republicans, there is a modest amount of -- to people who makes a difference to, they're evenly split to people who like what obama has done with this opening and people who don't. and then this is for me the most interesting. cuban-american voters are actually more favorable and more likely to vote for a candidate in favor of opening to cuba than noncuban hispanic voters. so and if we reverse the question, if you reverse the question and say, are you likely to vote against who opposes obama's opening to cuba, you get almost exactly the same numbers. so this is not a good result for marco rubio or ted cruz heading into the florida primary since they have staked out absolute opposition to obama's opening to cuba. and, of course, the president is going to be going to cuba on

march 21st. so the week after the primary, so it's likely, i think that cuba will emerge as an issue on the republican side going into the florida primary. it hasn't been an issue thus far. but it's going -- it's going to be tricky for cruz and rubio taking on this issue when the community now has moved in a different direction. so donald trump has consistently led in the florida polls. and his more moderate position on cuba and on obama's opening may actually give him an advantage among cuban-american voters. once again, denying the conventional wisdom. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, bill. and thanks to all of our panelists so there's quite a bit

that one could follow up on in. i want to open it up soon to our audience, questions and perhaps comments. but just before i do that, i'm interested. the numbers that you came up, that you had regarding naturalization. and i was reminded of this when i looked at bill's slide on the relatively small percentage of post-'90 or 2000 cubans who had naturalized. what do we know about who is naturalizing and where? >> among hispanics? >> yeah. >> yeah. so when we take a look at the hispanic community and those who are in the country legally and eligible to naturalize, you'll find that the naturalization rate among cuban-americans is on the order of 75% or higher. so that's all these different immigration groups that leo had up there.

but i would also say if you compare it to central americans, only about 44% of those in the country legally ultimately naturalize. when you take a look at mexicans, you see only about 36% of those who are in the country legally actually choose to naturalize. so cuban-americans are overrepresented among the population of naturalizing hispanics because, keep in mind, the naturalization process amongst cubans is still going on. there's a lot of people who have arrived, more recently, for example. mess kans are somewhat underrepresented. and it's an interesting question of why many mexicans choose not to naturalize. some say they're not interested. some of them actually return home because they plan to return home at some point. some also will say things like they're worried about the cost of the process or they're worried about taking the test, any test in english, because they're worried about their english skills. but keep in mind, most of those mexicans who have not naturalized have been here for 20-plus years. they were naturalized during the

1986 erca many of this. and they have still not chosen to naturalize. in terms of numbers, mexicans are still the biggest part of it but they're underrepresented given what you would expect given the numbers who are here legally. >> thank you. governor, with regard to the migration of puerto ricans from the commonwealth to florida, what can you tell us about the demographics of that group, levels of education, what we might know about the likely electoral behavior given what past behavior was in puerto rico? what perspective can you give us where the on that? >> sure. well, actually, i should note that in the last two years the rate of migration from puerto rico to central florida has tripled. so again, this is a very recent phenomenon. you know, it has always been there for decades. but not at the rate that we are

seeing it at this moment. since puerto ricans are born citizens, the data is sketchy at best. however, i have seen some data that tends to indicate that most of them tend to be -- there are two groups. one, they are pretty young and well located and they can find a job in florida immediately. and then you have those who are retired and are looking for the services under medicare are available at a better level and in a warm location and that is florida, where they probably know people or what have you. in terms of politically, whether they're active or not politically, it remains to be seen. the level of activism from those

that moved to florida in recent years is not as high. they continue to follow politics on island very closely. actually some of them remain registered in puerto rico and go back and vote in puerto rico which is quite interesting. however, i have seen, again, early numbers. it is sketchy. that tend to indicate that more of those supporting statehood which is a prevalent issue on island are moving that those that are not supporting statehood. the roots of the statehood movement in puerto rico, if you go back 80 years take you to the old statehood republican party so their roots are republican, but then again, candidates will matter and the type of campaign that they run will matter tremendously. some candidates might turn them off tremendously, and others may be quite attractive. so it remains to be seen.

>> very, very interesting. i mean, one last thing before i turn it over to professor leogrande, i mean, you show that the cuba policy question was a driving factor behind cuban-american electoral behavior for a long time. do we have any -- and this may be for everyone on the panel. do we have any evidence of whether policy toward mexico or policy toward central america, say, or for that matter, policy toward puerto rico with regard to fiscal assistance and so on, might become the new cuban-american phenomenon? that is to say, drive electoral behavior of latino sub groups in the united states not because of domestic politics so much as because of politics toward country of origin. anybody have a sense of that?

>> so, i mean, the one thing i can say is i know that there have been some efforts to try to mobilize central americans in particular around u.s. foreign policy toward central america, and it hasn't been all that successful. and i think the difference is that, you know, when the cuban american -- the first waves of cuban-american exiles came to the united states, they came -- they self-identified not as immigrants, but as exiles. that is to say, they had an expectation of going back. and so, the political motivation for them leaving, their sense that eventually they would go back, predisposed them to being very active around the issue of u.s./cuban relations in a way that i think wasn't true either for mexicans or central americans. >> i have campaigned several times in florida and the two main issues are jobs and location, among puerto ricans

residing there. so i don't know if that's a trend in other groups. >> i would say for the mexican population, it's so diverse, so big. you have many people who have long roots say in texas, or recent arrivals in southern california or in georgia. so i'm not sure how much of a connection mexican-americans feel to mexico. you really do feel when you go back to mexico, yes, may have family there, but it's a different country, and it's something that i'm not as connected to as i am here. i think that might be true of many mexican-americans, but i actually don't know. >> thank you. so i'd like to open it up to -- yes. you. and in the front row. >> hi. this question is for governor fortuna. specifically, about thehe fisca

assistance, bankruptcy issue with puerto rico. the fact that marco rubio does not support it, even though jeb bush, a republican, does, and has caused a lot of controversy, and i wanted to see what you thought about his particular stance affecting the florida primary and puerto ricans in florida, you know, being against what he's saying about that. >> sure. to be fair, and i know that what came out of the debate the other day -- >> and also, do you agree or disagree with his comments? >> sure. but to be fair, he has published columns on this issue. his is a comprehensive approach. and actually, most people, including myself, would agree that you need a comprehensive approach to this. that just implementing chapter 9 to be applicable to puerto rico will certainly not solve this problem. you need more than just a

