we don't make good deals anymore.
>> my philosophy on radical islamic terrorism is very
simple-- we win, they lose. >> the world is a better
place, it's a safer place when we are the strongest
military in the world. >> i believe we have an
obliexwaigz to help people who live in the shadows.
>> we were fiscally responsible.
we took leadership positions.
we're innovative. >> we must restore our place
as the leader and indispensable power of the
free world. >> we are going to make
america great again.
>> tonight, live from the peace center in greenville,
south carolina, cbs news brings you the republican
presidential debate. ( applause )
>> moderator: good evening, i'm john dickerson.
this holiday weekend as america honors our first
president, we're about to hear from six men who hope
to be the 45th. the candidates for the
republican nomination are here in south carolina for
their ninth debate, one week before this state holds the
first-in-the south primary. george washington wrote that
the truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains
taken to bring it to light. we hope to shed some polite
lite on the candidates' positions tonight to help
voters make up their minds. so, gentlemen, please join
us on stage. ( applause )
>> moderator: with us tonight, with us tonight are
retired neurosurgeon, ben carson, of florida.
senator marco rubio of florida.
( applause ) businessman, donald trump of
new york. ( applause )
senator ted cruz of texas. ( applause )
former governor jeb bush of florida.
( applause ) and governor john kasich of
ohio. ( applause )
now as most of you have heard by now, supreme court
justice antonin scalia died today at the age of 79.
he was the longest serving member of the court,
appointed by president reagan in 1986.
justice scalia was the court's leading conservativ
conservative, and even those who disagreed with his
opinions regarded him as a brilliant legal scholar.
please join us and the candidates on our stage in a
moment of silence for justice antonin scalia.
thank you. we will talk to the
candidates about justice scalia and the road ahead
when the debate begins in
>> moderator: before we get started, candidates,
here are the rules. when we ask you a question,
you will have one minute to answer.
and 30 seconds more if we ask a follow-up.
if you're attacked by another candidate, you get
30 seconds to respond. and here's how we keep time.
after we ask a question, you'll get a green light.
the yellow light means you have 30 seconds left to
finish your answer. and when time sup, the light
turns red. that means please stop
talking. if you keep talking, you
will hear this. ( bell )
you don't want to hear that. joining me in the
questioning tonight my cbs news colleague chief white
house correspondent major garrett.
and kimberly strassel, who is on the editorial board of
the "wall street journal." and you can participate in
the debate, too, through our partnership with twitter.
tweet us your questions and comments using the hashtag
#gopdebate. let's begin.
first, the death of justice scalia and the vacancy that
leaves on the supreme court, mr. trump, i want to start
with you. you've said that the
president shouldn't nominate anyone in the rest of his
term to replace justice scalia.
if you were president and had a chance with 11 months
left to go in your term, wouldn't it be an abdication
to conservatives in particular not to name a
conservative justice for the rest of your term?
>> well, i can say this-- if the president-- and if i
were president now-- i would certainly want to try and
nominate a justice. and i'm sure that, frankly,
i'm absolutely sure that president obama will try and
do it. i hope that our senate is
going to be able-- mitch and the entire group-- is going
to be able to do something about it in times of delay.
we could have a diane sykes or a bill pryor.
we have some fantastic people bup but this is a
from blow to conservatism. it's a tremendous blow,
frankly, to our country. >> moderator: just to be
clear, mr. trump, you're okay with the president
nominating somebody? >> i think he is going to do
it whether i'm okay with it or not.
it's up to mitch mcconnell and everybody else to stop
it. it's called delay, delay,
delay. ( applause )
>> moderator: governor kasich, i want to get your
thoughts on this. justice scalia was a real
believer, obviously, in the strict word of the
constitution. now, harry reid says that a
failure to fill his vacancy would be "shameful
abdication of one of the senate's most essential
constitutional responsibilities."
where do you come down on this?
>> well, john, first of all, if i were president, we
wouldn't have the divisions in the country we have
today. and i do want to take a
second, as we reflecte reflecten justice scalia, it's amaze,
it's not even two minutes after the death of justice
scalia, nine children here today, their father didn't
wake up, his wife, you know, sad, but, you know, i just
wish we hadn't run so fast into politics.
here's my concern about this.
the country is so divided right now, and now we're
going to see another partisan fight taking place.
i really wish the president would think about not
nominating somebody. if he were to nominate
somebody, let's have him pick somebody hois going to
have unanimous approval and such widespread approval
across the country that this could happen without a lot
of recrimination. i don't think that's going
to happen. and i would like the
president to just for once here put the country first.
we're going to have an election for president very
soon and the people will understand what is at stake
in that election. and so i believe the
president should not move forward, and i think that we
ought to let the next president of the united
states decide who is going to run that supreme court
with a vote by the people of the united states of
america. ( bell )
( applause ). >> moderator: dr. carson,
you, like others, put out a statement after the death
was announced and you said the president should delay.
you've written a book on the constitution recently.
what does the constitution say about whose duty it is
here to act in this kind of a situation?
>> well, the constitution actually doesn't address
that particular situation. but the fact of the matter
is, the supreme court, obviously, is a very
important part of our governmental system, and
when our constitution was put in place, the average
age of death was under 50. and, therefore, the whole
concept of lifetime appointments for supreme
court judges and federal judges was not considered to
be a big deal. obviously, that has changed.
and it's something that probably needs to be looked
at pretty carefully at some point.
but we need to start thinking about the
divisiveness that is going on in our country.
i looked at some of the remarks that people made
after finding out that justice scalia had died, and
they were truly nasty remarks.
and that we have managed to get to that position in our
country is truly a shame. and we should be thinking
about how can we create some healing in this land.
but right now, we're not going to get healing with
president obama. that's very clear.
so i ( bell )
fully agree that we should not allow a judge to be
appointed during his time. >> moderator: senator
rubio-- ( applause )
senator rubio, you're a lawyer.
quickly, can you address the issue of whether the
constitution tells us who has the power to appoint
supreme court justices? and then, also, the senate
republicans last year floated an idea of removing
the filibuster for senate-- excuse me, for supreme court
nominations. you seemed open to that.
what's your feeling on that now?
>> let me first talk about justice scalia.
the loss is is tremendous and obviously our exphaerts
prayers go out to his family.
he will go down as one of the great justices in the
history of this republic. you talk about somebody who
defended the original meaning of the constitution,
who understood that the constitution was not there
to be interpreted based on the fadz of the moment, but
it was there to be interpreted according to its
original meaning. justice scalia understood
that better than anyone in the history of this
republic. his dissent on the
independent counsel case is a brilliant piece of jurist
work and his dissent on oberrer felled.
i do not believe the president should appoint
someone. it's been over 80 years
since a lame duck president has appoint a supreme court
justice. and it remind of us this--
how important this election is.
someone on this stage will get to choose the balance of
the supreme court, and it will begin by filling this
vacancy that's there now, and we need to put people on
the bench that understand the constitution is not a
living and breathing document.
it is to be interpreted as originally meant.
>> moderator: quickly, though on the question--
( applause ) very quickly, senator, on
this specific question, though.
you were once in favor of dropping the threshold--
>> that's not accurate. >> moderator: you were
never in favor of that. >> for example, today,
according to the changes harry reid made, appellate
judges can now be appointed by simple majority, but not
supreme court justices and today i think you see the
wisdom of why we don't that want to change.
because if that were the case and we were not in
charge of the senate harry expreed barack obama would
ram down our throat a liberal justice, like the
ones barack obama has imposed on us already.
>> moderator: senator bush, i want to ask you,
creativities for a long time have felt their republican
presidents have picked justices who didn't turn out
to be conservative. bernie sanders said he would
have a litmus test. would you have a litmus test
for a nominee, and what would it be?
>> not on specific issues, not at all.
i think the next president-- if i'm president i will
appoint people-- nominate people that have a proven
record in the judiciary. the problem in the past has
been we have appointed people thinking you can get
it through the senate because they didn't have a
record. and the problem is that
sometimes we're surprised. the simple fact is the next
president needs to appoint someone with a proven
conservative record, similar to justice scalia, that is a
lover of liberty, that believes in limited
government, that consistently applied that
kind of philosophy, that didn't try to legislator
from the bench, that was respectful of the
constitution. and then fight and fight,
and fight for that nomination to make sure that
that nomination passes. of course, the president, by
the way, has every right to nominate supreme court
justices. i'm an article 2 guy in the
constitution. we're running for the
president of the united states.
we want a strong executive for sure.
but in return for that, there should be a consensus
orientation on that nomination, and there's no
doubt in my mind that barack obama will not have a
consensus pick when he submits that person to the
senate. >> moderator: right, so,
senator cruz, the constitution--
( applause ) so senator cruz, the
constitution says the president shall appoint with
advice and concept from the senate, just to clear that
up. so he has the constitutional
power. but you don't think he
should. where do you set that date
if you're president? does does it begin in
election year, in december, november, september?
and once you set the date, when you're president, will
you abide by that date? >> well, we have 80 years of
precedent of not confirming supreme court justices in an
election year. and let me say--
>> moderator: i'm sorry to interrupt, were any
appointed in the election year or--
>> 80 years of not confirming.
for example, l.b.j., nominated abe fordyce.
fordyce did not get confirmed.
he was defeated. >> moderator: kennedy was
confirmed in '88. >> in '87.
>> moderator: that's the question, is it appointing
or confirming? >>
>> in this case it's both. if i could finish--
>> moderator: sorry, i want to get the facts
straight for the audience. i apologize.
