Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Tuesday's Debate Focused on National Security. NATO Attack Killed Two Dozen Pakistani Soldiers, Straining Pakistan-US Relations. Afghan President Karzai Announces Afghan Troops Are Taking over Security in More Provinces; Coach Wife Voices Abuse Concerns; Handovers in Afghanistan; Gingrich Gets Key Endorsement

Aired November 27, 2011 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. We're going to look at the 2012 presidential contenders in this political hour.

But first an update on some of the other top stories we're following. We begin with shocking developments in the Syracuse University child molestation scandal. The wife of assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine reportedly admitted she had concerns that her husband had molested a boy in their home. ESPN reports Bobby Davis, the alleged victim, recorded a phone call with the coach's wife back in 2002 in which she said, "I know everything that went on, and you have trusted somebody you shouldn't have."

And Afghan president Hamid Karzai has announced his country's troops will be taking control of more provinces including parts of Helmand province where many British troops have been killed in past years. It is considered a key moment in the drawdown of U.S. troops and the gradual pullout of NATO forces.

The recent NATO attack in Pakistan has enflamed already tense ties between that country and the United States. The Pakistani foreign minister said today that the NATO attack that killed dozens of soldiers has plunged relations with the U.S. into deeper crisis. Pakistan shut down two NATO supply routes in response to that attack.

Now to the battle for the White House. Republican Newt Gingrich has just picked up a key endorsement, just weeks before the New Hampshire primary. The New Hampshire "Union Leader of Manchester" says the former House speaker is worthy of voter support on January 10th. The paper says, "Republican voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. That candidate is Newt Gingrich."

CNN political producer Rachel Streitfeld is in Concord. So Rachel, what does this mean for Gingrich? Big endorsement?

RACHEL STREITFELD, CNN POLITICAL PRODUCER: Well, it is a stunning comeback for a man whose campaign was considered to be over just a few months ago. You'll remember many of Gingrich's staffers had quit and he was having trouble raising money. And now here he is on the cover of the only state wide newspaper in New Hampshire, "The Union Leader". It is a closely watched endorsement and it should help him. I'm sorry.

Yes, Fredricka, it should help him. It is important locally for those voters who will - well, we're hearing more some questions about how the editorial board came to the suspicion what factors were important in this decision. So we know that they chose not to choose frontrunners. If we look back in the past, they went with John McCain in 2007. So he didn't end up winning the state. Before that in 2000, they picked businessman Steve Forbes who didn't win. They've also backed Pat Buchanan twice and Ronald Reagan twice. So a candidate's political ideology is important, it is a very conservative editorial page and so they consider that as well as electability. Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right. Rachel, so just looking at the numbers, you know, CNN-"Time" opinion research poll taken late last month shows Gingrich in fifth place with just five percent. Mitt Romney is far out front with 40 percent. And a 7 News-Suffolk University poll last week shows Romney with 41 percent and Gingrich tied with Ron Paul with 14 percent. So you have to wonder whether this endorsement from this newspaper, the only one in New Hampshire, as you put it, will give him a real big bump in the polls.

STREITFELD: Certainly this will help Gingrich as he tries to build momentum in New Hampshire. He's trying to set himself up as the alternative to Mitt Romney in the state. Romney now is the long time front runner in the state. And of course, it is notable he was not chosen to get this endorsement. He didn't get if last time either. We'll see how that shakes out for Romney. But certainly, for Gingrich, it a good day for him. Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right. Rachel, thanks so much.

So illegal immigration has emerged as one of the dominant issues for the 2012 candidates. Ever since Tuesday's CNN Republican debate, Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann have been going back and forth about that very issue. Here is the initial exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: What would you do if you were president of the United States with these millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom have been in this country for a long time.

NEWT GINGRICH, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think we ought to have an H1 visa that goes with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering so people stay here. About five blocks down the street, you'll see a statue of Einstein. Einstein came here as an immigrant. So let's be clear how much the United States has drawn upon the world to be richer, better and more inclusive. I did vote for the (INAUDIBLE) Act.

