> 29:30.960]  The Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists.
[29:30.960 --> 29:33.920]  The Muslim Brotherhood are going to impose you're popularly elected, isn't that what
[29:33.920 --> 29:34.920]  democracy is about?
[29:34.920 --> 29:35.920]  No.
[29:35.920 --> 29:37.020]  I asked you about disarming Iran.
[29:37.020 --> 29:42.280]  There is no material difference in terms of how the Bush administration sought to disarm
[29:42.280 --> 29:45.040]  Iran and what the Obama administration has done.
[29:45.040 --> 29:47.320]  There's a material difference in this respect.
[29:47.320 --> 29:51.360]  Number one, the Bush administration worked with me in passing the Iran Freedom Support
[29:51.360 --> 29:55.760]  Act, which I authored, which imposed tough sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program and
[29:55.760 --> 29:58.960]  provided funding for the pro-democracy movement.
[29:58.960 --> 30:02.400]  When President Obama came into office, he cut that funding.
[30:02.400 --> 30:08.040]  President Obama did not provide funding into Iran to help those folks who wanted to overthrow
[30:08.040 --> 30:12.520]  this democracy, and when the time came to support them, he chose not to.
[30:12.520 --> 30:16.960]  That is a substantive difference between my policy, which I was a leader on in the Senate,
[30:16.960 --> 30:19.680]  and what President Bush tried to do when he was president.
[30:19.680 --> 30:22.280]  There is no good option to disarm Iran.
[30:22.280 --> 30:24.280]  The Bush administration knew that.
[30:24.280 --> 30:25.680]  This administration knows that.
[30:25.680 --> 30:26.880]  Tell me what you would do differently then.
[30:26.880 --> 30:32.000]  I put forth a five-point plan that said fund the pro-democracy movement, use covert activity
[30:32.000 --> 30:33.000]  to disrupt them.
[30:33.000 --> 30:34.000]  Which is already being done, Senator.
[30:34.000 --> 30:35.000]  You know that.
[30:35.000 --> 30:38.920]  There's covert activity to set back their program by the Israelis, by the United States.
[30:38.920 --> 30:41.200]  Well, we know by the Israelis.
[30:41.200 --> 30:43.680]  We don't have any evidence if you look at what's being done.
[30:43.680 --> 30:47.240]  Most of the evidence actually trails back to the Israelis and the methodologies that
[30:47.240 --> 30:48.240]  they use.
[30:48.240 --> 30:52.280]  There's no evidence the United States is at all complicit in working at that.
[30:52.280 --> 30:57.720]  I would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly talk about this.
[30:57.720 --> 30:58.720]  Why?
[30:58.720 --> 31:01.680]  Because I want to make sure that Iran knows that when I say that Iran is not getting a
[31:01.680 --> 31:05.680]  nuclear weapon, that we will actually effectuate policies that make that happen.
[31:05.680 --> 31:07.260]  This president has not done that.
[31:07.260 --> 31:10.680]  He has opposed tough sanctions on Iran, on their oil program.
[31:10.680 --> 31:11.680]  Why?
[31:11.680 --> 31:15.120]  Because he's concerned about the economy and his reelection instead of the long-term
[31:15.120 --> 31:17.280]  national security interests of this country.
[31:17.280 --> 31:22.040]  I would say to every foreign scientist that's going into Iran to help them with their program,
[31:22.040 --> 31:25.400]  you will be treated as an enemy combatant, like an al-Qaeda member.
[31:25.400 --> 31:28.400]  And then finally, I would be working openly with the state of Israel.
[31:28.400 --> 31:31.680]  And I would be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those facilities, you begin
[31:31.680 --> 31:36.120]  to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities
[31:36.120 --> 31:39.000]  through airstrikes and make it very public that we are doing that.
[31:39.000 --> 31:40.000]  The president has done none of those.
[31:40.000 --> 31:44.200]  So you would lay out a red line, and if they passed it, airstrikes by President Santorum.
[31:44.200 --> 31:47.120]  Iran will not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.
[31:47.120 --> 31:49.060]  Well, two previous presidents have said that.
[31:49.060 --> 31:51.400]  You would order airstrikes if it became clear that they were going to...
[31:51.400 --> 31:53.920]  That's the plan.
[31:53.920 --> 31:58.320]  You can't go out and say, this is the problem with this administration.
[31:58.320 --> 32:01.600]  You can't go out and say, this is what I'm for, and then do nothing.
[32:01.600 --> 32:05.480]  You become a paper tiger, and people don't respect our country, and our allies can't
[32:05.480 --> 32:06.520]  trust us.
[32:06.520 --> 32:07.520]  That's the problem with this administration.
[32:07.520 --> 32:08.520]  All right.
[32:08.520 --> 32:11.360]  Before I let you go back to the politics, are you going to win this thing?
[32:11.360 --> 32:12.360]  I feel good.
[32:12.360 --> 32:13.360]  I mean, that's up to the people of Iowa.
[32:13.360 --> 32:17.000]  I've always said that the people of Iowa are the ones who I put my trust in, and not
[32:17.000 --> 32:18.320]  just Iowa, New Hampshire.
[32:18.320 --> 32:19.840]  We've got a great team up in New Hampshire.
[32:19.840 --> 32:24.400]  We've got about two dozen state legislators who have signed on to our campaign, county
[32:24.400 --> 32:25.400]  attorneys, sheriffs.
[32:25.400 --> 32:28.880]  We've got a great team up there, and we're going to have a big jump here in Iowa.
[32:28.880 --> 32:32.760]  I don't know what it's going to be, but unlike Rick Perry, unlike Michelle Bachman, unlike
[32:32.760 --> 32:36.080]  others, we're going to New Hampshire because we're going to compete in every region of
[32:36.080 --> 32:37.200]  this country.
[32:37.200 --> 32:38.560]  I come from the Northeast.
[32:38.560 --> 32:41.920]  I've been able to get the blue collar voters, the Reagan Democrats, to vote for me in the
[32:41.920 --> 32:45.160]  past, and we're going to do the same thing, and that's why we're going to win this election.
[32:45.160 --> 32:46.160]  Senator Santorum, thank you.
[32:46.160 --> 32:47.880]  We'll see you in New Hampshire for our debate next week.
[32:47.880 --> 32:48.880]  Thanks, David.