( booing ). >> justice scalia was a
legal giant. he was somebody that i knew
for 20 years. he was a brilliant man.
he was faithful to the constitution.
he changed the arc of american legal history.
and i'll tell you, his passing tonight, our prayers
are with his family, with his wife, maureen, who he
adored, his nine children, his 36 grand kids.
but it underscores the stakes of this election.
we are one justice away from a supreme court that will
strike down every restriction on abortion
adopted by the states. we are one justice away from
a supreme court that will reverse the heller decision,
one of justice scalia's seminal decisions that
upheld want second amendment right to keep and bear arms.
we are one justice away from a supreme court that would
undermine the religious liberty of millions of
americans and the stakes of this election, for this
year, for the senate, the senate needs to stand strong
and say we're not gonna give up the u.s. supreme court
for a generation by allowing barack obama to make one
more liberal appointee. and then for the state of
south carolina, one of the most important judgments for
the men and women of south carolina to make, is who on
this stage ( bell )
has the background, the principle, the character be,
the judgment, and the strength of resolve to
nominate and confirm principled
constitutionalists to the court?
that will be what i doll if i'm elected president.
( applause ) >> moderator: thank you,
senator cruz. all right, we're going to
move on to national security here, and we are going to--
i want to read a quote from secretary robert gates,
former defense secretary robert gates, who served
for-- under eight presidents.
and this is what he said about republican candidates.
"part of the concern they have the campaign is that
the solutions being offered are so simplistic and so at
odds with the way the world really works."
so in that spirit we're going to work tonight to be
more specific. mr. trump, i want to start
with you. you said as president you'll
get up to speed very quickly.
you'll know more quickly as president than any of the
experts. so you've been elected
president. it's your first day in the
situation room. what three questions do you
ask your national security experts about the world?
>> what we want to do, when we want to do and it.
and how hard do we want to hit?
because we are going to have to hit very, very hard to
knock out isis. we are also going to have to
learn who our allies are. we have allies, so-called
allies. we're spending billions and
billions of dollars supporting people we have no
idea who they are in syria. do we want to stay that
route on do we want to go and make something with
russia? i hate to say iran, but with
russia because we-- the iran deal is one of the worst
deals i have ever seen negotiated in my entire
life. it's a disgrace that this
country negotiated that deal.
( applause ) but very important-- not
only a disgrace. it's a disgrace and an
embarrassment. but very important, who are
we fighting with? who are we fighting for?
what are we doing? we have to rebuild our cray.
i'm the only one on this stage that said do not go
into iraq. do not attack iraq.
nobody else on this stage said that.
i said it loud and strong. and i was in the private
sector. i wasn't a politician.
fortunately. but i said it, and i said it
loud and clear, you'll destabilize the middle east.
that's exactly what happened.
i also said, by the way, four years ago, three years
ago ( bell
( attack the oil. take the wealth away.
attack the oil and keep the oil.
they didn't listen. they just started that a few
months ago. ( applause ).
>> moderator: senator rubio-- 30 seconds on this
question, senator rubio. are those the questions you
would ask? >> no, i think there are
three major threats you want to immediately get on top
of. number one is, what are we
doing in the asia pacific region where both north
korea and china pose threats to the national security of
the united states. number two is what are we
doing in the middle east with the combination of the
sunni-shi'a conflict driven by the shi'a arc that iran
is now trying to establish in the middle east and the
growing threat of isis. and the third is rebuilding
and ryan vigerating nato in the european theater,
particularly in central europe and eastern europe
where vladimir putin is threatening the territory of
multiple countries, controls 20% of georgia and a
significant percentage of ukraine.
>> moderator: let me ask you a follow-up, a full,
proper question. ( applause )
violent extremists are operating or active in 40
countries, some 80 countries are in different degrees of
instability. so that's just the crisess
overseas. barack obama walked into an
economic collapse when he came into office.
we face international health crises, from ebola to zika.
there is a lot of opportunity for crisis, as
you have talked about. what would you point to in
your past to show voters that you've been in a crisis
and that you've been tested when that inevitable crisis
comes when you're president? >> let me tell you what
happened a couple of years ago.
one of the hardest decisions you'll ever make in congress
is when you are asked by the president to authorize the
use of force in a conflict because you are now putting
your name on behalf of the people of your state behind
a military action, where americans in uniform could
lose their life. in 2014, barack obama said
he would not take military action against assad unless
it was authorized by the senate beginning on the
committee of foreign relations where i am one of
its members. and it was hard.
because you looked at the pictures.
i saw the same images people saw.
i'm the father of children. i saw the images of these
little children gassed and poisoned by their own
leaders and we were angry. something had to happen, and
there was the sense we needed to secretribution.
and then i looked at barack obama's plan.
barack obama's plan, which john kerry later described
as unbelievably small. >> and concluded that that
attack would not only not help the situation.
it would make it actually wowrs.
it would allow assad to stand up to the united
states of america, survive a strike, stay in power, and
actually strengthen his dprip.
so it was a difficult decision to make and one we
only had a few days to look at and make a decision on
and i voted against barack obama's plan to use force
and it was the right decision.
( applause ). >> moderator: dr. carson,
i want to ask you a question-- dr. carson, you
said you have had more 2:00 a.m. phone calls than
anybody up on this stage. but when those 2:00 a.m.
phone calls came, you operated on a foundation of
all of that amazing medical work that you did, all of
that learning. so if you were to be
president, you wouldn't have the political foundation
that hones those instincts when the 2:00 a.m. phone
call comes. so isn't that a liability?
>> no, it isn't. first of all, let me go back
to your first question for me.
it wasn't phrased as who gets to nominate supreme
court appointees. of course, that's the
president. so i know that there are
some left wing media who would try to make hay on
that. secondly, thank you for
including me in the debate. two questions already.
this is great. ( laughter )
( applause ) now, as far as-- as far as
those 2:00 a.m. phone calls are concerned, judgment is
what is required. and the kinds of things that
you come up with some sometimes very, very
difficult and very unique. one of the things that i was
known for is doing things that have not been done
before. so no amount of experience
really prepares you to do something that has never
been done before. that's where judgment comes
in. and that, i think, is a
situation that we're in right now.
a situation that we have never been in before with
the kinds of threats that pose a real danger to our
nation, and it comes in very handy in those situations.
>> moderator: governor kasich, russia is being
credited with bombing u.s.-backed rebels on behalf
of assad in alope and syria. they've also moved into the
crimea, eastern ukraine. you said you want to punch
them in the nose. what does that mean?
>> first of all, look, we have to make it clear to
russia what we expect. we don't have to declare an
enemy, rattle a sword or threaten, but we need to
make it clear what we expect.
number one, is we will arm the folks in ukraine who are
fighting for their freedom. they deserve it.
there will be no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
secondly, an attack on nato, truched up on any excuse of
russian-speaking people, either in the nato
countries, or finland or sweden is going to be an
attack on us. look, i think we have an
opportunity as america to put something really great
together again. the egyptians, the saudis,
the jordanians, the gulf states, they all know
they're at risk. we need to look into europe,
we look at france, we look at germany, and the
migrants. we look at belgium, we look
at britain. everybody is being threaten
bood by radical islam. we have the opportunity to
lead. the fact of the matter is
the world is desperate for our leadership.
sometimes they may make a remark here or there we
don't like, but, frankly, the world needs us.
and we have an opportunity now to assemble a coalition
of the civilized people, those who respect
civilization, the rights of women, the rights to
protest, to be able to reassert our leadership all
across this globe again and make sure this century is
going to be the best we've ever seen.
( bell ) ( applause ).
>> moderator: governor bush, you said defeating
isis requires defeating assad.
but wouldn't that also put us into conflict with
russia, a country that supports assad?
doesn't that mean effectively assad's there to
stay? >> no, it doesn't, and
that's the problem. the lack of leadership in
this country by barack obama, john kerry, hillary
clinton, thinking that this is a policy that works, this
policy of containment with isis.
it's a complete, unmitigated disaster.
and to allow russia now to have influence in syria
makes it harder but we need to destroy isis and dispose
of aso-called to create a stable syria so that the
four million refugees aren't a breeding ground for
islamic jihadists. this is the problem-- drum
brought up the fact he would want to accommodate russia.
russia is not taking up on the isis.
they're attacking our team, the team that we have been
training and the team that we've been supporting.
it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest russia could be a
positive partner this this. they are on the run.
every time we step back, they're on the run.
the question that you asked was a really good one about
what you would who donetsk, what three things would do
you? i would restore the
military. the sequester needs to be
reversed. i would have a strategy to
destroy isis, and i would immediately create a policy
of containment as it relates to iran's ambitions, and to
make clear we are not going to allow for iran to do what
it's doing, which is to move towards a nuclear weapon.
those three things would be the firstnd foremost
things we need to do in 2017.
>> moderator: mr. trump you're--
( applause ) mr. trump, you were
mentioned here. you did say you could get
along very well with vladimir putin.
you did at one point say let russia take care of isis.
>> call me a genius. i like him so far.
let me just tell you this. jeb is so wrong.
( booing ) just so you understand, you
know what that is? that's jeb's special
interests and lobbyists talking.
look, let me just tell you something--
( booing ) jeb is so wrong.
you've got to fight isis first.
you fight isis first. right now, you have russia.
you have iran. you have them with assad and
you have them with syria. you have to knock out isis.
they're chopping off heads. these are animals.
you have to knock them out. you have to knock them off
strong. you decide what to do after.
you can't fight two wars at one time.
you listen to him and listen to some of the folks that
i've been listening to-- that's why we've been in the
middle east for 15 years and we haven't won anything.
we've spent $5 trillion in the middle east because of
thinking like that. we've spent
( bell ) lindy graham, who had zero
in his polls. let me tell you something,
we've spent-- ( booing )
we've spent-- i only tell the truth, lobbyists.
we've spent $5 trillion all over the-- we have to
rebuild our country. we have to rebuild our
infrastructure. you listen to that, you're
going to be there for another 15--
>> moderator: all right, governor bush, please
respond. >> the very basic fact is
vladimir putin is not going to be an apply of the united
states. the whole world knows this.
it's a simple basic fact. they're not taking out--
they're not even attempting to take out isis.
they're attacking the troops that we're supporting.
we need to create a coalition, sunni-led
coalition on the ground with our special operators to
destroy isis and bring about stability.
and you can't do that with assad in power.
>> we're supporting troops that we don't even know who
they are. >> let me finish.
this is ridiculous. >> we're supporting troops
who we don't even know who they are.
we have no idea who they are.