Ronald Reagan in his diary says he signed it. We were supposed to have 300,000 people get amnesty, there were three million. But he signed it because we were going to get two things in return. We were going to get control of the border and we're going to get a guest worker program with employer enforcement. We got neither. So I think you got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border as the governor said. I believe ultimately you have to find some system of - once you put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II selective service award to frankly, reviews the people who are here.

If you're here, if you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period. If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids, and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes, obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out. The (INAUDIBLE) foundation has a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a path to citizenship and so there is a way to ultimately end up with the country where there is no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone.

BLITZER: Congresswoman Bachmann, you agree with the speaker?

MICHELE BACHMANN, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I don't agree that you would make 11 million workers legal because that in, effect, is amnesty. And I also don't agree that you would give the Dream Act on a federal level. Those are two things that I believe that the speaker had been for. He can speak for himself. But those are two areas that I don't agree with.

What I do think though is that what Steve Jobs said to President Obama, he said to President Obama that he had to move a great deal of his operation to China because he couldn't find 30,000 engineers to be able to do the work that needed to be done. That's what we want to do. We do want to have people. And I agree with the speaker, people like chemists and engineers, and people who are highly skilled. We think about the United States and what is in the best interests of the United States.

If we can utilize these workers like Steve Jobs wanted to, then we need to offer those visas. That will help the United States. But I don't agree that we should make 11 million workers who are here illegally legal.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: Polls show a big partisan divide on illegal immigration. In our latest CNN opinion research poll, 42 percent of the Democrats say the main focus should be deporting illegal immigrants and stopping more from coming. Fifty four percent of independents feel that way and 71 percent of Republicans. When asked whether they favor building a fence along the Mexican border, 46 percent of Democrats say yes. Half of independents agree and 67 percent of Republicans say yes.

One republican presidential hopeful could soon get a much coveted endorsement from an outspoken icon of the illegal immigration battle. Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio is expected to campaign with Rick Perry on Tuesday, in New Hampshire. Our Ed Lavandera sat down with the sheriff who could find himself in a new role as kingmaker.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's going to be a little controversial.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Joe Arpaio just might be the most popular kid on the playground over Republican presidential politics.

BACHMANN: Sheriff Joe is the nation's sheriff. He is one of my heroes.

LAVANDERA: The candidates are lining up to see him. So we too sat down with him. These are interesting time for Arpaio. Critics are clamoring for his resignation.

SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA: I'll tell you right now, you're not going to drive me out of office. I'm not going to resign. I'm not going to resign. And I'm going to keep fighting.

LAVANDERA: Arpaio crusades against illegal immigration, a sheriff who revels in making county inmates wear pink boxer shorts. But this election season Arpaio could become kingmaker in the Republican presidential primary. Cain, Bachmann, Romney and Perry have come calling, looking for his highly coveted endorsement. All this despite a cloud of controversy hanging over the sheriff.

County officials accuse Arpaio of misspending $100 million over eight years to fund, in part, his controversial immigration raids.

(on camera): Sheriff Arpaio is also under a wide ranging federal investigation. The U.S. attorney's office here in Phoenix tells us it and the FBI are looking into allegations that the sheriff and his top deputies abused their law enforcement power. They're also looking into civil rights violations that inmates in the sheriff's jails were mistreated and allegations of racial profiling in those highly publicized illegal immigration raids

Those are the same raids that have made Sheriff Arpaio so popular and so controversial at the same time.

(voice-over): Arpaio says he's clean and unapologetic as ever. He's running for a sixth term as sheriff.

(on camera): Is there a cloud hanging over your department?

ARPAIO: I'm higher in the polls now than ever before because they know I do the job.

LAVANDERA: If they charge you with anything having to do with abuse of power.