[32:48.880 --> 32:53.920]  And coming up on this New Year's Day, the final countdown to Iowa, Ron Paul with a strong
[32:53.920 --> 32:58.120]  showing in the polls, drawing fire now from his Republican rivals, while Mitt Romney sets
[32:58.120 --> 33:03.080]  his sights on President Obama, who just four years ago pulled off a surprise come-from-behind
[33:03.080 --> 33:04.080]  win here.
[33:04.080 --> 33:07.360]  Plus, the president and his team gearing up for the fight as well.
[33:07.360 --> 33:11.560]  He's going to the important battleground state of Ohio the day after the caucuses.
[33:11.560 --> 33:13.120]  It's a new year and a new campaign.
[33:13.120 --> 33:15.520]  We'll break it all down with our political roundtable.
[33:15.520 --> 33:20.520]  Joining us, the Des Moines Registers, Kathy Obradovich, Republican strategist Mike Murphy,
[33:20.520 --> 33:27.880]  David Brooks of the New York Times, Mark Halpern of Time Magazine, and NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
[33:27.880 --> 33:31.080]  Meet the Press is brought to you by the Boeing Company.
[33:31.080 --> 33:35.600]  Have you met your skin twin?
[33:35.600 --> 33:38.240]  Cover Girl TruBlend has skin twin technology.
[33:38.240 --> 33:43.400]  Other makeup can sit on your skin, so it looks like makeup, but TruBlend has skin twin technology
[33:43.400 --> 33:45.280]  to actually merge with your skin.
[33:45.280 --> 33:47.600]  How easy, breezy, beautiful is that?
[33:47.600 --> 33:50.120]  TruBlend from Cover Girl.
[33:50.120 --> 33:57.320]  The Super Bowl, the most epic day in America, and the end of a journey that began here when
[33:57.320 --> 34:03.600]  the swipe of a Visa card gave one man the chance to bring happiness to 10 friends and
[34:03.600 --> 34:05.600]  a new lease on life to one.
[34:05.600 --> 34:07.600]  That was a false start.
[34:07.600 --> 34:08.600]  What?
[34:08.600 --> 34:09.600]  Yeah, Meemaw?
[34:09.600 --> 34:10.600]  Yes?
[34:10.600 --> 34:11.600]  I want tickets to the Super Bowl.
[34:11.600 --> 34:12.600]  Pack your bags.
[34:12.600 --> 34:15.680]  Use your Visa card for a chance to win.
[34:15.680 --> 34:19.360]  To choose your tent, go to our Facebook page.
[34:19.360 --> 34:22.760]  Whoa, this is not the number we talked about.
[34:22.760 --> 34:23.760]  That's our phone number.
[34:23.760 --> 34:26.680]  No, surprise pricing is one thing that makes Pearl Vision different.
[34:26.680 --> 34:27.840]  And here's something else.
[34:27.840 --> 34:31.800]  Buy a pair of eyeglasses or prescription sunglasses, and we'll give you another pair free.
[34:31.800 --> 34:35.320]  Visit pearlvision.com for a store near you.
[34:35.320 --> 34:37.920]  Holidays were meant for family.
[34:37.920 --> 34:42.440]  Jeep Grand Cherokee is the most awarded SUV ever.
[34:42.440 --> 34:48.200]  The Compass gets up to 29 MPG Highway, and the Jeep Wrangler has an all-new powertrain
[34:48.200 --> 34:51.320]  with improved performance and fuel economy.
[34:51.320 --> 34:54.120]  Season's greetings from our family to yours.
[34:54.120 --> 34:55.120]  Hurry in.
[34:55.120 --> 34:58.000]  The year's best deals end January 3rd.
[34:58.000 --> 35:02.440]  During the big finish event, well-qualified lessees get the 2012 Grand Cherokee Laredo
[35:02.440 --> 35:04.960]  4x2 for $3.09 a month.
[35:04.960 --> 35:07.040]  Celebrate the new year with a great night's sleep.
[35:07.040 --> 35:11.300]  Mancini Sleep World can make it happen for less during our 50% off mattress sale.
[35:11.300 --> 35:15.520]  It's the perfect time to get that luxurious mattress you've been waiting for at a drastically
[35:15.520 --> 35:16.680]  reduced price.
[35:16.680 --> 35:20.840]  Imagine curling up in a luxurious Simmons Beauty Rest, relaxing in the comfort of memory
[35:20.840 --> 35:24.640]  foam on a CertiPerfect Sleeper, or how about a plush Sealy Posturepedic?
[35:24.640 --> 35:29.760]  Your choice of comfort, 50% off, and with no interest until 2014, the savings really
[35:29.760 --> 35:30.760]  add up.
[35:30.760 --> 35:31.760]  Visit sleepworld.com.
[35:31.760 --> 35:35.600]  I love my new bed.
[35:35.600 --> 35:39.200]  The Iowa Caucuses will have full analysis from our political roundtable.
[35:39.200 --> 35:43.760]  Joining me, Kathy Abradovich from the Des Moines Register, Mike Murphy, David Brooks,
[35:43.760 --> 35:46.400]  Mark Halperin, and NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
[35:46.400 --> 35:48.840]  Up next, after this brief commercial break.
[35:48.840 --> 35:51.520]  I have a cold.
[35:51.520 --> 35:54.000]  I took NyQuil, but I'm still stuffed up.
[35:54.000 --> 35:56.160]  Truth is, NyQuil doesn't unstuff your nose.
[35:56.160 --> 35:57.160]  Really?
[35:57.160 --> 35:59.920]  Alka-Seltzer Plus Liquid Gels fights your worst cold symptoms, plus it relieves your
[35:59.920 --> 36:02.080]  stuffy nose.
[36:02.080 --> 36:03.080]  Thank you.
[36:03.080 --> 36:05.160]  That's the cold truth.
[36:05.160 --> 36:07.320]  What makes the sleep number store different?
[36:07.320 --> 36:09.800]  You walk into a conventional mattress store.
[36:09.800 --> 36:10.800]  It's really not about you.
[36:10.800 --> 36:13.640]  They say, well, if you want a firm bed, you can lie on one of those.
[36:13.640 --> 36:15.620]  If you want a soft bed, you can lie on one of those.
[36:15.620 --> 36:19.480]  We provide the exact individualization that your body needs.
[36:19.480 --> 36:21.200]  It's really shaping to my body.
[36:21.200 --> 36:23.960]  Once they get our bed, they're like, why didn't I do this sooner?