restructuring mechanism. you probably need something similar to what we see here back in the '90s in terms of a fiscal control board, to provide the island actually a level of certainty that has gone away. you probably want to think of one or two pro growth mechanisms to see the economy grow because that's the underlying issue. so in the columns that he's published, including in puerto rico newspapers, senator rubio has said i prefer a comprehensive approach with a little bit of everything and there's an order. and that's what he was trying to explain in the debate because i have read the columns. that's why i knew that he said that should be a last resort, not a first resort, and more than just approving chapter 9 bankruptcy applicability will

not suffice and most people that have studied this issue will tend to agree. when governor bush endorsed the chapter 9 applicability, it was a year ago. a year ago, many things had not happened. there had not been a default on any of the 18 different types of credits. the current budget had not been approved, and the budget did not try to slash expenses or deal with some other issues. so again, many things have occurred in the last year that have swayed people to move away from just granting the island this tool, to saying, yes but that's just part of a larger plan and that is -- other steps ought to be taken in order to address it properly. >> what about the effect on -- [ inaudible ] >> well, again, if he's able to explain -- i don't know if he will have the resources to do it or not, i really wouldn't know -- but if he's able to

explain as he has done with those columns that have been published on his behalf that he favors a comprehensive approach to this, perhaps yes. the house of representatives here is likely to -- actually on march 15th, the state of the florida primary is likely to have a mark-up in the committee of primary jurisdiction on this issue, approving a comprehensive package. and in the following two weeks, it is likely to go to the floor for a vote. by then it will be too late because it will move over to the senate. it will be late to impact the florida race, but i could envision the senator saying, i favor that bill that is being discussed on the 15th. >> thank you. yes? and could you please identify yourself also? >> i'm abigail golden basket, i'm the director of the latino

in society program at the aspen institute. i have two quick questions. one for governor fortuno. i would like to know your thoughts on the candidates' positions on the puerto rican debt cry syisis and how that mit impact turn-out. and the other is for the professor leogrande or leogrande. i'm not sure you you like that pronounced, on the popularity of obama's policies with, first, i guess refugees, arrivals in cuba, versus the second wave? how much does race play into that? and how much would that perhaps account for his popularity among the second wave of economic and, frankly, darker, browner refugees? >> sure. of the five remaining republican candidates, only one or two have expressed themselves on this

issue as of right now. they have all expressed themselves on the status question but not on this. again, as i expressed earlier, i believe that if others take the same position that senator rubio has taken that it's a more nuanced approach to this, suggesting that a comprehensive approach is required, a more wholistic approach to this, i think it will be a wash. but we haven't heard from the other four, to be frank. of course, on island, which will hold its primary this sunday, this would be important. by the time we get to florida, we would know what the house bill entails and it may have an impact or not. depending. because it wouldn't have gone to the floor yet for a vote, but it may have an impact at that moment. >> that's on the republican side. have we seen anything from the clinton campaign as to how they

may be trying to position themselves? >> the clinton approach, which came out almost a year ago, is pretty similar to governor bush's approach, but that's what was on the table at that moment, and whether you approve -- whether it's chapter 9 or some sort of restructuring mechanism. we saw some tweets from secretary clinton after that debate that the republicans had late last week, again hitting senator rubio on that position. but again, in 140 characters, you are not explaining a comprehensive approach to such a complex situation. even though i know we try to force -- people try to force us to do that. i think, again, if there's an in-depth discussion of this issue, a comprehensive approach makes sense that will not be

offensive to anyone, i would say. what moves voters is something that is extremely attractive or dramatically offensive. and it would be neither. >> there's no question that later waves of cuban migration to the united states are a lot more racially diverse than the very early waves. they look a lot more like cuban society, whereas the exiles who came in the '60s and '70s were about 93% white based on the u.s. census of that community. whether or not that made a difference in terms of their support for president obama in 2008, 2012, possibly it did, at the margins. but i think the changes in opinion within the cuban-american community on issues related to cuba is really a long-standing trend now. and it pre-dates obama.

and for the reasons i expressed, i think it's going to continue after obama. so while it may have been a few percentage points attributable to that, i think the longer term is just that the basic interests of the community are changing. >> okay? >> thank you. herbert francisco. as a mexican with resident alien status in the united states, i'm wondering if you've undertaken any research in mexico that might shed some light on the idiosyncratic behaviors of mexicans in our elections and how that might be affecting perceptions or behaviors here in the united states. >> very interesting question. no, we've not taken a look at that. over the years, we have, though, explored the attitudes of mexicans about the united states and about life in the united states. and as you know, some of the work we have done has shown that mexican migration to the u.s. has really slowed substantially. in fact, there are now more mexicans returning home than coming. there's stale flow but these things change over time.

but when you ask mexicans about life in the united states, it's quite interesting. nower of them today will say that life is better in the united states than in mexico. or life in the united states is just as good as it is in mexico. the share that say things are better in mention con than the u.s. is on the rise. about one third of mexican adults say that. you also find fewer mexican adults say that they know someone in the united states. all in line with the outflow of undocumented immigration since the recession. and the mexican immigrant population in the united states has also fallen by about 1 million people. so it makes sense that mexicans in mexico have fewer connections, are not necessairly saying life is better than it is in mexico. so many things are lining up together, but we haven't taken a look at the political part of

that, though. >> another? >> just maybe as a way of kind of drawing together some of the parts of the discussion we've been having wild cards in swing states, is there a way in which we can think about the various different kinds of wild cards that we've put on the table in this panel and earlier as well with the discussion of voter registration drives and other kinds of things that might allow us to think about how each of these wild cards would fit together in a broader trend, or whether they're working? in other words, are they stand alone wild cards that will be hard for us to understand in a bigger electoral picture, or do they add up to something collectively? >> i suppose the related question is whether you see additional factors that may weigh on latino participation and votes in this election, that are peculiar in comparison to the standard, as well. yeah?

