Fox News "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace" - Transcript


Date: Oct. 9, 2011


Senator, you've spent more than 60 days this year in Iowa, which is almost double what any of the other candidate has spent and the conventional wisdom in that state is, if anyone is going to pull a Huckabee, come from long shot to win the Iowa caucuses, it's you. What's your strategy?

RICK SANTORUM, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, the strategy is to go down and talk to the people of Iowa and do town hall meetings. And I have been to 70 counties of the 99 counties. As you mention, we spend a lot of time there. I think we've done almost 180 town hall-type meetings.

And, you know, we are talking, basically, to activist. So, we understand that. We are not hitting huge crowds but we are hitting the people who are the engine of the Iowa caucuses. And they are talking and have influence in their community.

And, you know, the fact that I have been in the community, being in the small counties that pays a lot of dividends and, obviously, our plan is not to peak in June or July but now in January, we were February, but now January, when the votes are counted.

WALLACE: All right. You raised in the second quarter, the one that ended in June, $582,000. By way of comparison, Herman Cain raised over $2 million.

You have got a report, your third quarter, the number -- the quarter that ended in the end of September. You got to report your fundraising numbers this week. What's your number going to be?

SANTORUM: It's going to be a little bit more than that. Here's our fundraising number, we are cash positive. We're running a grassroots campaign.

We're spending a lot of money. I don't have a lot of overheads. I have no consultants. I don't have anybody telling me what to think or how to think it.

And we are just running a grassroots campaign for president. We, like I said, we are cash positive. We can make our payrolls. In fact, we're doing very, very well in that regard. And we're starting to build our last staff.

The last two and a half weeks of the quarter, we raised more money than the previous two and half months. So, we are on an uptick as a result of -- well, the FOX News debate and CNN debate where I was given a little bit more of an opportunity to share my ideas and get into some discussions with the other candidates, and people are responding very, very well.

So, we feel like we are beginning to gain traction just at the right time.

WALLACE: OK. Another problem you've got besides money and it sounds like it's going to be somewhat tight for the rest of the year, is that as --

SANTORUM: We have enough money to do -- we have enough money to do what we need to do, Chris. I mean, again, if you have a huge campaign and lots of consultants, you need a lot of money. I don't. I try to just be the candidate that is real, is out there, not scripted and messaged by a group of folks who think that, you know, reading polls you get votes in this country.

WALLACE: OK. But if I can get to one of your other issues, it's the 2012 primary calendar and the fact that it has been moved up at least a month. Let's look at that calendar. Instead of starting in early February, which is what the Republican Party's plan was, Iowa and New Hampshire are now moving to just after new years and possibly the last week of December. Christmas in Des Moines.

You accuse Mitt Romney of trying to bully the early states in order to rig the calendar. Explain. Why is this Mitt Romney's fault?

SANTORUM: Well, there were reports out of Nevada that the Romney people were, in fact, trying to bully Nevada to move their primary up to force Iowa and New Hampshire into the early part of the year.

Look, Governor Romney is not doing well in Iowa. He's not spending much time there. He's put all of his eggs in the New Hampshire basket and I think trying to force Iowa into early -- excuse me -- late this year is trying to marginalize Iowa as a primary. He's trying to marginalize them and their impact on the system in order to put more weight on New Hampshire.

It's a strategy that I think he's pursuing. Obviously, if you're not doing going to do well in the first primary state, you want to minimalize it as much as possible and I think that's what he's doing.

Obviously, we believe we can do very well in Iowa and, by the way, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which we've also spent a lot of time in.

WALLACE: It looks and may be silly to even talk this way. But it looks like there are basically two tickets in this Republican primary race. One is for Mitt Romney who seems to be the legitimate front runner and the other is for the more conservative or alternative to Mitt Romney, and that's obviously s the ticket that you are looking to punch.

Let me go through some of your rivals for that alternative spot and have you talked about them and why you think you deserve consideration and votes instead of them. Governor Rick Perry, he's got a decade of executive experience and a strong record as a job creator.

Why should a conservative pick you over Rick Perry?

SANTORUM: Well, I think Rick Perry has a lot of questions to answer about his record in Texas, whether he's been consistently conservative and we've started to see that in the debates, that the more people find out his record on immigration, his record to benefits to illegals in this country, which he continues to support, his record on using executive authority to trump parental rights, these are not conservative things.

And, again, you look at my record -- yes, I don't have experience as a governor. But I have national security experience and, of course, if you are looking at the president, the one thing the president really needs to have where he has the real authority under the Constitution is in national security.

And, again, my record is strong. There's no one who knows more and understands the problems particularly in the Middle East and who's been a stronger friend of Israel than I have been. And again, the track record on the national security side with my experience on the armed services committee for eight years, I've got the record that really compares very favorably with Rick Perry.

WALLACE: All right. Let me try to run through this a little bit more quickly with you. Herman Cain --


WALLACE: -- nonpolitician which is an asset these days, businessman, and he is opposed to anyone else has a clear income plan 999?

SANTORUM: Yes. Well, obviously, he's a nonpolitician because he's lost the race. I mean, he lost the race. I mean, to go out and say I'm a nonpolitician because I failed is not necessarily the moist compelling case to make when you want to run your first major -- try to win your first race as president of the United States against an incumbent president.