[36:23.960 --> 36:30.480]  At the Sleep Number year-end closeout event, save up to $800 on selected 2011 bed sets.
[36:30.480 --> 36:33.960]  Only at the Sleep Number store, where queen bed sets now start at just $8.99.
[36:33.960 --> 36:39.880]  Olay, the number one skincare brand in North America, offers its most effective anti-aging
[36:39.880 --> 36:41.760]  regimen to fight the look of wrinkles.
[36:41.760 --> 36:46.600]  Olay Professional Pro-X, developed by Olay with leading dermatologists for professional
[36:46.600 --> 36:49.600]  level results, guaranteed.
[36:49.600 --> 36:56.080]  My husband worked at a power plant where the asbestos fell like snow.
[36:56.080 --> 36:59.640]  My dad got mesothelioma from asbestos.
[36:59.640 --> 37:02.160]  The diagnosis was devastating.
[37:02.160 --> 37:06.240]  We chose Cooney and Conway because they're highly experienced in this area.
[37:06.240 --> 37:07.620]  They were more than lawyers.
[37:07.620 --> 37:08.960]  They were human beings.
[37:08.960 --> 37:11.280]  There was no money up front.
[37:11.280 --> 37:14.760]  It showed my sons that there is justice in the world.
[37:14.760 --> 37:20.440]  Call 1-800-322-5573, Cooney and Conway, justice with a passion.
[37:20.440 --> 37:24.720]  Kent Putnam here to tell you about the incredible offer at Putnam Jeep in Burlingame.
[37:24.720 --> 37:31.200]  Right now, Putnam is taking $5,000 off the sticker price of every new 2011 Jeep Grand
[37:31.200 --> 37:32.320]  Cherokee in stock.
[37:32.320 --> 37:33.960]  No games, no gimmicks.
[37:33.960 --> 37:39.880]  Pick your Jeep Grand Cherokee, take a look at the sticker, then take off $5,000.
[37:39.880 --> 37:46.280]  Plenty of new 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokees in stock and Putnam's taking $5,000 off the sticker
[37:46.280 --> 37:47.280]  price.
[37:47.280 --> 37:56.100]  Only at Putnam Jeep in Burlingame.
[37:56.100 --> 37:57.720]  We are back with our political roundtable.
[37:57.720 --> 38:02.760]  Joining me, Republican strategist, Mike Murphy, New York Times columnist, David, magazine
[38:02.760 --> 38:07.280]  senior political analyst, Mark Halpern, columnist for the Des Moines Register, Kathy Obradovich,
[38:07.280 --> 38:11.400]  and host of Andrea Mitchell reports on MSNBC, NBC's Andrea Mitchell.
[38:11.400 --> 38:12.400]  Welcome everybody.
[38:12.400 --> 38:13.400]  Thanks for being here.
[38:13.400 --> 38:14.400]  Happy New Year.
[38:14.400 --> 38:15.400]  Happy New Year.
[38:15.400 --> 38:16.800]  We've got a great political story to dig into.
[38:16.800 --> 38:20.880]  Major moments of the week in Kathy Obradovich with the Des Moines Register.
[38:20.880 --> 38:22.840]  Iowa as a toss up.
[38:22.840 --> 38:23.840]  Who's going to win this thing?
[38:23.840 --> 38:29.360]  Boy, you know, it is a moving target right now and right now all the movement is behind
[38:29.360 --> 38:31.400]  Rick Santorum.
[38:31.400 --> 38:37.640]  Our poll actually, the first two days that we were in the field this week had Romney
[38:37.640 --> 38:39.540]  and Paul neck and neck.
[38:39.540 --> 38:44.640]  We actually had an illustration on the front page for our paper of Romney and Paul arm
[38:44.640 --> 38:49.520]  wrestling and when we came in, saw the last two days of polling, we had to put in Rick
[38:49.520 --> 38:50.880]  Santorum into the picture.
[38:50.880 --> 38:55.000]  So he is the only candidate that is surging upward right now.
[38:55.000 --> 38:58.320]  Everybody else is static except Ron Paul who is trending down.
[38:58.320 --> 39:00.680]  I think he peaked a week ago.
[39:00.680 --> 39:06.400]  Mike Murphy, you're a veteran of these parts and also of the tactics of expectations.
[39:06.400 --> 39:11.680]  I spoke to some Romney folks last night who actually suggested they think Santorum is
[39:11.680 --> 39:13.160]  going to win this thing.
[39:13.160 --> 39:16.720]  Are they setting us up to say, oh, what a win by Mitt Romney?
[39:16.720 --> 39:19.680]  Well I think they think Santorum might win this thing.
[39:19.680 --> 39:22.440]  They had too easy of a life seven days ago.
[39:22.440 --> 39:26.080]  They had Gingrich declining and they had Ron Paul who would be very easy to beat in the
[39:26.080 --> 39:27.640]  full series of caucuses.
[39:27.640 --> 39:29.600]  So now they've got Rick Santorum coming up fast.
[39:29.600 --> 39:31.300]  I think the surge is totally legitimate.
[39:31.300 --> 39:32.860]  Your poll shows that.
[39:32.860 --> 39:36.080]  And consolidating that social conservative vote, which in the past has always been the
[39:36.080 --> 39:39.040]  key to finishing at least second in the Iowa caucus.
[39:39.040 --> 39:42.400]  So I think they would love to beat Santorum.
[39:42.400 --> 39:46.520]  But if Santorum beats them, they're still in the top two and there's great clarity.
[39:46.520 --> 39:49.160]  There's no way Romney comes out of here a loser if he's in the top two.
[39:49.160 --> 39:52.320]  But now he knows who his opponent is going to be in New Hampshire, which is not social
[39:52.320 --> 39:56.240]  conservative territory at all, and as they roll the process out.
[39:56.240 --> 39:57.960]  So I think the Romney people would like a win.
[39:57.960 --> 39:58.960]  I'm not sure they need one.
[39:58.960 --> 39:59.960]  I'm not sure they think they have one.
[39:59.960 --> 40:00.960]  Well, Mark Hopper, it's interesting.
[40:00.960 --> 40:03.360]  Part of that analysis is, hey, Santorum's good for us.
[40:03.360 --> 40:04.360]  We keep it expanded.
[40:04.360 --> 40:06.920]  You take that field to South Carolina, he'll go after Rick Perry.
[40:06.920 --> 40:10.500]  If Perry can stay in the race, better for Romney.