>> moderator: gentlemen, i think i'm going to leave
that there-- >> this comes from a guy who
gets his foreign policies from the show.
it this is a guy who thinks hillary clinton was a great
negotiator in iran. we're link in dangerous
times. this is a man who insults
his way to the nomination. >> 44 million in new
hampshire. give me a break.
>> moderator: gentlemen, gentlemen, let leave it
there so i can ask a question of senator cruz,
who is also running for president.
senator cruz, you talked about the first gulf war as
being a kind of model for your focused and determined
effort to go after isis. but there were 700,000
ground troops as a part of that.
and you don't have a ground comtonight your plan.
why? >> well, we need to focus on
what the objective is. you know, your question
about the first three questions you would ask in
the situation room. i think it is a problem if
the president, commander in chief we've elected does not
have the experience and background to understand the
threats facing this country coming in on day one.
if you look at the threats facing this country, the
single gravest threat, national security threat, is
the threat of a nuclear iran.
that's why i pledged on day one to rip to shreds this
iranian nuclear deal, and anyone that thinks you can
negotiate with calm me, does not understand his nature.
when it doms isis, we've got to have a focused objective.
one of the problems of barack obama and hillary
clinton's foreign policy and, sadly, too many
establishment republicans in washington, is they focus on
issues unrelated to protecting this country.
they focus on nation building.
they focus on toppling governments to promote
democracy and it ends up undermining our national
security. now, with regard to isis, we
need a commander in chief that sets the objective.
we will utterly defeat them because they have declared
war. they have declared jihad on
us. what do we need to carry
that out? overwhelming air power.
we need to armt kurds who can be our boots on the
ground. and if ground troops are
necessary we should employ them but it shouldn't be
politicians demonstrating political toughness.
it should be military expert judgment carrying out the
objectives set out by the commander in chief.
( applause ) >> moderator: very
quickly, 30-secretary follow-up.
you said essentially the kurds would be the american
ground forces in there. the criticism experts have
on that is the kurds can only work within their
territory. if they take larger awments
of territory, you have an ethnic war with the arabs so
the kurds can't do as much as you seem to be putting on
their backs. >> we have kurds in both
iraq and syria. they are fighting isis right
now. they are winning victories
right now. isis is using american
military equipment they've seized in iraq, and the
obama administration refuses to arm the kurds, the
peshmerga, fighting forces who have been longtime
allies. we ought to be arming them
and letting them fight. if we need to embed special
forces to direct our overwhelming air power, if
it is required to use ground troops to defeat isis, we
should use them, but we ought to start with using
our incredible air power advantage.
the first persian gulf war, we launched 1100 air attacks
a day. today we're launching
between 15 and 30. we're not using the tools we
have and it's because the commander in chief is not
focused on defeating the enemy.
( applause ). >> moderator: all right,
mr. trump, on monday, george w. bush will campaign in
south carolina for his brother.
as you said tonight, and you've often said, the iraq
war and your opposition to was a cipe of your good
judgment. in 2008 in an interview with
wolf blitzer talking about george w.bush's conduct, you
said you were surprised nancy pelosi didn't try to
impeach him. you said, "which personally
i think would have been a wonderful thing."
when you were asked what you meant by that you said, "for
the war. he got us into the war with
lies." do you think president bush
should have been impeached. >> i have to say, as a
businessman i get along with everybody.
i have business all over the world.
i know so many of the people
in the audience. by the way, i'm a
self-funder. i have my wife and i have my
son. that's all i have.
i don't have this. ( applause )
so let me just tell you, i get along with everybody,
which is my obligation to my company, myself, et cetera.
obviously, the war in iraq was a big, fat mistake.
all right. now, you can take it any way
you want, and it took-- it took jeb bush-- if you
remember at the beginning of his announcement, when he
announced for president, it took him five days.
he went back, it was a mistake, it wasn't a
mistake. it took him five days before
his people told him what to say, and he ultimately said,
"it was a mistake." the war in iraq, we spent $2
trillion, thousands of lives, we don't even have
it. iran has taken over iraq
with the second largest oil reserves in the world.
obviously, it was a mistake. >> moderator: so--
>> george bush made a mistake.
we can make mistakes. but that one was a beauty.
we should have never been in iraq.
we have destabilized the middle east.
>> moderator: so i'm going to-- so you still
think he should be impeached?
>> you do whatever you want. you call it whatever you
want. i will tell you.
they lied. athey said there were weapons
of mass destruction and there were none.
and they knew there were none.
there were no weapons of mass destruction
( booing (.
>> moderator: when a member on the stage
brother's gets attacked you get to subpoenas.
>> i get to do it five or six times or once.
i'm sick ask tired of barack obama blaming my brother for
all of the problems that he's had.
( applause ) and, frankly, i could care
less about the insults that donald trump gives to me.
it's blood sport for him. he enjoys it.
and i'm glad he's happy did bit.
>> he spent $22 million-- >> i'm sick and tired of him
going after my family. my dad is the greatest man
alive in my mind. ( applause )
while donald trump was building a reality tv show,
my brother was building a security apparatus to keep
us safe. and i'm proud of what he
did. ( applause )
( bell ) and he's had the gall to go
after-- >> the world trade center
came down during your brother's reign.
remember that ( booing )
>> he's had the gall to go after my mother.
>> that's not keeping us safe.
>> won the latry 63 years ago when i looked up and saw
my mom. my mom is the strongest
woman i know. this is not about my family
or his family. this is about the south
carolina families that need someone to be the commander
in chief that can lead. i'm that person.
>> moderator: governor kasich, would you weigh in--
( applause ) governor kasich, please
weigh in. >> i gotta tell you.
this is just crazy, huh? this is just nuts.
okay. oh, man.
i'm sorry, john. >> moderator: why is it
nuts? talk about it.
give us your sense of-- >> oh, listen, i think being
in iraq, look, we thought there were weapons of mass
destruction. colin powell who is one of
the most distinguished generals in modern time said
there were weapons there. but, but, the fact is we got
ourselves in the middle of a civil war.
the sunni, the shi'a, and the kurds never gotten
along. in fact, that country was
drawn, the borders of that country were drawn after
world war i by westerners that didn't understand what
was happening there. the tragedy of it is that
we're still embroiled. and, frankly, if there
weren't weapons of mass destruction we should never
have gone. i don't believe the united
states should involve itself in civil wars.
civil wars are not in our direct are interest.
look i served on a defense committee for 18 years and
called bot pentagon after 9/11 by secretary rumsfeld
to deal with some of the most serious problems we
faced ( bell )
the fact is we should go to war when it is our direct
interest. we should not be the
policemen of the world, but when we go, we mean
business. we'll do our job.
we'll tell our soldiers, our people in the service, take
care of your job and come home once we've accomplished
our goals. that's what we need to do.
>> moderator: 30 seconds. >> i just want to say, at
least on behalf of me and my family, i thank god all the
time it was george w. bush in the white house on 9/11,
and not al gore. ( applause )
i think you can look back in in hindsight and say a
couple of things, but he kept us safe.
and not only did he keep us safe, but no matter what you
want to say about weapons of mass destruction, saddam
hussein was in open violations, and the world
wouldn't do anything about it, and george w. bush
enforced what the international community
refused to do. again, he kept us safe, and
i am forever grateful for what he did.
>> how did he keep us safe when the world trade
center-- the world trade-- skews me.
i lost hundreds of friends. the world trade center came
down during the reign of george bush.
he kept us safe? that is not safe.
that is not safe, marco. that is not safe.
>> the world trade center came down because bill
clinton department kill osama bin laden when he had
the chance to kill him ( applause ).
>> and george bush-- by the way, george bush had the
chance, also, and he didn't listen to the advice of his
c.i.a. >> moderator: all right,
dr. carson, we have a cleansing--
>> i'm not going to invite donald trump to the rally in
charleston on monday afternoon when he brother is
coming to speak. >> i don't want to go.
>> i'm rescinding the invitation.
i thought you you might want to come but i guess not.
>> moderator: dr. carson, i have a question for you.
a moment of pause here. you said, dr. carson,
referring to yourself that people bought into the idea
that "a nice person cant be tough on terrorist."
you have called for loosening the rules of
engagement for want military which could lead to more
civilian casualties. explain why those casualties
would be acceptable in the fight against isis?
>> first of all, let me just address the iraq question.
you know, i was not particularly in favor of us
going to war in iraq, primarily because i have
studied, you know, the middle east, recognizing
that those are nations that are ruled by dictators and
have been for thousands of years.
and when you go in and you remove one of those
dictators, unless you have an appropriate plan for
replacing them, you're going to have chaos.
now, fortunately, we were awbl to stabilize the
situation, and it was the current administration that
turned tail and ran and destabilized the situation.
( applause ) now, having said that, in
terms of the rules of engagement, i was talking
about, you know, obama has said, you know, we shouldn't
bomb tankers coming out of refineries because there may
be people in there or because the environment may
be hurt. you know, that's just
asinine thinking. and the fact of the matter
is-- ( applause )
you know, we-- obviously, you're not going to
accomplish all of your goals without some collateral
damage. ( bell )
you have to be able to assess what is acceptable
and what is not. >> moderator: all right,
thank you, dr. carson. we're going to have to take
a commercial break here. thank you to all the
candidates. we'll be right back with cbs
news' 2016 debate in greenville, south carolina.
( applause ) >> the iran deal is one of
the worst deals i have ever seen negotiated in my entire
life. it's a disgrace.
>> the constitution is not a living and breathing
document. it is to be interpreted as
originally meant. >> we need to destroy isis
and dispose of assad.
>> moderator: we're back with the republicans who
would be president. the topic now is money and
how the candidates would spend it.
we'll turn the questioning over to kimberly strassel of
the "wall street journal" and major garrett of cbs
news. kim.