So, I would say political experience, coming from Pennsylvania, winning two statewide elections, one of those years where President Bush lost it by five, I won by six. It's a pretty compelling narrative for somebody.

And as far as the economic plan, I jab at Herman saying I've got a zero, zero, zero plan. In other words, you know, zero is better than nine when it comes to taxes and it's focused on the area of the economy that voters are concerned about and that's the manufacturing sector of the economy. We eliminate corporate tax for manufacturers and processors. We eliminate all the regulations, we repeal them when it comes to the businesses that the Obama administration has put in place that cost over $100 million. And we zero out the tax for those $1.2 trillion of funds that are sitting overseas that manufacturers made profits. We allow them to bring the money back to invest in American and that plant and equipment so we can grow that sector of the economy.

WALLACE: Senator, do you think Mormonism is a cult?

SANTORUM: No, I on don't.

WALLACE: Do you think that Mitt Romney, contrary to what this Dallas pastor, Robert Jeffress, said at the Values Voter, do you think Mitt Romney is a true Christian?

SANTORUM: Mitt Romney is a true -- he says he's a Christian. I believe he said Christian.

I'm not an expert on Mormonism. All I know is that every Mormon I know is a good and decent person, has great moral values and, by and large, with the exception of Harry Reid, by and large, pretty consistent in the values that I share and that things I want to see happen to this country. And that's what he should be judged on.

WALLACE: OK. In the couple of minutes we have left, I want to get into one last issue with you, and that is -- I want to discuss the last FOX debate in which a gay soldier got up in the debate on video and asked, whether or not as president, you would reinstate "don't ask, don't tell."

Here's what you said to him.


SANTORUM: Any type of sexual activity has no place in the military and the fact that they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- in removing "don't ask, don't tell," I think, tries to inject social policy into the military.


WALLACE: Senator, you say sexual activity has no place in the military. Heterosexuals have been open heterosexual for centuries in the military without any problems. And you talk about gays not being given, that they shouldn't be given special privilege. All of the "don't ask, don't tell" and the repeal of it does is say that they are given the same rights as everybody else has had forever.

SANTORUM: Well, the problem is, is that the sexual activity with people who are in close quarters with, who happen to be the same sex, is different than having the discussion and open about your sexual activity where there is -- you are not in that same situation. So, you are talking about injecting as I said before --

WALLACE: No, wait a minute. Are you saying, you think that homosexual gay soldiers are going to sit there and go after the male counterparts in the barracks?

SANTORUM: I didn't suggest that.

WALLACE: You said they were in close activity, a close --


SANTORUM: Well, they are in close -- they are in close quarters. They live with people. They shower with people, the whole kinds -- all the things that they are involved in living in a barracks, or living out in the field, those are issues that again, some people, you are talking about that individual person, but you're talking about the ability for people to be able to have that unit cohesion, to be able to work together in a efficient fighting way. And, obviously, and also, by the way, the affect on retention and recruitment of people to live in that environment.

And yes, there are people who feel uncomfortable in that environment

WALLACE: I want to -- I want --

SANTORUM: And as a result, it could hurt -- it could hurt our ability to retain and recruit and to put the best fighting force in place.

WALLACE: Senator --

SANTORUM: As I said before, Chris, there has no --

WALLACE: Senator, if I may follow up and we are running out of the time and continuing on this conversation. You say don't inject social policy into the military. Their job is to fight and defend. They're not a social experiment.

I want to put up a quote for you. "The Army is not a sociological laboratory. Experimenting with Army policy, especially in time of war would pose a danger to efficiency, disciple and moral and would result in ultimate defeat." Does that sound about right, sir?

SANTORUM: Roughly yes.

WALLACE: That's a quote from Colonel Eugene Householder who is in the Army Adjutant General's Office in 1941, arguing against racial integration in the military.

SANTORUM: I figured. I've heard similar quotes. It's very, very different. I mean, we are talking about people who are, you know, simply different because of the color of their skin, not because of activities that would cause problems for people living in those close quarters.


WALLACE: Senator, Colonel Householders and I read -- Senator, I read Colonel Householders' comments yesterday. Everything that you said, living in close proximity, sharing bunks and showers, being in close proximity, what -- he used exactly the same arguments you use to argue against racial integration in the military in the 1940s.

SANTORUM: Yes, I understand that, and I know the whole gay community is trying to make this the new Civil Rights Act. It's not. It's not the same.

You are black by the color of your skin. You are not homosexual necessarily by -- obviously by the color of your skin or anything -- it's by a variety of things.

WALLACE: I mean, it is a fact that your biology -- obviously, it's one thing if somebody is coming on to somebody in a room, but the sheer fact that somebody is a homosexual, are you saying -- I mean, these are all volunteers. They are all defending to protect our country, sir.

SANTORUM: That's exactly the point, Chris. They are all volunteers, and they don't have to join in a place where they don't feel comfort serving with people because of that issue. And that is the problem, Chris.

And look, the idea that somehow or another, that this is the equivalent, that being black and being gay is simply not true. There are all sorts of studies out there that suggest just the contrary, and there are people who were gay and lived a gay lifestyle and aren't anymore. I don't know if that's a similar situation -- I don't think that's the case with anybody that is black.

So it's not the same. And I know people try to make it the same, but it is not. It is a behavioral issue, as opposed to a color of the skin issue, and that makes all the difference when it comes to serving in the military

WALLACE: We're going to have to leave it there, Senator Santorum.