[40:10.500 --> 40:16.480]  If the issue is who is the stalwart conservative, did Rick Santorum help himself this morning
[40:16.480 --> 40:17.480]  in the final push?
[40:17.480 --> 40:20.320]  I think he had some convoluted answers to two of your questions.
[40:20.320 --> 40:25.240]  One about his support for Mitt Romney four years ago and also on rape and incest exceptions
[40:25.240 --> 40:27.520]  and abortion when he was running in Pennsylvania.
[40:27.520 --> 40:29.240]  Right now I see two buckets of scenarios.
[40:29.240 --> 40:32.240]  There's scenarios that are great for Mitt Romney and there's scenarios that are really
[40:32.240 --> 40:34.380]  good or decent for Mitt Romney.
[40:34.380 --> 40:38.720]  They would love to leave here with the top three in whatever order being Paul, Santorum
[40:38.720 --> 40:42.360]  and Romney because they believe they will never lose in the long run and maybe even
[40:42.360 --> 40:45.280]  the medium run to Santorum or Paul.
[40:45.280 --> 40:49.480]  Gingrich and Perry represent bigger threats for them and I think the worst case for Romney
[40:49.480 --> 40:52.160]  is if one of those two guys surges in the last few days.
[40:52.160 --> 40:55.040]  No indication that will happen, but they're both out there working hard.
[40:55.040 --> 40:56.600]  Andrea Mitchell, you've been out here reporting.
[40:56.600 --> 40:57.600]  What are you seeing?
[40:57.600 --> 41:00.320]  Well, the crowds are much smaller than you'd expect.
[41:00.320 --> 41:04.560]  Smaller than the Huckabee crowds were four years ago, but there's that evangelical core
[41:04.560 --> 41:09.040]  and when we talk about organization and enthusiasm, they're going to come out.
[41:09.040 --> 41:15.040]  And I think that as Mark and the rest of us all noticed with you today, Santorum may have
[41:15.040 --> 41:19.960]  stubbed his toe a bit by you pinning him down on what he said when he was running for reelection
[41:19.960 --> 41:24.840]  in Pennsylvania in 2006, the exceptions that he previously agreed to.
[41:24.840 --> 41:28.240]  The fact that he is willing to compromise, he said, not on his principles, but to get
[41:28.240 --> 41:32.920]  things done a little bit convoluted and the fact that he said he made a political decision
[41:32.920 --> 41:37.240]  to support Mitt Romney against John McCain, a political decision.
[41:37.240 --> 41:41.700]  If the crime, David Brooks, is moderation in today's Republican Party, what are we learning
[41:41.700 --> 41:46.800]  now a couple of days away from actual voting beginning in a Republican caucus about the
[41:46.800 --> 41:47.800]  state of the party?
[41:47.800 --> 41:51.400]  Yeah, it's a pretty conservative party, but they don't want dogmatists and I actually
[41:51.400 --> 41:53.100]  think Santorum helped himself today.
[41:53.100 --> 41:55.360]  His problem is not that he compromises too much.
[41:55.360 --> 41:58.320]  His problem is that people think he's too rigid and he can show that he's a practical
[41:58.320 --> 41:59.320]  politician.
[41:59.320 --> 42:00.800]  I think that's a net plus for him.
[42:00.800 --> 42:04.320]  You know, Iowa has produced some candidates who have not gone on to great success, Huckabee,
[42:04.320 --> 42:05.840]  Pat Robertson many years ago.
[42:05.840 --> 42:09.960]  I don't think Rick Santorum is one of them, in part because he's got some working class
[42:09.960 --> 42:14.600]  credentials as opposed to Romney, in part because he tells a very good story about connecting
[42:14.600 --> 42:17.960]  moral concerns with the economy, and partly he's just a good politician.
[42:17.960 --> 42:21.620]  You know, I covered him in the Senate when he lost badly in Pennsylvania.
[42:21.620 --> 42:23.440]  He was a pretty bad politician.
[42:23.440 --> 42:27.160]  If you look at him today, like you're a baseball scout looking at a pitcher, you'd say, yeah,
[42:27.160 --> 42:29.320]  this guy's good enough to play in the major leagues.
[42:29.320 --> 42:30.920]  So I think he's going to be reasonably strong.
[42:30.920 --> 42:33.920]  I'm not sure he's going to win the nomination, but reasonably strong going out of here.
[42:33.920 --> 42:36.000]  You talked about the economic message that you think is important.
[42:36.000 --> 42:39.080]  Yeah, no, one thing that's not being covered as much because it's based on social conservatives
[42:39.080 --> 42:42.880]  is he's still the guy with the blue state Pennsylvania chops, and he does a very good
[42:42.880 --> 42:46.840]  message on manufacturing jobs, which is a bell ringer in eastern Iowa, which people
[42:46.840 --> 42:50.720]  don't, you know, from outside Iowa don't know is a place with a lot of light manufacturing.
[42:50.720 --> 42:52.040]  And I'd make one other point about this morning.
[42:52.040 --> 42:53.440]  I thought he did fairly well, too.
[42:53.440 --> 42:57.040]  He's always going to be pro-life enough, you know, for the pro-life voters, or that's not
[42:57.040 --> 42:58.320]  going to be his problem.
[42:58.320 --> 43:02.160]  But there's something else happening on Sunday morning, which is in evangelical churches
[43:02.160 --> 43:06.400]  across Iowa, in the pulpit, they're seeing that poll, and they're seeing one of our guys
[43:06.400 --> 43:09.600]  is moving fast, and I think the messages are going to go out that are going to be very
[43:09.600 --> 43:13.800]  bad for Perry, going to be very bad for what's left of Bachman to go with Rick to win this
[43:13.800 --> 43:14.800]  for our side.
[43:14.800 --> 43:18.080]  In other words, Kylie, that social conservatives will move toward him, and they'll say, that's
[43:18.080 --> 43:19.080]  it.
[43:19.080 --> 43:20.080]  That's the alternative we've been looking for.
[43:20.080 --> 43:22.480]  Social conservatives have been like all the other voters in Iowa.
[43:22.480 --> 43:28.420]  They have wanted to give everybody a try, and they are undecided and unwilling to unify.
[43:28.420 --> 43:31.800]  And even in our poll, they are not unified.