>> moderator: mr. trump, you have made a lot of
promises and you have also-- you're the only candidate
who has said he would not touch entitlements.
the committee for a responsible federal budget
has estimated that your ideas would cost an
additional $12 trillion to $15 trillion over the next
10 years and that we would have to have annual economic
growth of anywhere from 7.7% to 9% annually to pay for
them. are you proposing more than
you can actually deliver, at least not without big
deficits? >> first of all, the-- when
you say i'm the only candidate, if you listen to
the democrats, they want to do many things to social
security. and i want to do them on its
own merit. you listen to them, what
they want to do to social security, none of these
folks are getting elected, whether they can do it or
not. i'm going to save social
security. i'm going to bring jobs back
from china. i'm going to bring jobs back
from mexico and japan, where every country throughout the
world-- now vietnam, that's the new one-- they are
taking our jobs. they're taking our wealth.
they are taking our base. and you and i have had this
discussion. we're going to make our
economy strong again. i'm lowering taxes.
we have $2.5 trillion offshore that i think is 5
trillion because the government has no idea what
they say 2.5, they have no idea what they're doing or
saying. we're going to bring that
money back. you take a look at what
happened just this week, china bought the chicago
stock exchange, china, a chinese company.
a carrier is moving to mexico, an air conditioning
company. nabisco and ford-- they're
all moving out. we have an economy that last
quarter g.d.p., didn't grow. it was flat.
( bell ) we have to make our economy
grow again. we're dying.
this country is dying. and our workers are losing
their jobs, and you're going-- i'm the only one who
is going to save social security, believe me.
>> moderator: another but how would you actually do
that? i can ask you?
because right now social security and medicare take
up two-thirds of the budget. >> you have tremendous
waste, fraud, and abuse. that we're taking care of.
it's tremendous.
we have in social security right now thousand and
thousands of people that are over 106 years old.
now, you know they don't exist.
they don't exist. there's tremendous waste,
fraud, and abuse, and we're going to get it.
but we're not going to hurt the people who have been
paying into social security their whole life and then
all of a sudden they're supposed to get less.
we're bringing our jobs back.
we're going to make our economy great again.
>> moderator: senator cruz--
( applause ) john mentioned this is about
dollars and cents. we also want to talk about
economic growth and wage growth.
you have proposed a consumption tax.
you call it a flat tax. some analysts compare it to
a value added tax. how would that work and how
would you address the long-standing conservative
concern that something approaching a value added
tax will be used to constantly increase those
rates to pay for future government spending and
become an escalator of taxation, not of growth?
>> well, let me say at the outset that everyone here
understands, everyone understands at home that the
middle class has been left behind in the last seven
years of the obama economy. and we've got to bring jobs
back. we've got to get people back
to work. we've got to get wages going
up again. we've got to get people
moving from part-time work to full-time work.
we all agree on that. but it's not going to be
solved with magic pixie dust.
it's not going to be solved by declaring into the air,
"let there be jobs." we actually have to
understand the principles that made america great in
the first place. now, where do you get
economic growth? if you look at cause and
effect over our nation's history, every time we
lessen the burden of washington on small business
owners, on job creators worky see incredible
economic growth. you do that through tax
reform and regulatory reform.
my tax plan, typical family of four, first $36,000, you
earn, you pay nothing in taxes, no income taxes, no
payroll taxes no, nothing. above 10%, everyone pays the
same simple flat 10% income rate.
it's flat and fair. you can fill out your taxes
on a postcard ( bell )
and we abolish the i.r.s. and if you want to see the
postcard, i've got it on my web site.
>> moderator: right, but to the question-- because
conservatives have flirted with this idea conceptually
for a long time. but especially on this
consumption value added tax system, in europe, where it
exists, it has become an escalator of taxation to
feed government spending. and that's why conservatives
have long resisted it. why?
and what would do you as president to make sure that
doesn't happen? >> so, major, the business
flat tax that is in my tax plan is not a v.a.t.
a v.a.t. in europe is a sales tax.
the business flat tax is not a sales tax.
it is a tax of 16% imposed fairly and evenly across the
board on all businesses. and one of the things that's
critical is we're doing that in conjunction with
abolishing the corporate income tax wabolishing the
obamad care taxes, with abolishing the payroll
taxes, the biggest taxes paid by most working
americans, and with abolishing the death tax
which is cruel and unfair. you asked about economic
growth. the non-partisan tax
foundation estimated that the cruz simple flat tax
would produce 4.9 million new jobs, would increase
capital investment by 44% and lift everyone's incomes
by double digits. ( bell )
that's how you turn the country around, not just
hoping and praying for it, but implementing policies
that work. >> moderator: okay, i
have a question, a related tax question.
( applause ) for senator rubio.
senator rubio, you have the highest tax rate of anyone
up on the stage in terms of the top tax rate, 35%, which
some economists say would limit its potential to boost
economic growth. you do that so will have
more revenue to pay for a trip ling of the child tax
credit. normally, it's liberals who
like to use the tax code to influence social policy.
why should conservatives want a tax plan that adopts
the other side's approach? >> because i'm not
influencing social policy. this is their money.
this is the money of parent. you don't earn the tax
credit unless you're work. that's your money.
it doesn't belong to the government.
here's what i don't understand.
if a business takes their money and invest it in a
piece of equipment they get to write it off their taxes.
but if a parent takes money they earned through work and
invests it in their children they want don't.
that makes no sense. parenting is the most
important job any of us will ever have.
family formation is the most important institution in
society. ( applause )
so my tax plan creates, especially for work
families, an additional child tax credit so that
parents who are working get to keep more of their own
money, not the government's money, to invest in their
children to go to school to go to a private school, to
buy a new backpack. let me tell you, if you're a
parent struggling you know $50 a month is the
difference between a new pair of shoes this month or
not getting a new pair of shoes for your kids.
i'm going to have a tax plan that is pro family because
the family is the most important institution in
society. you cannot have a strong
country without a strong family.
( applause ) >> moderator: governor
kasich, governor kasich, this goes to size of
government. in 2013, you pushed through
a medicaid reform in your state over the objections of
many of the republicans in your state.
total enrollment and overall costs of that program have
gone well beyond what anyone had expected, including
yourself. how can you argue that this
overall growth fits in with conservative ambush
administrations to significantly cut back on
the size of federal welfare programs?
>> well, first of all, those numbers incorrect.
we are-- our medicaid programs are coming in below
cost estimates, and our medicaid program in the
second year grew at 2. the 5%.
kimberly, let me tell you, when we expand medicaid and
treat the mentally ill, then they don't live under a
bridge or live in a prison where they cost $22,500 a
year. when they take the drug
addict asked treat them in the prisons we stop the
revolving door of people in and out of prisons and save
$22,500 a year. guess what else?
they get their lives back. and the working poork
they're now getting health care.
do you know about a third of the people who are now
getting that health care are people who are suffering
very serious illnesses, particularly cancer.
so what i would tell you is we've gone from an $8
billion hole to a $2 billion surplus.
we've cut taxes by more than any governor in america, by
$5 billion. we have grown the number of
jobs by 400,000 private sector jobs since i've been
governor. our credit is strong.
our pensions are strong. and, frankly, we leave no
one behind. economic growth is not an
end unto itself. we want everyone to rise,
and we will make them personally responsible for
the help that they get ( bell )
and that is exactly the program we're driving in
ohio. and, boy, people ought to
look at ohio, because we've got a good formula.
>> moderator: governor bush of course jump in.
>> i admire the fact that governor kasich is
supporting spending more money on drug treatment and
mental health. i think that's a high
priority across this country but expanding obamad care is
what we're talking about, and obamad care's expansion,
even though the federal government is paying for the
great majority of it, is creating further debt on the
backs of our children and grandchildren.
we should be fighting obamad care, repealing obamad care,
replacing it with something totally different.
when i was as a private citizen, florida was
confronted with the choice. the governor was supportive
of the doing what john did. so was the florida senate.
a committed speaker of the house asked me to go as a
private citizen to make the case against the expansion.
( bell ) i did, and it wasn't
expanded there, just as it wasn't expanded in south
carolina under governor haley.
>> moderator: we'll quickly, jump in.
i have a question for governor bush.
>> first of all, when jeb was governor, his first four
years as governor, he-- his medicaid program grew twice
as fast as mine. okay.
it's just a fact. now, with obamad care, i'm
not only sued the administration.
i did not set up an exchange.
and he knows that i'm not for obamacare, never have
been. but here's what's
interesting about medicaid. you know who expanded
medicaid five times to try to help the folks and give
them opportunity so that you could rise and get a job?
president ronald reagan. the fact of the matter is we
expanded to get people on their feet, and once they're
on their feet, we are giving them the training and the
efforts that they need to be able to get work and pull
out of that situation. that's what we're doing in
our state. >> south koreans need to
know this. the cato news ?oout, which
exwraidz governors based on their spending, ranks him
right at the bottom. and governor haley is ranked
at the top. >> moderator: let me get
in a question-- >> he mentioned my name.
>> moderator: i understand.
>> hold omajor, hold omajor. >> south koreans want to
make sure they elect the most conservative governor
or candidate that can win. >> let me tell you--
>> moderator: i have a question on--
>> major, look i have to correct the record.
and the fact of the matter is, we went from an $8
billion thoal a $2 billion surplus.
we're up 400,000 jobs. our credit is rock solid.
and i don't know-- look, the bottom line is the people of
this-- of this country, and this state want to see
everybody rise, and they want to see unity, and i
don't want to get into all this fighting tonight
because people are frankly sick of the negative
campaigning. and i'm going to stay
positive about what i want to do--
>> moderator: from the perspective economic growth,
viewed from the perspective of economic growth, you have
proposed a tax on hedge fund managers.
the americans for tax reform, a conservative tax
group you're probably aware of, has said no republican
should be for higher taxes on capital gonzales.
and many conservatives wonder if this proposal of
yours would undermine not only that philosophy but
undercut your projections of 4% economic growth annually
under your presidency. >> of course, not.
it won't have an impact-- hedge funds managers paying
ordinary income? in fact it's not just hedge
fund people, but people in the business of investing
other people's money, getting capital gains
treatment is not appropriate.
they should be paying ordinary income.
that's their business. they're grateful to be awbl
to make a lot of money. i'm sure.
and what we do is lower the rate.
it's not the end of the world that private equity
people and hedge fund folks that are right now getting
capital gains treatment for the income they earn pay
ordinary tbk intk, luke everybody else in this room.
that's not a problem at all. what we need to do is
reformat tax code to simplify the rates to shift
power away from washington, d.c.
that's what i did as governor of the state of
florida. $19 billion of tax cuts and
it stimulated seven out of the eight years, florida led
the nation in job growth. >> moderator: consider
carson, before we go to break, could you give us
your sense of this conversation about either
medicaid or economic growth through taxation?