ARPAIO: I don't even know what abuse of power is. I don't think there is a law. I'm the guy being abused over and over. Even you are abusing me. I'm the guy being abused. But you know what, that's part of the job. You take it.

MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Sheriff Arpaio. It is an honor to be here with you. ARPAIO: Why are you concerned with what he said?

LAVANDERA: Politicians usually run away from other politicians shrouded in controversy. But this endorsement could help someone like Rick Perry. The governor offered in state tuition to children of illegal immigrants. The issue sent Perry spiraling down in the polls. Arpaio tweeted he had a great conversation with Perry about immigration. That could boost the Texas governor's immigration credentials. The sheriff loves being in the middle of it all.

ARPAIO: I will not be riding off in the sunset.

LAVANDERA: So stay tuned. Arpaio says an endorsement could come very soon. Ed Lavandera, CNN, Phoenix, Arizona.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: All right. So let's go back to CNN political producer Rachel Streitfeld in Concord, New Hampshire. So Rachel, what are you hearing there on the ground? Will Sheriff Arpaio give his endorsement on Tuesday and are people excited about the idea that he'll be campaigning for Rick Perry?

STREITFELD: Well, we're going to have to wait and see about the endorsement. I can tell you that Sheriff Arpaio, America's sheriff, as he'd like to be called, will be in town campaigning with Rick Perry. His first trip with a presidential candidate. You can take that for what it is worth.

As we heard, he has been courted by several candidates. A lot of the Perry staffers are excited, tweeting that America's sheriff will there be. There are some tweets about pink boxer shorts. And as Ed Lavandera pointed out an endorsement from Arpaio could be helpful with Perry because with some social conservatives who think he hasn't taken a hard enough line against illegal immigration in this state.

(CROSSTALK)

WHITFIELD: OK. So what do you know about the plan on Tuesday? Where would they, you know, show their faces in the place? I mean what is their agenda?

STREITFELD: They're starting off at a diner called Joey's Diner. I think Perry has three town halls in the state. You have to check me on that. But that's, you know, that's the New Hampshire tradition is hosting town halls and sometimes candidates like to bring along somebody else on the side, you know, provide a little extra sizzle and a little excitement in the campaign.

WHITFIELD: All right. We look forward to that. Thanks so much for the heads up on that, Rachel, appreciate that.

And this CNN programming note, Newt Gingrich will join John King in Charleston, South Carolina, tomorrow night. It is a one on one interview on "John King USA" at 6:00 Eastern time. And lawmakers say they're working for you to improve the economy and the country. But lately we have seen more acrimony than consensus. So what can be done to end the gridlock?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY KIMMEL, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE" HOST: Republicans and Democrats in the congressional super committee were unable to make any kind of compromise to cut the deficit by the deadline, which was tonight. The super committee, in case you don't know, is two committee what super cuts is to cuts.

And I think the problem is there were consequences for the country if they didn't get this done, but there are no consequences for the committee members themselves. Now hear me out, if we, in fact, had each committee member a poison cupcake, something that takes a month to kill you, and told them that once they came to an agreement, they get out the antidote, I'm not a political scientist but I have a feeling the process may have gone more smoothly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Jimmy Kimmel poking fun at Congress. Not that everyone is laughing. Members face another test this week to see if they can break the gridlock. The failure of the deficit cutting super committee means, there's added pressure on lawmakers to deal with the stack of economic issues, chief among them, whether to renew tax breaks which have increased the take home pay for millions of Americans. This week Senate Democrats will propose an extension of the payroll tax cuts. But Republicans oppose paying for it with the surtax on millionaires.

So many are wondering what can be done to ease the gridlock on Capitol Hill for the good of the country and for the good of the parties. Lisa Borders and Jonathan Miller think they have a solution. They're co-founders of No Labels, a movement which seeks to mobilize frustrated Democrats, Republicans and independents into a political force to end dysfunction in Washington.

Lisa is joining us from San Francisco. Jonathan in Lexington, Kentucky. OK. Lisa, you first, so what is No Labels really all about? Who would be on board?