[43:31.800 --> 43:36.360]  Rick Santorum polled about 23 percent of people who describe themselves as born again, but
[43:36.360 --> 43:40.320]  Ron Paul and Mitt Romney each got 18 percent.
[43:40.320 --> 43:41.720]  So they're not united.
[43:41.720 --> 43:47.840]  They may indeed start moving that way in the interest of having one of them, as Mike said,
[43:47.840 --> 43:48.840]  at the top.
[43:48.840 --> 43:54.320]  Are we not, this is for everybody, the volatility we've seen in the polling here and who comes
[43:54.320 --> 43:57.760]  out of these debates, what does that tell us?
[43:57.760 --> 44:02.640]  Is it ultimately going to be portrayed as whether Romney can get above that 25 percent
[44:02.640 --> 44:03.640]  threshold?
[44:03.640 --> 44:04.640]  Is that not the big issue?
[44:04.640 --> 44:06.400]  I actually think it's a little deeper.
[44:06.400 --> 44:09.160]  One of the things that struck me from all the rallies I've seen out here is a sense
[44:09.160 --> 44:13.880]  the country has gone seriously off course, and it's a values thing.
[44:13.880 --> 44:17.560]  And all the campaigns are trying to tap into this saying, we've lost it, let's restore,
[44:17.560 --> 44:19.520]  let's go back to what we've lost.
[44:19.520 --> 44:22.720]  And you see that in the crowds when you talk to the people, but when you ask them, what
[44:22.720 --> 44:24.880]  do you want to do, no one has a clue.
[44:24.880 --> 44:26.880]  Because the problems are so difficult.
[44:26.880 --> 44:32.480]  And when you feel that anger, it's that wrong track number that we see, it's the anger
[44:32.480 --> 44:33.480]  against Washington.
[44:33.480 --> 44:38.920]  Ron Paul, early on, tapped into that, I think he really hurt himself on foreign policy and
[44:38.920 --> 44:41.760]  on making himself not electable.
[44:41.760 --> 44:46.720]  The sense in the polls that we saw, starting with the polls on Wednesday, then our poll
[44:46.720 --> 44:52.920]  on Friday, and yours today, he's just not acceptable to so many people because of his
[44:52.920 --> 44:55.160]  foreign policy positions.
[44:55.160 --> 44:58.920]  And going into South Carolina in particular, that's going to be a very big problem.
[44:58.920 --> 45:02.000]  My gut as an old Paul has always been the Ron Paul thing's overrated, and I'll go on
[45:02.000 --> 45:06.360]  the dangerous prediction limit, thinking he'll be the surprise disappointing finish.
[45:06.360 --> 45:09.880]  A lot of his function is, will new people show up at the caucus?
[45:09.880 --> 45:12.680]  And we always get seduced by this argument, because it's so much fun, a bunch of Martians
[45:12.680 --> 45:16.040]  are going to land, we're going to have a Martian, historically, new people don't.
[45:16.040 --> 45:19.280]  It's Republican primary voters and activists, the question is, within the range.
[45:19.280 --> 45:22.600]  I think because of the wrong track energy and frustration, turnout will actually be
[45:22.600 --> 45:24.440]  a little higher than last time, not a lot, just a little.
[45:24.440 --> 45:27.480]  Let's take the poll to show that 27% of this poll, our new caucus goes.
[45:27.480 --> 45:30.360]  And Barack Obama did bring new people into the caucus.
[45:30.360 --> 45:33.280]  You know, I think that we've got a different electorate than we did in 2008, because the
[45:33.280 --> 45:35.040]  Democrats don't have a contest.
[45:35.040 --> 45:40.800]  So you have people who are independents in particular, who want a caucus, and a lot of
[45:40.800 --> 45:43.400]  them are going toward Ron Paul.
[45:43.400 --> 45:47.100]  He is the least ideological on the social issues.
[45:47.100 --> 45:52.240]  And also, what we're getting is, I think, a desperation for real change.
[45:52.240 --> 45:55.800]  And I think a lot of those folks are flocking toward Ron Paul, because he is the guy who
[45:55.800 --> 45:57.160]  is completely different.
[45:57.160 --> 45:59.920]  I think he was a sentiment, which is what all these polls measure early.
[45:59.920 --> 46:01.040]  They're a noise meter.
[46:01.040 --> 46:02.040]  But now it's time for voting.
[46:02.040 --> 46:03.040]  I don't know if he's a vote.
[46:03.040 --> 46:04.040]  And I think he collects.
[46:04.040 --> 46:05.240]  Can I interject something else into this?
[46:05.240 --> 46:10.920]  So here's the Sun in New York Times, and the lead story is Obama's strategy for 12-election
[46:10.920 --> 46:12.080]  attack Congress.
[46:12.080 --> 46:16.440]  Now, White House officials I've talked to say that that was sensationalized, that that
[46:16.440 --> 46:20.680]  was overwritten, that yes, the president's going to talk about contrast with Congress,
[46:20.680 --> 46:24.040]  but he certainly hopes and will work for cooperation.
[46:24.040 --> 46:28.320]  But we're beginning to see the outlines already in this contest of what the general election
[46:28.320 --> 46:29.800]  will look like.
[46:29.800 --> 46:32.760]  The general election campaign, no matter who the nominee is.
[46:32.760 --> 46:38.880]  Now, here was then Senator Obama when he won in Iowa back in 2008.
[46:38.880 --> 46:40.240]  This is what he said in part.
[46:40.240 --> 46:48.120]  The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges
[46:48.120 --> 46:55.280]  we face, who will listen to you and learn from you even when we disagree, who won't
[46:55.280 --> 47:01.480]  just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.
[47:01.480 --> 47:06.200]  And Mitt Romney on the campaign trail this week is actually shadowing where President
[47:06.200 --> 47:10.180]  Obama, then Senator Obama, campaigned in Iowa, and he's got a very different message.
[47:10.180 --> 47:12.280]  This is it in part.
[47:12.280 --> 47:17.600]  Four years ago this week, the Barack Obama visited Davenport, and he gave a speech right
[47:17.600 --> 47:19.160]  down the street.
[47:19.160 --> 47:23.280]  And like most of his campaign speeches, it was long on promises.
[47:23.280 --> 47:26.360]  He promised that he was going to bring people together.
[47:26.360 --> 47:28.480]  And then he closed his speech with these words.
[47:28.480 --> 47:31.040]  He says, this is our moment.
[47:31.040 --> 47:33.040]  This is our time.