>> first of all, let me just mention on the tax issue,
ben carson.com, go read about it.
because my tax plan has been praised by cato, by "wall
street journal," "forbes"said it is the best,
most progrowth, and it is based on real fairness for
everybody. it starts at the 150%
poverty level. but even the people below
that have to pay something because everybody has to
have skin in the game. millions of people can't,
you know, talk about what other people have to pay and
have no skin in the game. and it deals with corporate
tax rate. makes it the same as
everybody else. ( bell )
everybody plays exactly the same.
>> moderator: doctor-- >> as far as medicare and
medicaid, my main goal is to get rid of obamacare and put
the care back in the hand of patients.
>> moderator: dr. carson, i'm sorry.
we have to go to commercial. the free market wants what
it wants. back soon
>> we're supporting troops that we don't even know who
they are. >> this is a man who insults
his way to the nomination. >> i thank god all the time
that it was george w. bushed in the white house on 9/11
and not al gore. >> the world trade center
came down during the reign of george w. bush.
>> moderator: you still think he should be
impeached. >> i think it's my turn.
>> they lied. they said there were weapons
of mass destruction and there were none and they
knew there were none. >> i am sick and tired of
him going after my family.
>> live from the peace center in greenville, south
carolina, cbs news brings you the republican
presidential debate. here again, john dickerson.
>> moderator: welcome back.
we'll begin the second half the debate with one of the
hottest issues in the republican campaign--
immigration. but before i turn it back to
major garrett and kimberly strassel, i have one
question for mr. trump. mr. trump, in the republican
national committee's spanish language response to the
state of the union, congressman diaz bell
artsaid, "it's essential that we find a legislative
solution--" talking about immigration-- "to offer a
permanent and humane solution to those who live
in the shadows." what does that mean to you
"a humane solution to those who live in the shadows?"
>> i want everybody taken care of, but we have to take
care of our people in this country.
we're not taking care of our people.
we have no border. we have no control.
people are flooding across. we can't have it.
we either have a border-- and i'm very strongly-- i'm
not proposing-- i will build a wall.
i will build a wall. remember this, the wall will
be paid for by mexico. we are not being treated
right, we are not being treated properly.
if we don't have borders, if we don't have strength, we
don't have a country. people are flowing across.
we have to take care of our people.
believe me. ( applause ).
>> moderator: senator rubio, for the purposes of
the lines you would craw legislatively as a president
on immigration reform, define amnesty.
>> well, first of all, i think amnesty is the
forgiveness of a wrongdoing without consequence.
and i've never supported that.
i do not support that. i think there has to be
consequences for violating our immigration laws.
what i think is clear about this issue to begin with is
we're not going to be awbl to make progress on illegal
immigration until first illegal immigration is
brought under control. you go back to 1986 when
they legalized three million people and promised to
secure the border. it didn't happen.
and as a result, people have lost trust in the federal
government. it is clear the only way to
make progress on immigration is not just to pass a law
that enforces the law but actually prove to people
it's working. they want to see the wall
built. they want to see e-verify.
they want to see an entry-exit tracking system.
only after all of that is in place, then we'll see what
the american people are willing to support on this
issue. i think the american people
will be very reasonable, but responsible, about how you
handle someone who has been here a long time, who can
pass a background check, who pays a fine and starts
paying taxes and all they want is a work permit.
but i can't coany of that until you prove to people
that illegal immigration is under control once and for
all ( bell ).
( applause ) >> moderator: senator
cruz, senator cruz, you have promised to deport illegal
aliens. you have also promised to
reverse president obama's executive action that gives
temporary amnesty to illegals brought here by
their parent as children. as president, you would have
the names and addresses of some 800,000 of those that
have registered under that action.
now, you have said in this country we shouldn't go door
to door look for illegals, but in this case you would
have a list. would you use it?
>> well, you know, your question highlights a sharp
difference on immigration on this stage.
you know, in a republican primary, everyone talks
tough on immigration. everyone is against illegal
immigration in a republican primary.
but as voters, we've been burned over and over again
by people that give us a great campaign speech and
they don't walk the walk. there are sharp differences
on amnesty. if you look at the folks on
this stage, when harry reid and chuck schumer and
establishment republicans were leading the fight topaz
a massive amnesty plan, i stood with jeff session sessiond
steve king and the american people and led the fight to
defeat that amnesty plan. ( applause )
>> moderator: so would you-- would you use the
addresses? >> now that moment--
>> moderator: would you pick them up?
>> that moment is what reagan would call a time for
choosing. when it comes to deciding
which side of the line you're on, the rubio-schumer
amnesty plan-- ( booing)
apparently supported by the donor class, which is why
washington supported it. the rubio-schumer amnesty
plan passed the senate and it was on the verge of
passing the house. house leadership intended to
take it up and pass it with the democrats overruling
most of the republicans, and the question for anyone on
illegal immigration is where were you in that fight?
where did you stand in you are right.
there is a difference between senator rubio ask me
( bell ). >> moderator: senator
rubio, your reply. >> we're going to have to do
this again, okay. when that issue was being
debated ted cruz at a committee hearing very
passionately said, "i want immigration reform to pass.
i want people to come out of the shadows" and he proposed
an amendment that would legalize people and proposed
doubling the number of green cards and a 500% increase on
guest workers. now his position is
different. now he is a passionate
opponent of all those things so he either wasn't telling
the truth then or he isn't telling the truth now but to
argue he is a pure oyst immigration is just not
true. >> major, i get a response
to that. >> moderator: very
quickly. >> you know, the lines are
very, very clear. marco right now supports
citizenship for 12 million people here illegally.
i oppose citizenship. marco stood on the debate
stage and assailant sade that.
i would note not only that, marco has a long record when
it comes to amnesty. as speaker in the state of
the house he supported in-state tuition for illegal
immigrants. in addition, he went on
univision in spanish and sailed he would not rescind
president obama's illegal exclusive amnesty on his
first day in office. i have promised to rescind
every single illegal executive action, including
that one. and on the question--
>> very quickly. >> first of all, i don't
know how he knows what i said on univision because he
doesn't speak spanish. and second of all, the other
point i would make-- ( speaking spanish )
in spanish. >> look, this is a
disturbing pattern now. for a number of weeks ted
cruz has just been telling lies.
he lied about ben carson in iowa.
he lies about planned parenthood and marriage.
and he makes things up. the bottom line is this is a
campaign and people are watching.
here is the truth-- ted cruz supported legalizing people
in this country, and only now does he say--
>> that is absolutely false what he said is knowingly
false. and i would note--
>> i'll put on on my web site marcorubio.com.
>> if you want to assess who is telling the truth--
( cheers ) then you should look to jeff
sessions who said without ted cruz the rubio-schumer
amnesty bill would have passed and ted was
responsible. you should look to rush
limbaugh-- >> moderator: senator
cruz. governor bush.
>> i'll put the video online.
>> moderator: governor bush i want to bring this
out to a wider philosophical aspect, if you will.
>> thank you. >> moderator: you have
said illegal immigrant broke the law but it's not a
felony-- still quoting-- it's an act of love, an act
of commitment to your family.
mr. trump ayou are aware, has denounced that
statement. what does that mean to you
and how do you feel about immigration reform?
>> great question. i feel like i have to get
into my inner chris christie, and point out the
reason why i should be president is listening to
two senators talk about arcane amendments to bills
that didn't pass. ( applause )
this is-- this is the problem.
we need-- we need a leader to fix this problem.
and i have a detailed plan to do just that, including
controlling the border, dealing with the visa
over-stayers, making sure we have a path to legal status,
not to citizenship, to those who come out from the
shadows and pay a fine, learn glrk don't commit
fines, work and pay taxes. that is the better approach.
>> moderator: do you believe the rhetoric is
compassion anti-to this issue?
>> the great majority of people who come to this
country come because they have no other choice.
they want to come to provide for their families.
that doesn't mean it's right.
we should pick who comes to our country.
we should control our border.
coming here legally should be a lot easier than coming
illegally. the motivation, they're not
all rapists, as you know who said.
they're not that. these are people coming to
provide for their families and we should show a little
more respect for the fact that they're struggling.
it doesn't mean we shouldn't be controlling the border.
that's exactly what we should be doing.
>> moderator: mr. trump-- ( applause )
>> when i announced that i was running for president on
june 16, illegal immigration wasn't even a subject.
if i didn't bring it up, we wouldn't even be talking.
now-- ( booing)
i don't often agree with marco, and i don't often
agree with ted, but i can in this case.
the weakest person on this stage by far on illegal
immigration is jeb bush. they come out of an act of
love. well weather you like it or
not, he is so weak on illegal immigration, it's
laughable. and everybody upons it.
>> so, you know, this-- ( bell )
this is the standard operating procedure to
disparage me. that's fine.
i don't really care. >> spend a little more money
on the commercials. >> but if you want to talk
about weakness, you want to talk about weakness, it's
weak to dissparnlg women. it's weak to disparage
hispanics. it's weak to denigrate the
disabled. and it's really weak to call
john mccain a loser because he was a p.o.w.
>> i dent-- >> that is outrageous.
he is an american hero. >> he also said-- excuse
exoouz me. he said about language, two
days ago, he said he would take his pants off and moon
everybody, and that's fine. nobody reports that.
he gets up and says that. and then he tells me oh, my
language was a little bit rough.
my language. >> moderator: governor
kasich. >> give me a break.