LISA BORDERS, CO-FOUNDER, NO LABELS: Well, good to be with you, Fredricka. No labels is about a citizen's movement. In your last piece, you talked about king makers. Last time I checked this was a democracy. Those of us in No Labels, which includes Republicans, Democrats and independents, are very interested in making Congress work.

Today, as has always been the case, our Congress is supposed to help us solve problems in this country. It is not being done. So anyone that is fed up with the gridlock in Washington and the inaction and the inability of us to move forward as a nation would be interested in joining and participating with No Labels.

WHITFIELD: So it sounds like you're really appealing to the electorate.

BORDERS: We absolutely are. We have already mobilized 435 congressional districts by putting a leader in every single one of them, working from the grassroots, a bottom up approach as opposed to those in office who believe they get to rule with impunity and use their votes as they see fit. That's absolutely inappropriate.

So what we are asking is to have Congress work, have a common sense approach, a bipartisan collective effort to move the country forward, not left, not right, but forward.

WHITFIELD: Well, Jonathan, but it doesn't seem the problem is with the electorate, but the elected. So how do you get them on board?

JONATHAN MILLER, CO-FOUNDER, NO LABELS: Well, I'm going to give you a spoiler alert, Fredricka. In a couple of weeks, December 13th, No Labels is going to introduce a plan that we're working with right now with our grassroots activists across the country to make Congress work, to figure out ways to break the gridlock and to put pressure on the folks in Washington to stop acting in such a hyper partisan way, but to act together for the good of the country.

You know, Jimmy Kimmel's idea about a poisoned cupcake probably is not going to make our list, but how about the idea if the Congress doesn't pass a budget, they don't get paid? That's the kind of common sense idea that we're going to be looking at and you stay tuned to us in December 13th, we're going to have a lot of really good ideas that hopefully will get this thing turned around.

WHITFIELD: Well, going into the super committee with No Labels, wasn't that the intent that you have six members on each side who would come to the table and talk and try to, you know, massage a plan, come up with some consensus, that didn't happen. So how is this No Labels campaign to reach even those members of the super committee, which initially, I guess everyone was convinced that they would be reaching across the aisle, Lisa?

BORDERS: Well, the - that was the expectation, and clearly the expectation wasn't met, Fredricka. And so what we intend to do is put together a score card, which identifies those electeds who are actually using the No Labels approach who are coming in, not with the chronic disease of myopia, by standing in their corners with their parties, but who are willing to work with one another on a regular basis, not just doing something called a super committee.

There should not have been a need for a super committee and clearly they failed. And so what we would like to do is educate the electorate, motivate them to be not only passionate about America, but to watch what is going on in America. And then translate that passion into action. And tell their representatives, both congressional and the senators, that we are not comfortable with the behavior that is occurring in Washington today, that we actually want to see them work together for the good of the country. And so what we expect to do is bring the pressure to bear, the political pressure from those of us who vote every single election, who want to make sure that the nation's moving forward.

WHITFIELD: So along with this you're proposing there would be a code of conduct. And it is stated, as such, civil and public discourse, and behavior and stand against incivility wherever it is encountered, treat respectfully those with whom you differ. Take evidence seriously as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Are you proposing, Jonathan, that this would be similar to the doctrine that Grover Norquist came out with, that Republicans signed this commitment, that there would be no increase of taxes. Are you proposing that this code of conduct is something that lawmakers would sign and would endorse?

MILLER: Yes, it is funny you mentioned the Norquist pledge. Because one of the things that we're seriously considering as part of our Make Congress Work package is that congressmen can no longer take pledges except to the flag and to the country. That when you lock yourself into a particular issue or special interest or ideology, then there is no room for bipartisanship.

Instead, we're going to be using two methods to try to change the behavior and to make Congress work better. First of all, we're going to propose a number of rules changes, so that Congress will be forced to meet together more often, to have more civil discussion and to work on ways to improve the bipartisanship.