[47:33.040 --> 47:37.600]  Well, Mr. President, you've had your moment.
[47:37.600 --> 47:39.520]  We've seen the results.
[47:39.520 --> 47:42.920]  And now, Mr. President, this is our time.
[47:42.920 --> 47:47.000]  So here's the contrast, Mark Halpern.
[47:47.000 --> 47:51.160]  The argument is that the transformational leader that President Obama was supposed to
[47:51.160 --> 47:54.640]  be, the truth teller, was going to tell Americans what they needed to know, not what they wanted
[47:54.640 --> 47:57.200]  to know, that that leader has failed to show.
[47:57.200 --> 48:01.340]  It's clearly the strongest message any Republican can have, and Mitt Romney has driven it better
[48:01.340 --> 48:03.040]  than anyone else in the field.
[48:03.040 --> 48:08.480]  He also has run, by every metric you can use to judge a campaign, fundraising, opposition
[48:08.480 --> 48:12.580]  research, tactic strategy, far and away the best campaign of anyone in the race.
[48:12.580 --> 48:13.880]  And the White House is ready for him.
[48:13.880 --> 48:19.740]  Last night, New Year's Eve, Romney in a late-day event says he would veto the DREAM Act, giving
[48:19.740 --> 48:22.800]  more opportunity to immigrants to this country.
[48:22.800 --> 48:24.600]  The White House jumped on that.
[48:24.600 --> 48:28.520]  New Year's Eve, David Axelrod, the president's adviser, tweeting about it, DNC putting out
[48:28.520 --> 48:29.640]  a press release.
[48:29.640 --> 48:31.120]  They are very aggressive.
[48:31.120 --> 48:32.560]  They are very skilled.
[48:32.560 --> 48:36.240]  If you're looking for electability, though, again, the only operation out there right
[48:36.240 --> 48:40.560]  now that's got anything like the potential of the scale that the president will bring
[48:40.560 --> 48:41.560]  to this is Mitt Romney.
[48:41.560 --> 48:43.720]  I would say he's got the organizational scale.
[48:43.720 --> 48:45.720]  His events are like big aircraft carriers.
[48:45.720 --> 48:48.120]  I have a little problem with the messaging, though.
[48:48.120 --> 48:50.280]  Here it's all patriotism, it's Tom Sawyer.
[48:50.280 --> 48:51.280]  I love America.
[48:51.280 --> 48:52.560]  I used to drive through a lot of national parks.
[48:52.560 --> 48:53.560]  You love America.
[48:53.560 --> 48:57.120]  And the subtext is, you know, you might think I'm a rich guy with a strange religion, but
[48:57.120 --> 48:58.120]  I'm just like you.
[48:58.120 --> 49:02.720]  I actually think that's probably not enough to win in a country where people feel it's
[49:02.720 --> 49:06.960]  in decline, that the scope of his plans are not as big as the scope of the problems.
[49:06.960 --> 49:07.960]  A problem that also applies to Barack Obama.
[49:07.960 --> 49:09.960]  But it's enough for this week, though, right, potentially?
[49:09.960 --> 49:10.960]  Potentially, yeah.
[49:10.960 --> 49:13.480]  Well, and the president is not going to be silent, also.
[49:13.480 --> 49:14.960]  Right, there'll be all over the place.
[49:14.960 --> 49:20.160]  Andrea, take that on, because this is a big issue about whether President Obama has measured
[49:20.160 --> 49:21.160]  up as a leader.
[49:21.160 --> 49:27.160]  I mean, there's real fears of national decline, a sense that the country's on the wrong track.
[49:27.160 --> 49:30.960]  This is a campaign about big things, ultimately, for voters.
[49:30.960 --> 49:32.920]  And the president is trying to respond to that.
[49:32.920 --> 49:36.640]  He's actually doing a video message to all of the Democratic caucus goers.
[49:36.640 --> 49:41.560]  He wants to be present in some fashion, so he is going to have Democratic caucusing with
[49:41.560 --> 49:44.400]  a presidential message by video.
[49:44.400 --> 49:49.200]  But the point is that he has not yet found a way, he has not found his voice.
[49:49.200 --> 49:53.720]  And they say that the New York Times story is overwritten, that he's running against
[49:53.720 --> 49:54.720]  Congress.
[49:54.720 --> 49:56.280]  That has worked for him in the payroll tax fight.
[49:56.280 --> 49:59.760]  But he still has to find that message for the state of the union, for whatever his next
[49:59.760 --> 50:00.760]  platform is going to be.
[50:00.760 --> 50:02.840]  That is obviously the next one.
[50:02.840 --> 50:07.740]  To tell people how the country can be better at a time where his only economic message
[50:07.740 --> 50:10.840]  can be, it's not as bad as it could have been.
[50:10.840 --> 50:11.840]  It's better than it was.
[50:11.840 --> 50:14.960]  And the Republicans will make it worse, they'll take you back.
[50:14.960 --> 50:18.320]  Off David's point, there's a really interesting question for Mitt Romney next week.
[50:18.320 --> 50:20.840]  I think it's highly likely that Santorum will come out here for a lot of energy.
[50:20.840 --> 50:24.200]  I don't know if he's second or first, but it'll settle down to that'll be what the
[50:24.200 --> 50:25.200]  media wants, so it'll be the race.
[50:25.200 --> 50:27.280]  And Rick will come at it from the right, particularly the social right.
[50:27.280 --> 50:29.560]  If you're running the Romney campaign, you've got a choice.
[50:29.560 --> 50:32.240]  You either just grind it out and have a contest on the right.
[50:32.240 --> 50:35.400]  You say you're pro-life, gay marriage, I say I'm pro-life.
[50:35.400 --> 50:38.680]  The White House is going to be giggling for three months at that.
[50:38.680 --> 50:42.120]  Or do you know you've got the organizational strength and the depth, Santorum, it'll be
[50:42.120 --> 50:45.920]  like drinking from a fire hose for him to try to catch up if he comes out of here.
[50:45.920 --> 50:47.160]  Do you triangulate a little bit?
[50:47.160 --> 50:51.000]  Do you take a few risks in the primary, but do you bounce off Santorum to grab the middle
[50:51.000 --> 50:54.240]  again, which is a much better general election strategy, it's a little risky in a primary.