>> governor kasich, governor kasich, here in sourk
earlier this week, you said the idea, the concept of
deporting 11 million undocument workers here--
>> make sure my mother is listening.
she's watching the debate. >> you did say it.
it's been reported in 10 different newspaper.
>> moderator: we will leave the moon metaphors to
be adjudicated later, i assure you.
governor kasich, you said earlier this week in south
carolina, the concept, the idea of deporting 11 million
undocument workers in this country is nuts.
why is it you are so opposed to that idea?
senator cruz has said it's a simple application of
existing law. the application of that is
not inhumane. it is just.
why do you disagree? >> before i get to that,
this is the ninth or the tenth debate, and what i've
been watching here, this back-and-forth.
and these attacks, some of them are personal.
i think we're fixing to lose the election to hillary
clinton if we don't stop this.
( applause ) i mean, the fact is, you
know what i would suggest? why don't we just take all
the negative ads and all the negative comments down from
television and let us just talk about what we're for
and let's sell that and the republican party will be
stronger as a result. now, that--
>> moderator: on immigration?
>> first of all, i'm for sealing the border, okay,
and then i'm for a guest worker program.
people can come in, work, and go back home.
we haven't closed the border because special interest, i
believe, blocked it. we have 11.5 million people
here. if they have not committed a
crime since they've been here make them pay a fine
and back taxes and give them a path to legalization,
never citizenship. it is not going to happen
that we're going to run around and try to drag 11.5
million people out of their homes.
i'll tell thu-- within the first 100 days i will send a
plan like this to the congress of the united
states, and if i'm president i'll bet you dollars to
donuts right now. that will pass.
that is a reasonable proposal that the people of
this country, in my judgment, will support, and
so will the bulk of the congress of the united
states. ( applause )
>> moderator: moving subjects, dr. carson, this
week, morgan stanley agreed to pay a $3.2 billion fine
to state and federal authorities for contributing
to the mortgage crisis. you have a lot of democrats
out saying we should be jailg more executives.
so two questions. should financial executives
be held legally responsible for financial crises?
and do you think fines like these are an effective way
to deter companies from future behavior like that?
>> first of all, please go to my web site,
bencarson.com, and read my immigration policy, okay,
because it actually makes sense.
as far as these fines are concerned, you know, here's
the big problem-- we've got all these government
regulators and all they're doing is running around
looking for people to fine. and we've got 645 different
federal agencies and subagencies, way, way, too
many, and they don't have anything else to do.
i think what we really need to do is start trimming the
regulatory agencies rather than going after the people
who are trying to increase the viability, economic
viability of our society. now, that doesn't mean that
there aren't some people out there who are doing bad
things. but i'm not sure that the
way to solve that problem is by increasing all the
regulatory burden. you know, when you consider
how much regulations cost us each year, you know, $2
trillion per family, $24,000 per family.
that happens to be the same level as the poverty level
for a family of four ( bell )
you want to get rid of poverty.
get rid of all the regulations.
>> moderator: senator cruz, i have a question for
you. speaker paul ryan has made a
big commitment to trying to lift the 50 million poor out
of poverty. arthur brooks, who is the
president of the american enterprise institute says,
," if we are not warriors for the poor every day, free
enterprise has no matter." how you have been in your
campaign a warrior for the poor?
>> i think it is a very important question because
the people who have been hurt the most in the obama
economy had been the most vulnerable.
it's been young people. it's been hispanics.
it's been african americans. it's been single moms.
we have the lowest percentage of americans
working today in any year since 1977.
and the sad reality is big government, massive taxes,
massive regulation, doesn't work.
what we need to do instead is bring back booming
economic growth. small businesses are the
heart of the economy. two-thirds of all new jobs
come from small businesses. if we want to lift people
out of povertyue know, i think of these issues from
the perspective of my dad. my dad fled cuba in 1957.
he was just 18. he couldn't speak english.
he had nothing. he had did 100 in his
underexpwair he washed dishes making 50 cent an
hour and paid his way through school.
today my dad is a pastor. he travels the country
preaching the gospel. now, i think about all of
these issues. how would it impact my dad
if he was washing dishes? if we have obamad care in
place the odds are very high that my dad would have been
laid off because it's teenaged kids like my dad
who get laid off. and if he wasn't laid off,
he would have hadis hours reduced.
we need to lift the burden on small businesses and we
need welfare reform that gets people off welfare and
back to work. ( bell ).
>> moderator: mr. trump, mr. trump, i was with you in
pendleton, south carolina, earlier this week at the
rodeo arena. it was a bit chilly there.
you promised the crowd and they rose to their feet that
if ford or a company like it tried to move a company to
mexico you would try to stop them or impose a 35% tariff.
based on your understanding of the presidency, where
would you derive that power? would you need the consent
of congress to go along? and do you see the
presidency as a perch from which you can cajole and/or
threaten private industry to do something you think is
better for the u.s. economy? >> i would build consensus
with congress, and congress would agree with me.
i'll give you an example. because i don't like the
idea of using executive orders like our president,
it is a disaster what he's doing.
i would build consensus, but consensus means you have to
work hard. you have to cajole.
you have to get them into the oval office and get them
all together, and you have to make deals.
let me just tell you, i mentioned before, china, big
chinese company, bought the chicago exchange.
kerry is moving-- and if you saw the people-- because
they have a video of the announcement that carrier is
moving to mexico, okay. i'll tell you what, i would
go right now to carrier and i would say, "i am going to
work awfully hard. you're going to make air
conditioners now in mexico. you're going to get all of
these 1400 people that are being laid off-- they're
laid off. they were crying.
it was a very sad situation. you're going to go to
mexico. you're going to make air
conditioners in mexico, you're going to put them
across our border with no tax.
i'm going to tell them right now, i am going to get
consensus from congress, and we're going to tax you when
the air conditioners come. stay where you are or build
in the united states because we are killing ourselveses
with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for
our workers. ( bell )
>> moderator: all right, mr. trump, thank you so
much. we're going to take a break
for a moment. we'll be back in a moment
with the cbs news republican debate.
>> we're not taking care of our people.
we have no border. we have no control.
people are flooding across. we can't have it.
>> ted cruz has just been telling lies.
he lied about ben carson in iowa.
he lies. planned parenthood, he lies
about marriage. now he makes things up.
>> we should be fighting obamacare, repealing
obamacare, replacing it with something totally
>> moderator: we're back now from greenville, south
carolina with the candidates for the republican president
dwral nomination. mr. trump, i have a question
for you. presidents have to on the
one hand be firm but also be flexible.
you have been flexible and changed your opinion on a
number of things from abortion to hillary clinton.
but you said rightly it's just like ronald reagan who
changed his mind on things. but at the same time, you're
criticizing senator cruz for what you say is a checkon
imgration. he disputes that, of course.
so why is your change of opinion make you like reagan
and when he changes his opinion it's a huge
character flaw? >> john, in life you have
flexibility. you do have flexibility.
when you're fighting wars you're going one way, you
have a plan. it's a beautiful plan.
it can't lose. the enemy makes a change,
and all of a sudden you have to change.
you have to have flexibility.
ronald reagan, in terms of what we're talking about,
was the great example. he was a somewhat liberal
democrat who became a somewhat pretty strong
conservative. he became-- most importantly
he became a great president. he made many of the changes
that i've made, i've seen as a grew up and as i get older
and wiser and i feel that i am a conservative.
now i also feel i'm a commonsense conservative
because some of the views i don't agree with.
and i think a lot of people agree with me, obviously,
based on what's happening. >> moderator: which
conservative idea don't you agree with?
>> well, i think these people always hit me with
eminent domain, and, frankly, i'm not in love
with eminent domain. but eminent domain is
something you need very strongly.
when jeb said you used eminent domain privately for
a parking lot. it wasn't for a parking lot,
the state of new jersey-- too bad chris christie
wasn't here he could tell you-- the state of new
jersey was going to build a tower that was going to
employ thousands of people and do a big job in terms of
economic development. just so you understand, i
got hit very hard. it's private, it's private,
eminent domain. you understand they took
over a stadium in texas and they used private eminent
domain but he just found that out after he made the
charge. >> moderator: governor
bush, i think by "they" they he is talking about your
brother. >> well, jeb, wouldn't have
known about it. >> there is all sorts of
intrigue where i disagree with my brother.
that would be one right there.
you should not use eminent domain for private
purposes,. >> you shouldn't have used
it then. >> transmission lines, pipe
lines, bridges, horizon, all of that is proper use of
eminent domain. not to take an elderly
woman's home to build a parking lot so high rollers
can come to new york city to failed casinos in new york
city. that is not the appropriate
thing to do. >> moderator: senator
cruz, you were mentioned in the mix here.
your response. >> you know, flexibility is
a good thing, but it shouldn't-- you shouldn't be
flexible on core principles. i like donald.
he is an amazing entertainer.
but his policies for most of his life--
>> thank you very much, i appreciate it.
>> for most of his life, his policies have been very,
very liberal. , for most of his life he
has described himself as very prochoice, and a a
supporter of partial birth abortion.
right now, today, as a candidate, he supports
federal taxpayer funding for planned parenthood.
i disagree with him on that. that is a matter of
principle-- >> are you the single
biggest liar. you are probably worse than
jeb bush. you are the single biggest
liar. this guy lied-- let me just
tell you. this guy lied about ben
carson when he took votes away from ben carson in
iowa. and he just continues.
and today, we had robo calls saying, "donald trump is not
going to run in south carolina" where i'm leading
by a lot. i'm not going to run.
vote for ted cruz. this is the same thing he
did to ben carson. this guy will say anything.
nasty guy. now i know why he doesn't
have one endorsement from any of his colleagues.
>> all right, john, i get to respond.
>> moderator: pick from the buffet there.
>> he is a nasty guy. >> i will say-- i will say
it is fairly remarkable to see donald defending ben
after he called him pathological and compared
him to a child molester, both of which were offensive
and wrong. >> i just quoted his book.