But secondly, and this is where your viewers can come in, come to Nolabels.org, sign up or look into our programming and as we build our movement, we're going to be putting pressure on Congress to work together, in a bipartisan way. Right now, Congress is under pressure from the extremes.

WHITFIELD: OK.

MILLER: The Democrats from the far left, the Republicans from the far right, we want to put pressure from the great American people who want them to work together.

WHITFIELD: OK. Jonathan Miller, Lisa Borders, keep us posted on the progress of the No Labels campaign.

BORDERS: Thank you, Fredricka.

MILLER: Thank you.

WHITFIELD: Thanks so much.

Payroll tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, just what America needs to get its economy restarted. Candidate Herman Cain has an answer, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) WHITFIELD: All right, we continue to delve into the issues on the presidential campaign every Sunday. We're spending this hour of the "CNN Newsroom" to allow you to hear from the contenders as they spell out their future for the United States.

Republican hopeful Herman Cain is starting off this week talking about the pending legislation aimed at extending payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits. He says it is a distraction from the bigger issue. Here is what the candidate told our Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union" today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HERMAN CAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I could support extending it, but here's the problem. It didn't do any good the first time. That is a thimble of water in the ocean. The president -

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN HOST: Isn't it something - if you've got millions of Americans who have a thousand dollars or more in their pocket, that's got to help.

CAIN: Candy, I'm agreeing with you, a thousand dollars would help a lot of people. But it is a distraction from the big problem and that is a lack of effective economic policy to grow this economy. So argument over whether or not we should extend it or not extend it, that's not the issue. The issue is where's the economic growth for the entire economy.

CROWLEY: Long-term unemployment benefits expire at the end of this year. That is unemployment benefits for those who have been unemployed for 99 weeks or more. Do you believe those unemployment benefits should be extended?

CAIN: No, and here's why. Where do we stop, Candy, is the question. Here again, extending unemployment benefits, extending the cut in the payroll tax are just distractions from the bigger problem, which is lack of economic growth which has not been there. Secondly, we're spending money we do not have. It is unfortunate that people are unemployed. This is one of the reasons that I have proposed a bold plan to get this economy going, which you know is 999.

People need to go - want to go back to work. That's the good news. But this economy is not producing the jobs in order to get 14 million people that are unemployed back to work.

CROWLEY: About two million of those will lose their benefits if long-term unemployment benefits are not extended. And there are lots of studies that show that one of the quickest ways to get money into the economy is through these unemployment benefits. So if I read you correctly, you would not be for extending those for another year, but you would be for the payroll tax cut?

CAIN: Candy, it is not as simple. And this is part of the problem. What we need to do to get this economy growing is to put fuel in the engine, which is to cut taxes to businesses and individuals. Rather than just cutting the payroll tax, where people might have a thousand dollars, let's cut -- if the president wants to do something in short- term, cut income taxes. Cut corporate taxes.

CROWLEY: Sure, but that's -

CAIN: This is something I was proposing earlier. That would solve the problem. This is just tinkering around the edges. That's what I'm saying.

CROWLEY: Right. And it may well be in terms of you're not getting huge tax reform and not reforming social security or Medicare. But that - none of the big things are going to happen by the end of this year. So that's why I'm asking, these are going to come up incrementally and so I'm asking you whether you think the absence of these other things that you're talking about --

CAIN: But, Candy, if the president were to go to Congress and say I want to lower personal income taxes and corporate taxes by a significant amount in order to do something such that next year will not be an economic flat line, I believe he could get that support. It is simply not in his DNA. So, no, taking a position on extending unemployment benefits or leaving that two percentage point reduction in payroll taxes, that's not working on the right problem.

CROWLEY: OK.