>> sure, go ahead. >> well, for example, if secretary clinton ends up being the nominee and she picks a latino candidate, castro, that would be significant, i would say. same way, whomever is the republican nominee, it's not as clear as on the democratic side. if governor susana martinez, brian sandoval are picked, or somebody else, that could also have an impact, i would say, as well. if for any reason actually marco rubio is the nominee, i would say that that would be significant, as well, more so in some states than others. perhaps in the eastern states more so than in the western states. although there are ways to address that between now and november. so again, yes, there could be many moving parts. and then, if there is a

candidate, any candidate, who is tremendously offensive during the race, i think that would be a reason to also -- no, a nominee. a nominee. we don't have a nominee. that would certainly be reason to move on that. and that probably would be a national movement, not just a regional movement, i think. >> it's a very good question. i do think a lot of these things, particularly for the latino vote, are intertwined together. it's partly about youth. we need to get out the vote. we need the outreach. we've outreached to latinos, not just focused on young people, but focused on all latinos because the voter turn-out rates still remain below others even among those who are college educated or are adult. i think also there's a lot of potential wild cards. as mentioned here.

so who might the candidates be? i think trump if he becomes the republican nominee could become a motivator for getting many hispanics out to vote. that's what a lot of polling seems the show. but if he isn't the nominee and it's somebody else on the republican side, i'm not sure how much that might dissipate that motivation. i just don't know. and then we have a number of things that other pam panels have talked about that might impact. for example, clarissa's comment about support that the latino foundations are getting to get out the vote. that to me strikes me as potentially a very big deal because it's about getting out the vote. 2014 there was an effort to get out the latino vote, but it wasn't as big as it was in the past. so that the low voter turnout rates of latinos, 27%, chas record low for hispanics, a lot of people, too. not just hispanics. but that, i think, is something that's potentially a big unknown and problem in terms of getting

out the vote for latinos, irrespective of all the stuff we talked about. >> let me add one thing, in the case of florida, in addition to the shifts under way in the cuban-american community, the noncuban-american latino population is growing. so the cubans are a minority in the community. and the non-cuban latinos tend in terms of their party preferences tend to look a lot more like latinos in the rest of the country so it's yet another challenge for the republicans holding on to florida. >> very good. >> hi, mike mccarthy for the center for latin american and latino studies. two questions. one for mark and one for professor leogrande. so, i'm intrigued by this participation gap, you know, we've seen a lot of articles written about it. will the latino power vote be realized this election? i'm wondering if you could place that in a broader context to talk about eligibility and participation rates throughout the united states. in other words, is it

disproportionately largest gap in the latino community as compared to other new eligible communities in the united states? youth, more broadly, regardless of ethnicity and then within other ethnic communities. it would be really interesting to hear about that because it would provide us some invite to think any what mobilization strategies could look like. and then on this recent question about the florida vote, just to put it very frankly. if you're a republican strategist, would there be any value to continuing to try and mobilize cuban-americans for the gop party if the proportion of the population is just sort of dwindling, vis-a-vis other latino communities? in other words, like, what is there left to say about the cuban-american vote on the right in florida? is it just power brokers at the level of the former foundations like the cuban-american national foundation and so on and so forth, or is there something still that the party could gain

at the sort of base level? thanks a lot. >> very good question. so, in terms of the hispanic vote, a couple of things. hispanics register to vote at somewhat lower rates than other groups of americans. but once they're registered, the voter turn-out rates are much closer, the gap is much smaller. but the problem is oftentimes getting hispanics to register. that's true of older hispanics and it's true of younger hispanics. you think about, for example, the story of texas. i've met a lot of adult texans who have a lot of opinions about candidates, issues, et cetera. and you ask them, are you registered to vote? they're hispanic, and they say no because i don't have the time. but they have a strong opinion about it. so i think that this is the challenge within the latino community which is getting people registered, to get them to vote. but, of course, the impact of youth is a big part of this.

how does this compare to other groups of americans? generally speaking, latinos are registered to vote at lower rates, but once registered, they tend to turn out similarly to other americans. but there's still a gap. in terms of youth. in my previous job, i used to fund research to look at how to get young latinos out to vote. and one of the things they found, face-to-face, hispanic-to-hispanic outreach, was often most effective to get them to register and to the polls. nonpartisan message. it is your civic duty. get out the vote. that i think is very powerful, it's also very expensive and hard to do. and so shoe leather matters a lot. a lot of the research we also funded was to look at ways to shortcut that, what about an e-mail campaign, a social media campaign, get people registered at a concert? all those things seem to work, but they don't seem to be as good as the face-to-face,

latino-to-latino, get out the vote. it is time for you to vote today. you should do this. can i help you get there? those messages seem to be most effective in the research that we did at the center. >> so in terms of the gop in florida and the cuban-americans, of course the older generation that's the most conservative and most rejectionist in terms of engaging with cuba, tends to be wealthier. it provides a lot of political money, and it was really critical in electing a number of the cuban-american members of congress from florida. and so they are really the spokespeople for that segment of the community. and the rest of the party doesn't want to disavow them, obviously. also, you know, cuban american registration even now is still about 2-1 republican. so it's still an important constituency for republicans, even though it's down from 4-1, what it was 20 some odd years ago. one interesting phenomenon, some

cuban-american republicans are saying, we ought to change this open-door immigration policy and stop letting cuban immigrants into the united states under the cuban adjustment act and letting them adjust their status after a year and getting a fast-track to citizenship. i think the hidden agenda there is that these people are voting democrat. you know? and so it would really be better if we didn't have the community expanding in that particular way. >> a couple of things to add to the demographics of florida that are also interesting is, yes, cuban-americans are less than half of all hispanics in the state of florida. puerto ricans are rivaling them in size now. and you have colombians and venezuelans who naturalized and who are also part of this process, as well. even mexicans, as well. but florida, miami-dade county, you've seen growth in the number of registered democrats and no party affiliation.

you look at orange county in the central part of the state. there republican voter registrations have been flat, and have been passed up by democratic ones, but particularly, no party affiliation. i think it's reflecting the puerto rican population moving there and just not affiliating. many of the cuban-americans i think are very energized. they tend to vote and a higher turnout rates of puerto rican or other counter parts and yet have a dinner with my sister's husband's family and talk about the cuban issue. her father-in-law, when i asked him, what do you think about obama's opening up, blah, blah, blah, he's like 80 something years old. he stood up and started yelling, and got really engaged and he went from english to spanish. and his son who's a nurse grabbed his hand and said, dad, dad, calm down. he was measuring his -- he got so riled about it.

so they're very engaged. if you want to see it, i invite you to come and have dinner. [ laughter ] >> thank you. >> a number of us attend an annual event in havana that's devoted to u.s./cuban relations. and there's an audience of maybe 80 or 100 people. largely specialists on u.s./cuba relations, but it's a diverse group. and there's always a few moments in the meeting where some conciliatory suggestion is put forth with regard to the cubans some make some concession to the americans and we see several people get up and you want also to just hang on to the pulse and make sure -- so it's on both sides of the florida state. there was one last question. this gentleman. >> another question over there. >> okay. >> my question is, i wanted to point out that there's a lot of conversation about getting

votes, outreach, figuring out whether latinos agree more with republicans or democrats, whether they agree with the stance of this candidate or that candidate. and there's not as much of a conversation on how do politicians actually reach out to voters and figure out what they think, especially among young people. and as we pointed out, young latino voters actually have disproportionately one of the lowest turnouts, even less than black and asian people of the same age cohort. and to that, i did want to point out the blueprint 2016 report from the roosevelt institute, which is the -- >> we'll break ahere for former governor and presidential candidate mitt romney. >> thank you. thank you. thank you, jason, and thank you to the hinckley institute. governor herbert, lieutenant governor, president, it's good to be with you today.