>> donald didn't disagree with the substance that he
supports taxpayer funding for planned parenthood.
and donald has this weird pattern-- when you point to
his own record he screams liar, liar, liar.
>> where did i support it? where did i support it.
>> if you want to go and watch the video.
>> hey, ted, where did i support it?
don't tell me about a video. >> out of his own mouth--
you supported it when we were battling over defunding
planned parenthood. >> that's a lot of nonsense.
>> you said planned parenthood does wonderful
things-- >> it does do wonderful
things but not as it relates res to args bothers.
excuse me. there are wonderful things
having to do with women's health.
>> you and i dils agree on that.
>> not when it comes to abortion.
not when it comes to abortion.
that's where i draw the line.
>> the reason, john, principal matters, sadly,
was illustrated by the first questions today.
the next president is gog appoint one, two, three,
four supreme court justices. if donald trump is
president, he will appoint liberals.
if donald trump is president--
>> excuse me, excuse me. >> your second amendment
will go away. you know how i know that--
>> moderator: hold ogentlemen, i'm going to
turn this car around. >> ted cruz with your
brother wanted john roberts to be on the united states
supreme court. they both pushed him.
he twice approved obamacare. >> moderator: all right,
gentlemen. >> good going, man.
>> my name was mentioned twice!
>> moderator: hold on, we're in danger of driving
this into the dirt. >> you gave us--
>> moderator: senator rubio, you want to jump in
here. >> he just called me a liar.
>> moderator: you're on deck.
>> he also denigrated one of my heroes, ronald reagan.
ronald reagan was a liberal maybe in the 1950s.
he was a conservative reform governor for eight years
before he became president and no one would suggest he
made an evolution for political purposes.
he was a conservative. and he didn't tear down
people like donald trump does.
he tore down the berlin wall.
great guy. >> moderator: governor--
senator cruz, 30-- 30 seconds on this one.
>> i did not nominate john roberts.
i would not have nominated john roberts--
>> you pushed him. you pushed him--
>> donald, donald. >> why do you lie.
>> donald, adults learn not to interrupt each other.
>> yeah, yeah, i know, you're an adult.
your an adult. >> i did not nominate him.
i would have nominated my former bus mike ludic, who
was justice scalia's first law clerk.
and you know how i know donald's supreme court
justices will be liberal because he supported
liberals from jimmy carmter, hillary clinton, john kerry.
in 2004 he contributed to john kerry.
nobody who cares about judges would contribute to
john kerry, chum schumer and harry reid.
>> moderator: we're going to switch gears here.
senator marco rubio, please. weigh in.
>> on anything i want? >> moderator: i thought
you you had-- >> let me talk about
poverty. >> moderator: i thought
you had a point you wanted to make.
>> poverty is something that is important--
>> i think that was me. >> moderator: you're on
the on-deck circle, sir. >> the issue of poverty is
critical. to me poverty is free
enterprise not reaching people.
today, we have antipoverty programs that don't cure
poverty. we don't cure pompt in
america. our antipoverty programs
have become in some instance ways of life, a lifestyle.
we do need antipoverty programs.
you can't have free enterprise programs without
them but not as a way of life.
i have a very specific proposal and in 60 seconds i
can't describe them all but it basically turns the
programs over to states, allowing states to design
innovative programs to cure poverty, because i think
nicki haley will do a better job of curing poverty than
barack obama. >> moderator: senator,
going back to immigration, in your last debate you
listed your series of accomplishments in the
senate. one thing you left off is
immigration reform. is it the case in your list
of accomplishments you can't mention that?
>> it's not the case,. didn't pass.
we have not solved immigration in this country,
it is worse today than it was three years ago which is
worse than five years ago and it has to be confronted
and solved. you asked a question about
flexibility. let me tell you about that.
one of the things you need in leadership is the ability
to understand to get things done you must figure out the
way to get it done. you will not pass
comprehensive immigration reform.
people do not trust federal government upon.
they want to see the law enforced.
they want to see illegal immigration come under
control. they want to see that wall.
they want to see e-verify. they want to see all of
thyself things working and then they will have a
conversation you about what do you do with people who
have been here a long time that are otherwise not
criminals. but they're not going to do
it until you first enforce the law.
( applause ) >> moderator: dr. carson
i have-- ( applause )
dr. carson, i have a question for you--
>> candidate candidates are-- >> before you ask the
question, can i respond-- you know, they mentioned my
name a couple of times. >> moderator: all right,
you have 30 seconds, doctor. >> first of all, so many
people have said to me, "you need to scream and jump up
and down like everybody else."
is that really what you want?
what we just saw? i don't think so.
and, you know, i-- when i got into this race, i
decided to look under the hood of the engine of what
runs washington, d.c. and my first inclination was to run
away, but i didn't do it because i'm thinking about
our children and fact that we are the united states of
america. and anybody up here is going
to be much better than what's going to come on the
other side. and what happened tonight
with justice scalia tells you that we cannot afford to
lose this election and we cannot be tearing each other
down. ( applause ).
>> moderator: dr. carson, i-- let me ask you-- a
different question. when you were-- you were the
first one, really, to talk about political correctness.
everybody now talks about it, but that was really what
sparked your rise. politicians are often
accused of glossing over any hard choices people have to
make, just always saying happy, nice things.
so in the spirit of saying something that might be
politically incorrect, tell the voters something that
they need to hear but that might be politically
incorrect? >> well, first of all, i'm
not a politician. so i'm never going to become
a politician. but here's what-- here's
what people need to know. people need to know that
free college is not-- it's a non-starter.
you you know, you have to look at our economic
situation. we're on the verge of
economic collapse. and, you know, we're-- it's
not just the $19 trillion. but it's also the $200
trillion in unfunded liabilities.
what we need to think about is what does that do to the
average person? when we have a debt of that
nature, it causes the fed to change their policy.
it causes the central bank to keep the rates low, and
who does does that affect? mr. arnlg who used to go to
the bank every friday and put part of his check in the
bank and watch it grow over three decades and be able to
retire with a nice nest egg. that's gone.
that part of the american dream is gone.
all of these things are disappearing.
and bernie sanders and people like hillary clinton
blame it on the rich. they say those evil rich
people. we take their money we can
solve the problems. it's not the evil rich
people. it's the irresponsible evil
government. ( bell ).
( applause ). >> moderator: governor
kasich. governor kasich, you've been
described as the democrats' favorite republican.
you talked about new hampshire democrats who come
up to you and say, "i hope you win."
why will that help you win a republican nomination?
>> you know, john, i think all people are the same.
i did 106 town hall hall halls i have been doing them left
and right here in south carolina.
the first thing we have to do is groat economy and i
know the form law landstuhl because i was chairman in
washington when we balanced the budget and created so
much jobs the same we did in ohio.
you need commonsense regulation, lower taxes on
business and individuals, and you need a fiscal plan
to be able to get ourselves in a situation where people
can predict a little bit about the future when it
comes to the fiscal issues. and when when you have that
formula, combined with workforce that's trained,
you can explode the economy and create many jobs.
i have done it twice and i want to go back to
washington and do it again. john, the thing is i think
there are people now, these blue-collar democrats-- my
dad was a blue-collar democrat-- the democratic
party's left them. when they're arguing about
being socialists, they've lost those blue-collar
democrats. and you know what i think
they get out of me is my sense of what they get out
of me, and it's an embarrassment about
campaigns. you brag about yourself.
( bell ) but i think i'm a uniter.
i think people sense it. i'm a man that can give
people hope and a sense that they have the opportunity
rise. and i'll tell you, i love
these blue-collar democrats because they're going to
vote for us come next fall, promise you that.
( applause ) >> moderator: mr. trump,
let me ask you a question, presidents in both parties
say the one thing you need in your administration is
somebody who can tell you you're wrong.
you don't necessarily seem like somebody who has
somebody who tells you you're wrong a lot.
you can tell us of an instance when somebody said,
"donald trump, you're wrong," and you listened to
them. >> i would say my wife tells
me i'm wrong all the time. and i listen.
( laughter ) >> moderator: about what?
>> oh, let me just say-- look, i am very open-- i
hired top people. i've had great success.
i built a great, great company.
i don't need to do this. i'm self-funding.
i'm spending a lot of money. i've spent-- like in new
hampshire i spent $3 million.
jeb bush spent $44 million. he came in five and i came
in number one. that's what the country
needs, folks. i spend $3.
he spends 42 of their money, of special interest money.
and it's just-- this is not going to make-- excuse me.
this is not going to make our country great again.
this is not what we need in our country.
we need people that know what the hell they're doing.
and politicians, they're all talk.
they're no action. and that's why people are
supporting me. i do listen to people.
i hire experts. i hire top, top people.
and i do listen. and you know what?
sometimes they're wrong. you have to know what to do
when to do it. but sometimes they're wrong.
>> moderator: something in talking to voters that
they wish somebody would tell you to cut it out is
the profanity. what's your reaction to
that? ( applause ).
>> well, i'll tell you-- over the years, i've made
many speeches. people have asked me, big
companies have asked me to make expeeches frenz of mine
that run big companies, on success.
and occasion, in order to sort of really highlight
something, i'll use a profanity.
one of the profanities that i got credited with using
that i didn't use was a very bad word two weeks ago they
never used. i said... you.
and everybody said oh, he didn't say anything wrong.
but you ( bleep )ed it. so everyone thinks i said--
i didn't say anything. i never said the word.
it is very unfair that criticism.
now, i will say this, with all of that being said,
( bell ) i have said i will not do it
at all, because fisay a word that's a little bit off
color, a little bit, it ends up being a headline.
i will not do it again. i was a very good student at
a great school not using-- by the way-- not using
profanity is very easy ( bell ).
>> moderator: governor bush.
>> i have to respond to this.
>> moderator: how about you respond and you can
answer the question i'll ask.
>> sounds like a good plan or you could ask me two
questions so i will get two questions.