CAIN: That's my point.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WHITFIELD: With the election less than one year away and students in the midst of applying to college, the "Princeton Review" has recently named the most politically active colleges. Coming in at number 10, New Hampshire. Hampshire College, that is. Bates College, number nine. Harvard College is number eight. University of Chicago, the United States Military Academy at West Point, number six. The top five politically active colleges coming up right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right. Before the break, we named five of the top ten politically active colleges according to the Princeton Review. Rounding out the list are number five, American University. Number four, College of the Atlantic. Number three, New College of Florida, Georgetown University, number two. And number one, the George Washington University.

Welcome back to this special hour of the CNN NEWSROOM. We're focusing on politics, allowing you to hear from the 2012 presidential contenders, uninterrupted. CNN's debate Tuesday night focused on national security and two of the Republican candidates tangled over the Patriot Act. Here is the exchange between former house speaker Newt Gingrich and Congressman Ron Paul.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence. The Patriot Act has clearly been a key part of that. And I think looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives, this is not going to end in the short run, and we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So speaker, just to clarify, you wouldn't change the Patriot Act?

GINGRICH: No, I would not change it. I'm not aware of any specific change that it needs and I would look at strengthening it because I think the dangers are literally that great. And, again, I spent years studying this stuff. You start thinking about one nuclear weapon, in one American city, and the scale of loss of life and you ask yourself, what should the president be capable of doing to stop that?

And you come up with a very different answer. Again, very sharp division. Criminal law, the government should be, frankly, on defense and you're innocent until proven guilty. National security, the government should have many more tools in order to save our lives.

BLITZER: Congressman Paul, I suspect you disagree.

REP. RON PAUL, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I do.

BLITZER: Tell us why.

PAUL: I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I'm concerned as everybody is about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist, he was arrested. Terrorism still on the books, internationally and nationally he is a criminal, it is a crime and we should deal with it. We dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh. Why I really fear it is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our early founders were very clear, they said don't be willing to sacrifice liberty for security.

Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.

BLITZER: I want to bring others in. Do you want to respond, Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Yes. Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That's the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don't want a law that says, after we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says you try to take out an American city; we're going to stop you.

PAUL: This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child beating and wife beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. If you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security, and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms and we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. So don't do it so carelessly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: From protecting the home land to protecting interests overseas, the 2012 Republican presidential candidates talk about Pakistan, American aid and nuclear weapons.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: CNN brings you politics each Sunday. During this hour, we're bringing you the 2012 presidential contenders in their words.

Yesterday's NATO attack that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers at a military checkpoint has put new strains on the already strained relationship between the United States and Pakistan. That relationship was part of Tuesday night's CNN Republican debate. Some of the strongest comments were from Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You asked me about the money that the United States gives to Pakistan. This is a dual answer. A nation that lies, that does everything possibly that you could imagine wrong. At the same time, they do share intelligence data with us regarding al Qaeda. We need to demand more. The money that we are sending right now is primarily intelligence money to Pakistan. It is helping the United States. Whatever our action is, it must ultimately be about helping the United States and our sovereignty, our safety and our security.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You would continue that aid to Pakistan.

BACHMANN: At this point I would continue that aid, but I do think that the Obama policy of keeping your fingers crossed is not working in Pakistan. I also think that Pakistan is a nation that is kind of like too nuclear to fail. We have to make sure we take that threat very seriously.

BLITZER: Governor Perry.

GOV. RICK PERRY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I understand where she's coming from, but the bottom line is they showed us time after time that they can't be trusted. And until Pakistan clearly shows that they have America's best interests in mind, I would not send them one penny. I think it is important for us to send the message to those across the world, that if you're not going to be an ally of the United States, do not expect a dime of our citizen's money to be coming into your country.

That is the way we change foreign policy. Now, if we want to engage these countries, with our abilities and our companies that go in and help to economically build these countries up rather than writing a blank check to them, we can have that conversation, because I think that is a change in foreign policy that would be adequate and appropriate and in a positive move for us. But to write a check to countries that are clearly not representing American interests is nonsensical.

BLITZER: You want to respond, Congresswoman Bachmann.