thank you. all right. now, i'm -- i'm in the here to announce my candidacy for office. and i'm not going to endorse a candidate today. instead, i would like to offer my perspective on the nominating process of my party. back in 1964, just days before the presidential election which incidentally we lost, ronald reagan went on national television and challenged america, saying that it was a time for choosing. he saw two paths for america. one that embraced conservative principles, dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all. and the other, an oppressive government that would lead america down a darker, less free path. i'm no ronald reagan and this is a different moment in time, but

i believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing. one that will have profound consequences for the republican party and more importantly for our country. i say this in part because of my conviction that america is poised to lead the world for another century. our technology engines, our innovation dynamic, the ambition and skill of our people are going to propel our economy and raise the standard of living of americans. america will remain as it is today the envy of the world. you may have seen warren buffett. he said, and i think he's 100% right, that the babies being born in america today are the luckiest crop in history. now, that doesn't mean we don't have real problems and serious challenges. we do. at home, poverty persists. and wages are stagnant. the horrific massacres of paris

and san bernardino. the nuclear ambitions of the iranian mullahs. the aggressions of putin. the growing assertiveness of china and the nuclear tests of north korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times. but if we make the right choices, america's future will be even better than our past and better than our present. on the other hand, if we make improvident choices, the bright horizon i have described will not materialize. and let me put it very plainly. if we republicans choose donald trump as our nominee, the prospect for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished. let me explain why i say that. first on the economy. if donald trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. a few examples. his proposed 35% tariff-like

penalties would ins gait a trade war and raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee america. his tax plan in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. so even though donald trump has offered very few specific economic plans what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for american workers and for american families. but you say, wait, wait, wait. isn't he a huge business success? doesn't he know what he's talking about? no, he isn't. and no he doesn't. [ cheers and applause ] look. his -- his bankruptcies have crushed small businesses. and the men and women who work

for them. he inherited his business. he didn't create it. and whatever happened to trump airlines? how about trump university? and then there's trump magazine. and trump vodka. and trump steaks. and trump mortgage. a business genius he is not. now, not every policy that donald trump has floated is bad, of course. he wants to repeal and replace obamacare. he wants to bring jobs home from china and japan. but his prescriptions to do those things are flimsy at best. at the last debate, all he could remember about the health care plan was to remove insurance boundaries between states. successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that make america the place businesses want to come, want to plant and want to grow. you can't punish business into doing what you want. frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with a broad range of national challenges we confront today come from ted

cruz, marco rubio and john kasich. one of these men should be our nominee. [ applause ] now, i know that some people want this race to be over. they look at history and say, a trend like mr. trump's isn't going to be stopped. perhaps. but the rules of political history have pretty much all will shredded during this campaign. if the other candidates can find some common ground, i believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. given the current delegate selection process, that means that i would vote for marco rubio in florida and for john kasich in ohio and ted cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating mr. trump in a given state. now let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones.

mr. trump's bombast is already alarming the allies and fueling the emmity of our enemies. insulting all muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against isis and for what purpose? muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country. and then what he said about -- and "60 minutes." did you hear this? it was about syria and isis and has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the entire campaign season. let isis take out i sad, he said. and then we can pick up the remnants. now, think about that. let the most dangerous terror organization the woorld has ever known take over an entire country? this recklessness is recklessness in the extreme. now, donald trump tells us that he's very, very smart. [ laughter ] i'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very

not smart. [ applause ] now, i'm far from the first to conclude that donald trump lack it is temperament to be president. after all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter. who attributed a reporter's questions to a menstrual cycle. who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance. who bragged about his marital afarrells. and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity. donald trump says he admires vladimir putin. at the same time he's called george w. bush a liar. that is a twisted example of evil trumping good. [ applause ]

there is a dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the vietnam war. while at the same time john mccain whom he has mocked was imprisoned and tortured. dishonesty is donald trump's hallmark. he claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into iraq. wrong. he spoke in favor of invading iraq. he said he saw thousands of muslims in new jersey celebrating 9/11. wrong. he saw no such thing. he imagined it. he's not of the temperament of the kind of stable, thoughtful person we need as a leader. his imagination must not be married to real power. the president of the united states has long been the leader of the free world. the president and, yes, even the nominees of the country's great parties helped define america, to billions of people around the world.

all of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and our grandchildren. think of donald trump's personal qualities. the bullying. the greed. the showing off. the mysogny. the absurd third grade theatrics. we have long referred to him as the donald. he's the only person in the entire country to whom we have added an article before his name and not because he had attributes we admired. now, imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. would you welcome that? haven't we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? we have. and it always inches our families and our country. watch, by the way, how he responds to my speech today.

[ applause ] will he talk about our policy differences? or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult? this may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability and his suitability to be president. now, mr. trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. but polls are also saying that he will lose to hillary clinton. think about that. on hillary clinton's watch, the state department when she was guiding it and part of the obama administration, that state department watched as america's interests were diminished at every corner of the world. she compromised our national secrets. she dissemiibled to the families

of the slain. and she jetsonned her most profound opinions to gain power. they trade their political influence to enrich their personal finances. they embody the term crony capitalism. it disgusts the american people and causes them to lose faith in our political process. a person so untrustworthy and dishonest as hillary clinton must not become president. [ applause ] of course, trump nomination enables her victory. and the audio and video of the

infamous tapper/trump exchange on the cku klux klan will play n cable and who knows how many times on social media. there are a number of people who claim that mr. trump is a con man, a fake -- [ inaudible ] thank you. [ applause ] let me say that again. there's plenty of evidence that mr. trump is a con man, a fake. mr. trump has changed his positions, not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign. and on the ku klux klan for three days in a row we will only really know if he's a real deal or a phony if he releases the tax returns and the video of the interview of the "the new york times."