[50:54.240 --> 50:59.080]  I want to get back to tactics in just a second, but David Brooks, stay on this larger theme,
[50:59.080 --> 51:03.320]  which is the White House, I talked to senior advisors and say, look, we can win the broader
[51:03.320 --> 51:05.840]  vision of where the country is going and where it should go.
[51:05.840 --> 51:08.300]  We can win independent voters on that message.
[51:08.300 --> 51:11.280]  What is the vision that we're learning about of this Republican party?
[51:11.280 --> 51:13.840]  Well, it's a vision that thinks government is too big.
[51:13.840 --> 51:15.760]  It's become the government party.
[51:15.760 --> 51:19.400]  And the thing which I think Santorum brings to the table, which the others don't talk
[51:19.400 --> 51:22.880]  about as well, is community and values.
[51:22.880 --> 51:26.160]  He was a big anti-poverty guy when he was in the Congress.
[51:26.160 --> 51:29.600]  He really talks about families and ties that to business a little better.
[51:29.600 --> 51:35.320]  That's been lacking from what has become a very libertarian, anti-tax, economics-only
[51:35.320 --> 51:36.320]  party.
[51:36.320 --> 51:38.240]  And it is in danger of reverting back into that sort of thing.
[51:38.240 --> 51:41.480]  Kathy, what are the storylines that come out of Tuesday, as you see them?
[51:41.480 --> 51:43.440]  Well, I think that there's a couple things.
[51:43.440 --> 51:47.680]  One that we're very interested in here in Iowa is just how are the Iowa caucuses viewed
[51:47.680 --> 51:48.680]  nationally.
[51:48.680 --> 51:51.760]  And the results here will feed into that discussion.
[51:51.760 --> 51:56.560]  Does somebody come out of Iowa that people perceive has very little chance of being the
[51:56.560 --> 51:59.160]  nominee, like Ron Paul or Rick Santorum?
[51:59.160 --> 52:03.000]  That's something that we're worried about, and some Republicans are worried about that.
[52:03.000 --> 52:09.360]  And finally, I think that the question then is how do the conservatives fare in the future
[52:09.360 --> 52:10.360]  here in Iowa?
[52:10.360 --> 52:11.760]  Mark Halpern?
[52:11.760 --> 52:15.880]  Every time Mitt Romney has been challenged in this process, his very well-skilled opposition
[52:15.880 --> 52:18.920]  research team has killed the person who's challenged them.
[52:18.920 --> 52:19.920]  They killed Rick Perry.
[52:19.920 --> 52:20.920]  They killed Newt Gingrich.
[52:20.920 --> 52:23.040]  They haven't lifted a finger to kill Rick Santorum.
[52:23.040 --> 52:26.040]  And if he does come out of here, as Mike's right, it's perceived, at least in the short
[52:26.040 --> 52:27.520]  term, as a two-person race.
[52:27.520 --> 52:30.640]  He may not have to choose between triangulation and competing on the right.
[52:30.640 --> 52:34.760]  They may just tactically kill Rick Santorum with an opposition research file that's like
[52:34.760 --> 52:35.760]  this.
[52:35.760 --> 52:36.760]  That's what I predict will happen.
[52:36.760 --> 52:38.400]  And then the question will be, can Santorum survive that?
[52:38.400 --> 52:40.800]  Does he have the skill and the ability to fight back?
[52:40.800 --> 52:42.300]  Because he won't have the infrastructure.
[52:42.300 --> 52:43.300]  He won't have the money.
[52:43.300 --> 52:46.720]  As he's talked about with you, he won't have the big endorsements and the people backing
[52:46.720 --> 52:47.720]  him to help him.
[52:47.720 --> 52:53.720]  And I mean, almost $17 million spent in blanketing the airwaves here in Iowa, these outside groups,
[52:53.720 --> 52:55.960]  these super PACs are pounding.
[52:55.960 --> 52:59.400]  And they did it without Romney having to lift a finger.
[52:59.400 --> 53:02.960]  And the fact that Romney is not perceived, there is no blowback as there has been in
[53:02.960 --> 53:08.680]  past campaigns because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which now has opened
[53:08.680 --> 53:13.200]  the door for these super PACs to come in, and they just killed Gingrich, just pummeled
[53:13.200 --> 53:14.200]  him.
[53:14.200 --> 53:20.040]  Not that he might not have self-destructed anyway, but they just went after him hammer
[53:20.040 --> 53:22.360]  and tong, and Mitt Romney doesn't get the blame.
[53:22.360 --> 53:25.100]  Santorum's good for Mitt Romney right now.
[53:25.100 --> 53:28.200]  The minute he's no longer good for him, the super PACs will shift their focus.
[53:28.200 --> 53:30.240]  What's the storyline Wednesday morning that we're covering?
[53:30.240 --> 53:33.120]  Who the hell is Santorum?
[53:33.120 --> 53:34.120]  But there's a point about this.
[53:34.120 --> 53:35.160]  It's not just the super PACs.
[53:35.160 --> 53:39.520]  And easier to crush a guy with negative ads in one state than in ten, Santorum is, I think,
[53:39.520 --> 53:42.080]  a lot more competitive than Ron Paul would be.
[53:42.080 --> 53:43.080]  But it's the media.
[53:43.080 --> 53:47.280]  The media works like the Jurassic Park dinosaurs, 30 feet tall, huge teeth, with all due respect,
[53:47.280 --> 53:49.880]  not always the biggest brain, and it follows movement.
[53:49.880 --> 53:54.280]  And when it sees movement, Rick Santorum stops over there and tries to eat Rick Santorum.
[53:54.280 --> 53:55.680]  And that's what next week is going to be like.
[53:55.680 --> 53:58.280]  He's going to be the happiest guy in the world, I think, Tuesday night.
[53:58.280 --> 54:02.080]  Wednesday he's got to stand on his head, drink from a fire hose without drowning, and learn
[54:02.080 --> 54:04.880]  Chinese in one week to roll this thing out nationally.
[54:04.880 --> 54:05.880]  Not impossible.
[54:05.880 --> 54:07.960]  It's going to be hard, and he's going to get looked at hard.
[54:07.960 --> 54:11.600]  One of the weird things, I mean, Mike thinks we have small brains, but Rick Santorum really
[54:11.600 --> 54:13.120]  hates us sometimes.
[54:13.120 --> 54:16.960]  And when Santorum ran a bad campaign, which he did when he tried to get reelected in Pennsylvania,
[54:16.960 --> 54:21.960]  it's because he got obsessed with the media, he got very sour, and then he self-destructed.