BACHMANN: With all due respect to the governor, I think that's highly naive. Because again, we have to recognize what is happening on the ground. These are nuclear weapons all across this nation. Potentially al Qaeda could get a hold of these weapons. These weapons could find their way out of Pakistan, into New York City, or into Washington, D.C., and a nuclear weapon could be set off in this city.

That's how serious this is. We have to maintain an American presence. They certainly aren't looking out for the best interests of the United States. I wouldn't expect them to. But at the same time, we have to have our interests, which is national security represented. The best way to do that with an uneven actor state is to have some sort of presence there.

BLITZER: I just want to give Governor Perry a chance to respond. She just said your views were highly naive.

PERRY: We need to be engaged in that part of the world. I never said for us not to be engaged. I just said we need to quit writing blank checks to these countries and then letting them decide how these dollars are going to be spent. We have Afghanistan and India working in concert right now to the leverage of Pakistan. I think if we would create a trade zone in that part of the world where you have all of those countries working together, that may be the answer to getting Pakistan to understand that they have to work with all of the countries in that region.

BLITZER: All right. I want to move on. You'll have a chance to respond.

BACHMANN: Wolf, if I could just clarify. We're not writing just blank checks. We're also exchanging intelligence information. So we aren't writing blank checks.

BLITZER: All right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: The Republican presidential contenders also talked about Afghanistan and the U.S. pulling its troops out of that country. A heated debate next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: We continue to delve into the issues on the presidential campaign every Sunday. We're spending this hour of the CNN NEWSROOM to allow you to hear from the contenders as they spell out their future for the United States.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has announced his troops are taking charge of more provinces including parts of Helmand Province where many British troops have been killed in past years. It is considered a key moment in the drawdown of U.S. troops and the gradual pullout of NATO forces. The American troop departure led to a tense exchange between Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman in last week's CNN debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Our effort there is to keep Afghanistan from becoming a launching point for terror against the United States. We can't just write off a major part of the world. Pakistan is the sixth largest country in the world. We can't just say good-bye to all of what is going on in that part of the world. Instead we want to draw them toward modernity. For that to happen, we don't want to literally pull up stakes and run out of town after the extraordinary investment that we made. That means we should have a gradual transition of handing off to the Afghan security forces the responsibility for their own country.

JON HUNTSMAN, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think we need to square with the American people about what we have achieved. We need an honest conversation in this country about the sacrifices that have been made over nearly ten years. We have -- we have dismantled the Taliban. We have run them out of Kabul. We have had free elections in 2004. We killed Osama bin Laden. We dismantled al Qaeda.

We have achieved some very important goals for the United States of America. Now the fact that we have 100,000 troops nation building in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built, when on the ground we do need intelligence gathering, no doubt about that. We need a strong Special Forces presence. We need a drone presence and we need some ongoing training of the Afghan national army. But we haven't done a very good job defining and articulating what the end point is in Afghanistan. I think the American people are getting very tired about where we find ourselves today.

BLITZER: Let me let Governor Romney respond.

ROMNEY: Let me respond. Are you suggesting, Governor, that we just take all our troops out next week? What is your proposal?

HUNTSMAN: Did you hear what I just said? I said we should draw down from 100,000 troops. We need 100,000 troops; we need a presence on the ground that is more akin to 10 or 15,000. That will serve our interests in terms of intelligence gathering and Special Forces response capability. We need to prepare for a world, not just in South Asia, but in deed in every corner of the world, in which counterterrorism is going to be in front of us for as far as the eye can see in the 21st century.

ROMNEY: And the commanders on the ground feel that we should bring down our surge troops by December of 2012 and bring down all of our troops other than perhaps 10,000 or so by the end of 2014. The decision to pull our troops out before that, they believe, would put at risk the extraordinary investment of treasure and blood, which has been sacrificed by the American military. I stand with the commanders in this regard and have no information that suggests that pulling our troops out faster than that would do anything but put at great peril the extraordinary sacrifices that has been made. This is not time for America to cut and run. We have been in for ten years. We're winding down. The Afghan troops are picking up the capacity to secure their country and the mission is pretty straightforward that is to allow the Afghan people to have a sovereign nation, not taken over by the Taliban.