i predict bombshells in the tax returns and doesn't give much to the disabled and veterans. i predict he told "the new york times" that the immigration talk is just that, talk. and i predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, that he will never, ever release his tax returns. never. not the returns under audit. not even the returns that are no longer being audited. he has too much to hide. nor will he authorize the release of the tapes that he made with "the new york times." if i'm right, you'll have all the proof you need to know that donald trump is indeed a phony. attacking me as he surely will won't prove him any less of a phony. it's entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. all he has to do is release the back taxes like he promised he would and let us hear what he told behind closed doors to "the new york times." you know, ronald reagan used to

quote a scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations wouldn't last longer than a couple hundred years. and john adams wrote this. remember, democracy never lasts long. it soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. there never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. that's john adams. i believe that america has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons. first, we've been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us. men of character, integrity and selflessness have led our nation from the very beginning. none were perfect. each surely made mistakes. but in every case, they acted out of the desire to do what was right for america.

and for the cause of freedom. the second reason is because we're blessed with a great people. people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interests of the country above their own. these two things are related. our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the occasion. john f. kennedy asked us to consider what we could do our country. lincoln drew upon the better age els of our nature to save the union. i understand the anger americans feel today. in the past, our presidents have channelled that anger and forged it into resolve. into endurance and high purpose. and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. our anger was transformed into energy directed for good. mr. trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. he creates scapegoats of muslims

and mexican immigrants. he calls for the use of torture. he calls for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. he cheers assaults on protesters. he applauds the prospect of twisting the constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. this is the very brand of anger that has led other nations in to the abyss. here's what i know. donald trump is a phony, a fraud. his promises are as worthless as a degree from trump university. [ cheers and applause ] he's playing the members of the american public for suckers. he gets a free ride to the white house and all we get is a lousy hat. [ laughter ] his domestic policies would lead

to recession. his foreign policies would make america and the world less safe. he has beneath ter temperament nor the judgment to be president and his personal qualities would mean that would mean that america would cease to be a shining city on a hill. i'm convinced america has greatness ahead and this is a time for choosing. god bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality. thank you and god bless you all. thank you. [ cheers & applause ]

>> this is the hinkley institute of politics at the university of utah salt lake city, 2012 presidential candidate mitt romney very critical of donald trump but also in that speech of the democrat front runner hillary clinton saying quote she must not become president. here on c-span3 and c-span radio we're going to open up our lines to get your reaction to what you heard from mitt romney. we'll show you some of the response from donald trump. we'd love to hear your, see your tweets as well. you can do that at c-span. 202-737-0001 if you're a democrat, 0002 for republicans and 202-628-0205 for

independents and all others. want to let you know we'll obviously reair mitt romney's speech at 8:00 eastern on c-span. you'll be able to find it as well at c-span.org. our coverage begins today of the annual conservative political action conference happening just outside the nation's capitol. we'll tell you a bit about that. you're hear from all of the mayor presidential candidates, the republican candidates and we'll tell you about that in just a bit. let's go to our first caller in hudson, florida. this is anthony. democrats line. >> caller: i listened to the speech of mitt romney and i felt it was very, very negative. there wasn't even one positive item in there for donald trump. i believe that a lot of things are untrue and i think as a religious man i'm surprised he

would attack a person on every avenue he could find. it was just a one-sided thing. and disliking a person, it's just showing a dislike and a hatred for a person. i think it's an evil person to do that. >> well anthony you're calling op our democrats line. what's your view of donald trump? >> caller: i think trump is -- whatever he did in his past, i believe he's dedicated himself to the country, to do good for the country. i believe he knows a lot about all the different aspects of our government, the way the politicians operate and how they took over our country. i believe that he's going to try to change things better for the whole country. i don't think he's even going to try to hurt anybody in the country. rich or poor. but i think he's going to try to make the country function for all. that's what i believe. >> your primary is coming up in

a couple of weeks. who will you vote for? >> caller: bernie sanders. >> here's noah in plano, texas on our republican line. noah, go ahead. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> doing well. thank you. >> caller: i wanted to comment on mitt romney. i have to say i am so glad that he came out and took some hits at donald trump. we definitely do not need nominee -- [ inaudible ] i believe that mitt romney did the right thing in taking hits at donald trump. >> did you get a chance to vote in tuesday's primary? >> caller: i did. i actually did. and i voted for marco rubio. >> why do you like marco rubio over donald trump or over your home state senator there, ted cruz? >> caller: well, i like ted cruz. and let me start off by

saying -- he's clean dirty politics. if we want to win the general election, we cannot have people working from the democrat side and also the libertarian. [ inaudible ] >> you know, i'm going to let you go. your phone seems to be coming in and out a bit. we got your point. appreciate that. here's ashland, massachusetts. wain on our independents line. hello there. >> caller: how are you doing today? >> doing well. thank you. >> caller: i wasn't sure what i was expected from mr. romney but i was sort of let down. i found it interesting that he was attacking trump for trump's business practices and personal mall fee says. but when people lost jobs and when it came to downsizing the companies. i was expecting something for inspirational from mr. romney.

this didn't quite ring the bell. it's a continuation of what we're see in this campaign here which is not exactly a blue ribbon so far. >> in case you're just joining us, we've just heard from former massachusetts governor, former 2012 republican presidential candidate mitt romney speaking at the university of utah at salt lake with critical words for donald trump but also for the leading democrat, hillary clinton. we're getting your reaction, 202-737-0001 were democrats, 202-737-0002 for republicans, independents your line is 202-628-0205. a look at your tweets. this is from brian canada who tweets -- mitt romney talked about this. time for choosing yes, we did not choose you. talking about mitt romney. next up the democrats line in tulsa, oklahoma. david, good afternoon. good morning to you, rather. >> caller: good morning. i'd like to say that i think

mitt romney's words were on key and i appreciate him coming out as a former presidential nominee and calling out donald trump. and as a democrat in oklahoma, we just had our primary on tuesday and i voted for bernie sanders. i would rather have a socialist in office than donald trump. so i have high praise for mitt romney today. >> let's go to david who is in -- to cindy in abilene, texas on our republican line. >> caller: hi. >> hi, cindy. >> caller: mitt romney came out this morning with nothing to win, nothing to lose. he came out to speak the truth and i pray to god that people heed to warnings. i think he's right on target. >> all right. here's bill in boston, massachusetts, independents' line. bill, what do you think about your former governor's comments there about donald trump and

also about hillary clinton? >> caller: i believe that mr. romney just stiffened the resolve and probably added more votes to mr. trump. i believe that if he had continued on warning us against hillary, then i would give his speech an a-plus. but because he left hillary, the disgust that he has for hillary, if he had left that to the end of his speech, i would have given him an a-plus. i believe he was a commercial for people who want to vote for trump to make sure they get up and vote for trump and he added votes. everyone knows what trump is, what he was, how he got there. we already know that. >> your state, massachusetts on