>> moderator: if we adjudicate this the night
will be over. in 2012 you said your father
and ronald reagan would have a hard time based on their
records of trying to find accommodation and finding
some degree of common ground.
do you still feel that way? >> i think the dysfunction
in washington is really dangerous and we need a
proven leader that has a record of solving problems,
someone who doesn't cut and rup.
someone who will be a commander in chief to unite
our country, someone who doesn't disparage people or
brags he's been bankrupt four times and it was great
because he could use the legal system.
>> let me respond. that's another lie.
i never went bankrupt! >> that's another lie.
this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
>> we need someone with a proven record to be able to
forge consensus to solve problems. and right now,
both republicans and
democrats in washington don't get it.
people are struggling. 63% of americans can't make
a $500 car payment. most americans are living
paycheck to paycheck. and we need someone with a
proven record of growing the economy, reforming the
things that are broken and i'm that person.
>> moderator: mr. trump, you can respond.
>> jeb goes around saying just like the biggest
business leaders in this country i've used the laws
of the land to chapter-- i bought a company, i threw it
immediately into a chapter, i made a great deal.
i uses the laws to my benefit because i run a
company. excuse me, jeb!
i never went bankrupt, never.
but you don't want to say that.
let me just say, i've used it just like the biggest
leaders in the country. let me tell you something,
florida. flrkd he put so much debt on
floridaue know, we keep saying he's a wonderful
governor, wonderful governor-- he put so much
debt on florida, and he increased spending so much
that as soon as he got out of office, florida crashed.
i happened to be there. it's my second home.
florida crashed. he didn't coa good job as
governor. >> here we go.
>> excuse me, you haven't heard that.
you listen to the good record in florida.
you take a look at what happened as soon as that
year ended he got out ( bell )
florida crashed. too much debt.
he loaded it up with debt, and his spending went
through the ruth. >> moderator: john,
please, the bells are ringing, sir.
>> this is not a good governor.
>> here's the record. here's the record.
we led the nation in job growth seven out of eight
years. when i left there was $9
billion of reserves, 35% of general revenue.
no state came close to that. >> take a look at your
numbers. >> we were one of the two
states to go to a.a.a. bond rating.
we didn't go bankrupt and call it success when people
are laid off, when vendors don't get paid.
that's not success. what we did was create an
environment where people had a chance to have income.
personal income during my time went up 4.4%.
>> florida went down right after you went to office.
>> the government group-- >> moderator: senator
rubio, i want to ask you a 30-second question--
>> 30 seconds. >> moderator: i'll ask
the question and you do what you want.
>> i'll speak facht. >> moderator: no
president can know everything, right?
so a smart leader knows how to ask questions.
so if you could talk to any previous president, what's
the smart question you would ask about that job that you
want ton? >> i think one of the
presidents-- the president i grew up under was ronald
reagan, and reagan hadda i vision for america's future.
if you think about what ronald reagan inherited it's
not unlike what the next president will inherit.
this is the worst president we had for 35 years, 35
years would make it jimmy carter.
i think the question is how do you ipspire the american
people to believe in the future?
what did it take to ensure that the american people
despite all of the difficulties of the timeue
look back at the time. the american military was in
decline. our standing in the world
was in decline. we had hostages being held
in iran. our economy was in bad
shape. the american people were
scared about the future. they were scared about what
kind of country their children were going to live
in and inherit. and yet somehow ronald
reagan was able to instill in our nation and our people
a sense of optimism and he turned america around
because of what vision and ultimately because of that
leadership. i wish ronald reagan was
still around. this country needs someone
just like that. and if our next president is
even half the president ronald reagan was, america
is going to be greater than it's ever been.
>> moderator: that's going to have to be it
there, senator rubio. we have to go to a break.
we will >> moderator: time now
for closing statements. you will each have one
minute, and we'll begin with governor kasich.
>> well, i want to thank the people of south carolina.
you've been fantastic. and look, what i want you to
know is i'm going to send a lot of power, money, and
influence back to where we all live.
but as i've traveled around south carolina i've noticed
something. you know, it's that people
have a sense that you're not going to wait on a
president. you know, when i was a kid
we didn't wait for presidents to come to that
little blue-collar town and fix things.
you know, the lord made all of us special.
the lord wants us to be connected.
i believe we're part of a very big mosaic.
and i'll send the power back.
and whoever gets elected president here, hopefully
we'll take care of the issue of jobs and wages and social
security and the border. but the spirit of the
america rests in all of us. it's in our guts.
it's taking care of our children.
it's taking care of the lady next door who just lost her
husband. it's fixing the schools
where we live and telling kids to stay off drugs.
you see, i think what the lord wants is for to us
engage. in america, the spirit of
america doesn't come from the top down.
the spirit of america rests in us.
and i want to call on everyone in america to
double down and realize that you were made special to
heal this country and lift it for everyone.
thank you all very much. and i hope i can have your
vote in south carolina. ( applause )
>> moderator: dr. carson, dr. carson, you're next.
>> this is the first generation not expected to
do better than their parents.
some people say it's the new normal.
but there's nothing normal about it in an exceptional
american. i, like you, am a member of
we, the people, and we know that our country is headed
off the cliffs. joseph stalin said if you
want to bring america down you have to undermine three
things-- our spiritual life, our patriotism, and our
morality. we, the people, can stop
that decline, starting right here in south carolina.
if all the people who say, "i love ben carson and his
policies, but he can't win," vote for me, not only can we
win, but we can turn this thing around.
you know, we have this manipulation by the
political class and by the media telling us who we're
supposed to pick and how we're supposed to live.
we, the people, are the only people who determine that.
and if you elect me as your next president, i promise
you that you will get somebody who is accountable
to everybody and beholden to no one.
thank you. ( applause )
>> moderator: governor bush.
>> thank you all very much. the next president is going
to be confronted with an unforeseen challenge.
that's almost certain. it could be a pandemic, a
major natural disaster, or an attack on our country.
the question for south koreans and american is you
who do you want to have behind the big desk in the
oval office because that's the question.
it's not the things we're talking about today.
it's the great challenge that may happen.
i believe i will have a steady hand as commander in
chief and president of the united states.
i will unite this country around common purposes.
because i did it as governor of the state of florida.
when i was governor, we had eight hurricanes and four
tropical storms in 16 months.
our state was on its back. we recovered far faster than
what people thought because we led.
we ran to the challenge rather than cutting and
running. that's what we need in
washington, d.c. we need someone with a
servant's heart that has a backbone that isn't going to
focus polls and focus groups.
it's going to focus on the american people to keep them
safe and secure. i ask for your vote next
saturday. ( applause )
>> moderator: thank you, governor.
and now, senator marco rubio.
>> thank you, thank you for watching tonight.
this is a difficult time in our country.
our economy is flat. it's not creating the jobs
it once did. people struggle living
paycheck to paycheck. our culture is in trouble.
wrong is now considered right and right is
considered wrong, and all the things that once held
our families together are now under constant assault.
and around the world, marc reputation is in decline.
our allies don't trust us. our adversaries don't fear
us. iran captures our sailors
and parades them before the world on video.
these are difficult times, but 2016 can be a turning
point. that's why i'm running for
president. that's why i'm here today to
ask you for your vote. if you elect me president,
we are going to reembrace free enterprise so everyone
can go as far as their talent and work will take
them. we are going to be a country
that says life begins at conception and the life is
worthy of the protection of our laws.
we are going to be a country that says a marriage is
between one man and one woman and we are going to be
a country that says the constitution and the rights
that it talks about do not come from our president.
they come from our creator. and we are going to be loyal
to our allies, like israel, not enemies like iran, and
we will rebuild the u.s. military so no one will dare
test it. vote for me.
i will unify this party ( bell )
i will grow it. we will win this election
and we will make want 21st century a new
american century. ( applause )
>> moderator: matter senator cruz, your closing
statement. >> south carolina, you have
a critical choice to make. our country literally hangs
in the balance. do you want another
washington dealmaker who will do business as usual,
cut deals with the democrats, grow government,
grow debt, and give up our fundamental liberties?
or do you want a conservative, a proven
conservative who will stand and fight with you each and
every day? listen, repealing obamacare
is not going to be easy. passing a simple flat tax
and abolishing the i.r.s. is not going to be easy.
but if we stand with the american people we can do
it. and today, we saw just how
grave the stakes are. two branches of government
hang in the balance, not just the presidency, but the
supreme court. if we get this wrong, if we
nominate the wrong candidate, the second
amendment, life, marriage, religious liberty-- every
one of those hangs in the balance.
my little girls are here. i don't want to look my
daughters in the eyes and say, we lost their
liberties." who do you know will defend
the constitution and bill of rights and as a commander in
chief who do you know will stand up to our economies as
the calm, steady, deliberate strength to defeat our
economies ( bell )
to secure the borders and keep america safe?
( applause ) >> moderator: all right,
mr. trump, your closing statement.
>> thank you. politicians are all talk, no
action. you've seen where they've
taken you to. woe owe $19 trillion right
now. it's going to be inincreased
with that horrible budget from a month ago that was
just approved by politicians.
we need a change. we need a very big change.
we're going to make our country great again.
i say this every night, every day, every afternoon,
and it's so true-- we don't win anymore.
we don't win with health care.
we don't win with isis and the military.
we don't take care of our vets.
we don't take care of our borders.
we don't win. we're going to start winning
again. we are not going to be
controlled by people that are special interests and
lobbyists that everybody here has contributed to.
and you know what? they do exactly what those
folks want them to do. we're going to make our
country great, and we're going to do the right thing.
i'm working for you. i'm not working for anybody
else. thank you very much.
( applause ). >> moderator: all right,
we'll be back with a few final thoughts in a moment.
>> moderator: so that's nine republican can bees
down and at least three to go.
we'll have more about the presidential race and the
death of justice antonin scalia tomorrow morning on
"face the nation." our guests include donald
trump, marco rubio, and democratic candidate bernie
sanders. debate coverage continues
now on our digital network, cbsn.
for major garrett and kimberly strassel, i'm john