BLITZER: Let me bring the Speaker in. What do you say, pull out -- go ahead.

HUNTSMAN: Just about the generals on the ground. Listen, I think it is important for the American people to know we have achieved some very important objectives in raising standards in Afghanistan and helping to build civil society. But at the end of the day, the president of the United States is commander in chief. Commander in chief. Of course you're going to listen to the generals. But I also remember when people listened to the generals in 1967 and we heard a certain course of action in Southeast Asia that didn't serve our interests very well. The president is the commander in chief and ought to be informed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Thirty seven days and counting before the nation's first caucus. Many newspapers and groups are deciding who they will endorse as president. Straight ahead, our Candy Crowley looks at these game changers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID LETTERMANN, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN:" Newt Gingrich is back, ladies and gentlemen. Are you excited about it? Newt. The same thing, Mitt Romney, you know, we never had in the history of this great Republic, ever had a president named Mitt. And obviously the same would be true for Newt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Newt.

LETTERMAN: So, I mean, I'm pulling for both of them because that would be groundbreaking stuff, wouldn't it? But Newt Gingrich says he wants to get rid of Social Security. Yes. Well, wait a minute, let's think about it. Who is more qualified to give this country financial advice than a guy who ran up a half million dollar bill at Tiffany's? That's the guy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: That's David Letterman punching some fun at Newt Gingrich. The Republican presidential candidate has had a big week with the jump in the polls and a key endorsement. Chief political correspondent Candy Crowley wraps it all in this week's game changer. CANDY CROWLEY, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Give this week to Newt Gingrich, the latest Republican game changer to rise in the polls and today's brass ring recipient. He won the endorsement of the influential conservative newspaper "The New Hampshire Union Leader." The paper praised Gingrich for bold, innovative ideas that will help a country in crises. Mitt Romney has consistently led the polls in New Hampshire, but the editor of the editorial page says Romney is too careful a guy, trying to please everyone.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW CLINE, EDITOR, "NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION LEADER:" I don't think we're in the kind of situation right now as a country that that's necessarily the right kind of president at the moment. Perhaps in the late 19th century, perfect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: Youch. The union leader's track record of endorsing the eventual winner is abysmal, but Newt is not complaining. It is probably welcome relief after spending much of the week parsing his suggestion that not every undocumented worker ought to be thrown out of the country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If you've been here 25 years and you have three kids and two grandkids, you have been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church; I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: That has the ring of amnesty, which if it were shorter, would be a four letter word in the Republican Party. Gingrich's Republican rivals think he stepped in it and are taking full advantage. Finally, returning to the aforementioned too cautious Mr. Mitt Romney, the "New York Times" featured a front page article on that hair, that perfect, perfect hair. The Times quotes Romney's long time stylist saying, I will tell him to mess it up a little bit but he's a very controlled man. The hair goes with the man. The paper points out on occasion Romney will trim his own hair and that is much to the dismay of his barber.

Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks so much, Candy.

We're counting down to the nation's first caucus in Iowa and the first primary in New Hampshire. Straight ahead, we're tracking which candidates will be in those states this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Apparently New Hampshire is the place to be this week in the 2012 presidential hunt. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul will make stops there throughout the week.

Mitt Romney will spend the first part of the week in Florida. Newt Gingrich heads to South Carolina and will be a guest on CNN's "John King USA" tomorrow night from Charleston. And then on Wednesday, President Barack Obama will travel to Pennsylvania to urge Congress to act to extend and expand the payroll tax cut.

Thanks so much for tuning in to the special hour of politics. Join us every Sunday, 4:00 Eastern Time. Now stay right here for the latest news right here in the NEWSROOM.