super tuesday went entirely for donald trump. the republican vote. what's going on in massachusetts that's driving that vote? >> caller: they're smartening up. massachusetts voters are smartening up. slowly. it's going to be a process. >> do you think your republican governor will come on board and support the trump campaign? >> caller: he is a professional politician. he's playing to the elect rate. he's a rhino, a good guy but a rhino. we can't afford hillary. >> donald trump is campaigning in maine today and keeping up as he does every day with his tweets. and obviously was critical of mitt romney ahead of today's speech in salt lake city but also a couple of things here. he retweets rupert murdoch. "the wall street journal" has not been absolutely kind to the

donald trump campaign. here's a retweet from donald trump. as predicted, trump reaching out to make peace with republican quote establishment. if he becomes inevitable, party would be mad not to unify. that's from rupert murdoch, the chair of "the wall street journal" company. here we go to john who is in virginia, democrats' line. what did you hear from mitt romney? >> caller: thanks for taking my call. actually, i am living in virginia and i'm a muslim and i did vote donald trump quite frankly. the reason is not because -- what i learn in this country, since i'm an immigrant who came to this country 30 years ago, the only vote that i have -- the only power i have is who goes to the white house who goes to the dog house. romney did not win last time. what he's telling us right now as voters, no, no, no, this guy is -- he's the one who makes the

decision for us who we should vote. it is time for the establishment to stop harassing us. we don't care about rubio, we don't care about ted cruz. i like john kasich, i really do. but the problem that we have is they're telling us, basically they're telling the republicans, you're not supposed to vote this man. that's how i look at it. this man, he had his chance, he lost election. i don't understand what is his point right now. i really don't. you know, and i'm angry because you claim democracy. this country people decide who to elect who they want. don't tell them don't vote for this guy, vote for this guy. that's why we don't like the media sometimes when they engage in this tactic. that's why we don't like the business. koch brothers spending billions of dollars to stop donald trump. what is the reason. >> that's john in northern

virginia. video on the screen of mitt romney speak in salt lake city. we'll show that to you again later in our program schedule. see it online at c-span.org. our coverage for the road to the white house continues. coverage today of the an kul conservative political action conference just outside the nation's capital here on c-span 3 it will begin with the ceo and executive vice president of the national rifle association, wayne lapierre. and live road to the white house coverage friday beginning at 1:15 eastern, we'll hear from ohio governor, john kasich, senator ted cruz and dr. ben carson who announced yesterday he's suspending his campaign. he's expected to talk more about that tomorrow. look for or coverage on c-span tomorrow. and then into saturday we'll hear from donald trump 10:00 a.m. eastern we'll show you his speech saturday morning and follow that at saturday, 11:35,

live coverage of marco rubio. a few more calls, peggy in day to day tone ya. hi, peggy. >> caller: how you doin'. i just heard romney's speech and i just -- well, i thought it was horrible. he has no right to tell us who we should vote for. he did not win and i did vote for him. and i am voting for trump. but, i mean, i just don't understand why we would get up there and try to tell somebody else who they can vote for or what they're going to get. i don't know what we're going to get. but as far as i'm concerned, nobody we get can be worse than obama or clinton. so i'll take my chances with

trump. >> let's go to memphis next and we hear from robert on our democrats line. >> caller: good morning. >> morning. go ahead, robert. >> caller: yes, sir. i've been listening to the television and listening to the radio and i just can't believe the madness that i've been seeing coming out of mr. trump's mouth. ir am just astonished. and i can't believe that people are actually believing that he is going to make a good president. you know, this is the only country we've got. i was telling me wife, my god, please don't let this happen. i mean, if this man carries on the way he's carrying on now, as a president, we're in trouble, y'all. i mean -- >> well -- >> caller: what could make people be driven to actually believe that's a good thing for our country. >> robert, tennessee had its primary the other night, super tuesday.

who did you vote for? >> caller: i actually voted for hillary clinton because i think she's a stand-up woman. i tell you, believe it or not, i do like her husband. i didn't like what her husband did to her. and i think that she was, you know, she was strong enough to put up with that crap. i think she's strong enough to put up with what the country can dish out. >> appreciate that. we're taking a look at what people are saying on twitter as well. this is from j.d. redding who tweets mitt romney speaks today. hillary speaks out depending on how the establishment political wind blows. thanks c-span. we just got a statement from senator onmccain, former 2008 presidential candidate john mccain, the senator releasing a statement today saying i share the concerns about donald trump that my friend and former republican nominee mitt romney described in his speech today. i would also echo the many krnts

about mr. trump's uninformed and dangerous statements on national security issues that have been raised by 65 republican defense and foreign policy leaders. this is john mccain, again, a statement saying at a time when our world has never been more complex and in more danger as we watch the threatening actions of russia and nichina, terrorist movements that are metastasizing. i want republican voter to pay close attention to what our parties and knowledgeable leaders and national security experts are saying about mr. trump. part of a statement just released from john mccain. let's hear from mary lou in new jersey, independents line. >> caller: thank you for c-span. i'd like to make a couple of comments. first of all, a general comment. when people see so many coming out and trying to take trump down, especially on the

establishment side, this is even more of an indication why we need someone like donald trump. these people are scared to death that he will change the status quo in washington. then i want to talk a little bit about the alternative that romney offered. kasich, rubio and cruz. kasich is a reach across the aisle guy, not strong on immigration and is more of a democrat than a republican. as far as rubio goes, rubio was one of the architects of the gang of eight amnesty plan for immigration and there is something that i learned recently that a lot of people may not be aware of. early in his life rubio was part of the mormon faith. now the reason i'm bringing that up, i have nothing against mormons. but a lot of evangelical christians that may not know that need to know that. and rubio should be bringing that out instead of criticizing

donald trump. finally cruz, after what he did to ben carson in iowa, which i think was despicable, i would not even go near ted cruz. thank you very much. >> okay. i want to let you know we're getting word of a donald trump news conference coming up this afternoon. we'll have it for you live just over an hour, 1:15 eastern and that will be over on our companion network c-span. we've been keeping our eye out frr twitter reaction from donald trump. he tweets on his e phone as we know. just the earlier tweets from today that he talked about mitt romney saying why did mitt romney beg for my endorsement four years ago and also i'm the only one who can beat hillary clinton. mitt romney does not know how to win. hillary wants no part of trump. again that news conference, 1:15 eastern on c-span. let's hear from florida next, david, a republican caller there. >> caller: how you doing. >> fine, thanks.