[54:21.960 --> 54:24.120]  And we'll see how temperamentally he reacts to this sort of thing.
[54:24.120 --> 54:27.520]  Where does this thing get decided, Andrea?
[54:27.520 --> 54:32.560]  It could get decided in South Carolina or Florida, if not sooner.
[54:32.560 --> 54:36.400]  Let's look at the calendar to remind people where we go as we move forward.
[54:36.400 --> 54:40.360]  Tuesday, of course, the Iowa caucuses.
[54:40.360 --> 54:43.000]  New Hampshire primary is January 10th.
[54:43.000 --> 54:46.840]  The following Tuesday, January 21st is South Carolina.
[54:46.840 --> 54:48.120]  January 31st, Florida.
[54:48.120 --> 54:50.560]  Mark, this is a busy January.
[54:50.560 --> 54:55.640]  Is this augur for it being wrapped up in January, or does this become a drawn-out 2008-like
[54:55.640 --> 54:56.640]  affair?
[54:56.640 --> 55:01.880]  Unless someone can beat Mitt Romney in one of the first four, or two of the first four,
[55:01.880 --> 55:04.200]  I think it's wrapped up by the State of the Union.
[55:04.200 --> 55:07.680]  If he's caught and he shows a lot of weakness, that's a different story.
[55:07.680 --> 55:10.400]  But there's no indication of that right now.
[55:10.400 --> 55:15.180]  If he wins New Hampshire and he wins Florida, that's a neckbreaker on everybody else.
[55:15.180 --> 55:18.480]  Not impossible to win the delegate count as later, but I think he is the commanding frontrunner
[55:18.480 --> 55:20.640]  the day after the Florida primary if he has a strong victory.
[55:20.640 --> 55:23.120]  How vulnerable is President Obama?
[55:23.120 --> 55:24.120]  He's vulnerable.
[55:24.120 --> 55:27.120]  I'd say he's now a slight underdog, very slight.
[55:27.120 --> 55:28.120]  The economy's going to be terrible.
[55:28.120 --> 55:29.880]  Who knows what's going to happen to Europe?
[55:29.880 --> 55:30.880]  So he's vulnerable.
[55:30.880 --> 55:32.880]  He doesn't have the strongest opposition in the world.
[55:32.880 --> 55:34.840]  Cathy, you're on the ground here in Iowa.
[55:34.840 --> 55:36.080]  Who's going to win this thing?
[55:36.080 --> 55:38.280]  You know, I can't predict it.
[55:38.280 --> 55:41.760]  It's too fast-moving, but I will predict that a lot of people are going to make up their
[55:41.760 --> 55:45.520]  mind on caucus night, and very well could be a surprise.
[55:45.520 --> 55:46.520]  All right.
[55:46.520 --> 55:47.520]  We'll leave it there.
[55:47.520 --> 55:48.520]  Thank you very much.
[55:48.520 --> 55:49.840]  Before we go, a programming note.
[55:49.840 --> 55:55.180]  Next Sunday morning is our live NBC News Facebook Republican presidential debate right here
[55:55.180 --> 55:59.020]  on Meet the Press, the final debate before the New Hampshire primary.
[55:59.020 --> 56:02.520]  For the past month, we've been asking New Hampshire Facebook users what the most important
[56:02.520 --> 56:04.520]  issue is for the New Hampshire primary.
[56:04.520 --> 56:09.180]  An overwhelming majority, as you might suspect, 58 percent say it is, in fact, the economy.
[56:09.180 --> 56:13.440]  So if you have a question you'd like asked in the debate, go to our Facebook page.
[56:13.440 --> 56:17.740]  That's at Facebook.com slash meet the press, and you can post it there.
[56:17.740 --> 56:18.740]  That is all for today.
[56:18.740 --> 56:21.680]  I'll be on the ground here in Iowa through the caucuses and then on to New Hampshire
[56:21.680 --> 56:23.320]  reporting on the primary.
[56:23.320 --> 56:27.340]  We'll be back next week with our live presidential candidate debate.
[56:27.340 --> 56:56.560]  If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
[56:56.560 --> 57:26.440]  We'll be right back.
[57:26.440 --> 57:51.600]  Make Nutrisystem Success Your Plan.
[57:51.600 --> 57:56.480]  For now, to get special introductory pricing and our new chef's table entrees free, plus
[57:56.480 --> 57:59.480]  save 20 percent on your entire order.
[57:59.480 --> 58:26.200]  We'll be right back on it.
[58:26.200 --> 58:42.640]  Enjoy.
[58:42.640 --> 58:44.120]  Indulge all you want.
[58:44.120 --> 58:47.200]  Now there's no need to hold back.
[58:47.200 --> 58:52.240]  New revolutionary scope dual blast obliterates strong food orders, leaving your bread minty
[58:52.240 --> 58:53.240]  fresh.
[58:53.240 --> 58:55.720]  So there's no trace of leavening.
[58:55.720 --> 58:56.720]  New scope dual blast.
[58:56.720 --> 59:03.680]  What is it about taking a first step that we find so compelling?
[59:03.680 --> 59:11.320]  Is it because taking a step represents hope or triumph?
[59:11.320 --> 59:16.600]  At Genworth, we believe in taking small steps every day to keep your promises, protect what
[59:16.600 --> 59:20.200]  matters and prepare for a secure financial future.
[59:20.200 --> 59:24.640]  No matter where you want to go, one step at a time is the only way to get there.
[59:24.640 --> 59:25.640]  Go to genworth.com.
[59:25.640 --> 59:26.640]  Promises.
[59:26.640 --> 59:27.640]  Whoa.
[59:27.640 --> 59:31.080]  This is not the number we talked about.
[59:31.080 --> 59:32.560]  That's our phone number.
[59:32.560 --> 59:35.800]  No surprise pricing is one thing that makes Pearl Vision different, and here's something
[59:35.800 --> 59:36.800]  else.
[59:36.800 --> 59:39.320]  Buy a pair of eyeglasses or prescription sunglasses, and we'll give you another pair
[59:39.320 --> 59:40.320]  free.
[59:40.320 --> 59:53.600]  Visit pearlvision.com for a store near you.
[59:53.600 --> 59:58.480]  Our dogs deserve to eat fresher, less processed foods, just like we do.
[59:58.480 --> 01:00:25.480]  Introducing Fresh Pet.