>> caller: you know, of course there's so in subjects being talked about at once it's hard to really discuss them. one thing i would say is that the term rhino was used and i think that term is going to be applied to the voters themselves too sometimes. >> how so? >> caller: well, because -- i'm sorry. go ahead. >> how would that be used? >> caller: observe yusly trump is not a true conservative. and if you're a true conservative republican, there's no way to vote for him. his policies are all over. he doesn't have specifics. he's just out there saying what people want to hear. and that, you know, you want to use the word con man. that falls into that category. if you're saying what somebody wants to hear, you're a con man. and again, you know -- >> let me ask you, david, critical of donald trump. your state's primary coming up in a couple of weeks and pretty

essential that marco rubio wins that. where do things stand in the sunshine state? >> caller: well i'm going to think this through a little bit. i personally am a cruz voter at this point. i think he's the best of the candidate. sometimes it comes down to not who is liked the most but who is disliked the most. as has been pointed out, trump loses against hillary. and i think ultimately that could happen. so i think it's a three-way race in some ways and cruz to me has the best credentials with the least sort of, you know, bad attributes attached to him at the same time. >> let's hear from our democrats line also in florida. brenda this time calling from tampa. hi there. >> caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to -- i guess this is really concerned me because i worked a lot and around in new

york. i know a lot of people who have worked with mr. trump. and i think that the presentation that mitt gave was exceptional. i thought it was very fact based. and i worry that our presidency has become a popularity contest and not about who is the most qualified. to be honest, i really like governor kasich. if you look at what he's done for the state, he has brought jobs, it was in an area where they were losing money, losing jobs, and he's really the most qualified. and also hillary clinton. she has worked hard. she's not very good at talking about what she's accomplished. but if you listen to people who worked with her and worked around here. >> right. >> caller: that gives you a whole different concept. i did want to say that with mr. trump, he has -- no one has

spoken about the businesses that he's failed, the misuse of bankruptcy and the fact that he's had zero foreign affairs qualifications, zero military qualifications and zero public service prior to last year. and i just would ask that people not think with your hearts or with your emotions about his career. what has he done in public service. and if you really want to make changes, federal government is about reaching across the aisle and coming up with good solutions. it's not about being abstinent. if you really want change, america, start with your local and state offices. make change. it's there that that can -- >> that's brenda in tampa, florida. let's get a couple more calls here. fort wayne, indiana. katherine on our republican line.

hello, katherine. >> caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. mccain and all of them like him need to retire. trump is this country's last best hope. and what is happening is that a light is being shown on the fact that the people are irrelevant. we need to take our country back and we need somebody that is going to be there that we put there, not the establishment puts there and actually get something done. >> let's get one more call here to ft. washington, maryland. democrats line. this is mary. >> caller: good morning. thank you. >> you bet.

>> caller: i want to ask that question to people when they say take the country back. take it back to where and what year are you going to take it back to. but anyway, this is an example of why we don't need religion in the state. we need to separate it, keep it separated. the republican party is a dead party now. they created donald trump with doing nothing for seven years and by the way president obama is president until january 20th of next year. like i said, hillary has to be the best bet. and mitt romney, it's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black although i did appreciate what he did. they need to stop trump because we don't need -- he's running to be a dictator. he has no skills. the only thing he can do is run companies into the ground, continue to be a bankrupt expert and he's a job killer. like i said, he does not need to be president. i hope the republicans work together with the democrat to

stop trump and that no republican needs to -- qualified. thank you. >> appreciate that. appreciate all of your calls and comments. more are welcome online, facebook.com/c-span, twitter.com/c-span. i want to let you know our live coverage from cpac continues this afternoon here on c-span3 coming up at 1:15 eastern as we bring you the ceo of the national rifle association, wayne lapierre. and also reportedly -- i want to let you know coming up on friday, the rest of the road to the white house coverage, 1:15, governor john kasich of ohio, senator ted cruz and ben carson who just announced yesterday he's suspending his campaign. he will speak there as well. all of that coverage live on c-span. donald trump saturday morning 10:00 a.m. eastern. that will be a recorded speech and we'll follow that saturday morning on c-span with marco

rubio at 11:35 eastern as well. follow all of that on c-span. our coverage from today of course available at c-span.org. we're hearing of a donald trump news conference this afternoon. we'll tell you more about that as we show you just the speech speech that just wrapped up in salt lake from mitt romney. >> thank you. thank you. it's good to be with you today. thank you. all right. [ cheers & applause ] >> now i'm not here to announce my candidacy for office and i'm not going to endorse a candidate today. instead i would like to offer my perspective on the nominating

process of my party. back in 1964, just days before the presidential election, which understand incidentally we lost, ronald reagan went on national television. he saw two paths if america, one dedicated principles helping create opportunity for all and the other an oppressive government that would lead america down a darker les free path. i'm no ronald reagan and this is a different moment in time. but i believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing. one that will have profound consequences for the republican party and more importantly for our country. i say this in part because of my conviction that america is poised to lead the world for another century. our technology engines, our

innovation dynamic, the ambition and skill of our people are going to propel our economy as raise the standard of living of americans. america will remain as it is today the envy of the world. you may have seen warren buffet. he said, and i think he's 100% right, that the babies being born in america today are the luckiest crop in history. now that doesn't mean we don't have real problems and serious challenges. we do. at home poverty persists and wages are stagnant. the who risk massacres of paris and san bernardino, the nuclear ambitions of the iranians, the aggressions of putin, the growing assertiveness of china and the nuclear tests of north korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times. but if we make the right choices, america's future will be even better than our past and

better than our present. on the other hand, if we make improvident choices, the bright horizon i've described will not materialize. let me put it very plainly. if we republicans choose donald trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished. let me explain why i say that. fist on the economy. if donald trump's plans were implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession. a few examples. his proposed 35% tariff like penalties would instigate a trade war and raise prices for consumer bs, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee america. his tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national

debt. so even though donald trump has offer very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for american workers and for american families. but you say wait wait wait. isn't he a huge business success? doesn't he know what he's talking about? no, he isn't. and no, he doesn't. [ cheers & applause ] >> look. his bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and men and women who work for them. he inherited his business. he didn't create it. and whatever happened to trump airlines. how about trump university. and then there's trump magazine and trump vodka and trump steaks and trump mortgage. a business genius he is not. now, not every policy that

donald trump has floated is bad of course pe he wants to repeal and replace obamacare, he wants to bring jobs home from china and japan but his prescription to do those things are flimsy at best president a the last debate all he could remember about the health care plan is to remove insurance boundaries. successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that america the place businesses want to come, plant and grow. you can't punish business into doing what you want. frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with a broad range of national challenges we confront today come from ted cruz, marco rubio and john kasich. one of these men should be our nominee. [ cheers & applause ] now i know that some people want this race to be over. they look at history and say a trend like mr. trump's isn't going to be stopped. perhaps. but the rules of political

history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. if the other candidates can find common ground, i believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies op conservatism, given the current delegate selection process, that means i vote for marco rubio in florida, john kasich in ohio or for ted cruz or the other ones that have the best shot of beating donald trump. let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. mr. trump's bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemieenemies. insulting all muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in their urgent fight against isis. and for what purpose? muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country.

what he said on "60 minutes." did you hear this? it has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the entire campaign season. let isis take out assad, he said and then we can pick up the remnants. now think about that. let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over an entire country? this recklessness is recklessness in the extreme. now trump tells us that he is very, very smart. i'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy, he is very, very not smart. [ laughter ] [ cheers & applause ] now i'm far from the first to conclude that donald trump lacks the temperament to be president. after all, this is an individual who mockeds a disabled reporter,

who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs and laces his public speeches with vil garety. donald trump says he admires vladimir putin. at the same time he's called george w. bush a liar. that is a twisted example of evil trumping good. [ cheers & applause ] there's a dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the vietnam war. while at the same time john mccain, whom he has mocked, was inprisoned and tortured. dishonesty is donald trump's hallma hallmark. he claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into iraq.

wrong. he spoke in favor of invading iraq. he said he saw thousands of muslims in new jersey celebrating 9/11. wrong. he saw no such thing. he imagined it. he's not of the temperament of the kind of stable thoughtful person we need as leader. his imagination must not be married to real power. the president of the united states has long been the leader of the free world. the president and yes, even the nominees of the country's great parties helped define america to billions of people around the world. all of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and our grandchildren. think of donald trump's personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the

massama soj any. we've long referred to him as "the donald." he's the only person in the country to whom we've added an article before his name. it doesn't because he had attributes that we admired. imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. would you welcome that? haven't we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? we have. and it always injuinjuries or families and our country. watch by the way how he responds to my speech today. [ cheers & applause ] will he talk about our policy differences? or will he attack me with every imaginable low-road insult. this may tell you what you need

to know about his temperament, his stability and his suitability to be president. now mr. trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. but polls are also saying that he will lose to hillary clinton. think about that. on hillary clinton's watch, the state department, when she was guiding it and part of the obama administration, that state department watched as america's interests were diminished at every corner of the world. she compromised our national secrets. she dissymbolled to the families of the slain and she jet sanned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power. for the last three decades the clintons have lived at the intersection of money and politics trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances. they embody the term kro any

capitalism. it disgusts the american people and causes them to lose faith in our political process. a person so untrustworthy and dishonest as hillary clinton must not become president. [ cheers & applause ] of course a trump nomination enables her victory ty. and the audio video of the trump exchange on the ku klux klan will play 100,000 sometimes on cable and who knows how many million times on social media. there are a number of people who claim that mr. trump is a con man, a fake. [ chanting we love mitt ].

thank you. [ cheers & applause ] let me say that again. there's plenty of evidence that mr. trump is a con man, a fake. mr. trump has changed his positions not just over the years but over the course of the campaign. and on the ku klux klan daily for three days in a row. we will only know if he's a real deal or a phony if he releases his tax returns and the tape of his interview with the "the new york times." i predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. i predict that he doesn't give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. i predict that he told the "the new york times" that his immigration talk is just that, talk. and i predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, that he will never ever release his tax returns. never. not the returns under audit.

not even the returns that are no longer being audited. he has too much to hide. nor will he authorize the release of the tapes that he made with the "the new york times." if i'm right, you'll have all of the proof you need to know that donald trump is indeed a phony. attacking me as he surely will won't prove him anyn=rñ less of phony. it's entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. all he has to do is release his back taxes like he promised he would and let us know what he said behind closed doors to the "the new york times." ronald reagan used to quote a scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations wouldn't last more than a couple hundred years. and john adams wrote this. "remember, democracy never lasts long. it soon wastes, exhausts and

murders itself. there never been a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." that's john adams. i believe that america has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons. first, we've been blessed with great presidents. with giants among us. men of character, integrity and selflessness have head our nation in the very beginning. none were perfect. each surely made mistakes. but in every case they acted out of the desire to do what was right for america and for the cause of freedom. the second reason is because we're blessed with a great people. people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interest of the country above their own. these two things are related. our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the

occasion. john f. kennedy asked us to consider what we could do for our country. lincoln drew upon the better angels of our nature to save the union. i understand the anger americans feel today. in the past our presidents have channelled that anger and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. our anger was transformed into energy directed for good. mr. trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. he creates skate goats and muz ims and mexican immigrants. he calls for the use of torture. calls for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. he cheers assaults on protesters. he applauds the prospect of twisting the constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. this is the very brands of anger

that has led other nations into the abyss. here's what i know. donald trump is a phony, a fraud. his promises are as worthless as a degree from trump university. chaus chaus [ cheers & applause ] he's playing the members of the american public for suckers. he gets a free ride to the white house and all we get is a lousy hat. [ laughter ] his domestic policies would lead to recession. his foreign policies would make america and the world less safe. he has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. and his personal qualities would mean that america would cease to be a shining city on a hill. i'm convinced america has greatness ahead and this is a time for choosing.

god bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality. thank you and god bless you all. thank you. [ cheers & applause ] mitt romney from within the hour we'll hear from donald trump campaigning many maine, a live news conference 1:15 eastern. that will be over on c-span. here on c-span 3 we'll take you back to the conservative political action conference getting under way just outside the nation's capital. they'll hear from the head of the nra, wayne lapierre. the event started this morning with a discussion. ♪ welcome to our first panel of the day, discussing the greatest national security challenge facing the next president. please welcome our moderator, national security analyst, k.t.

mcfarland. ♪ welcome to cpac 2016. and i'm so excited to be the first panel in what is the most important cpac convention since 1980. were any of y'all here in 1980? oh, i guess i'm the only one. why is it the most important? because this is the time of great decision that conservative movement and the republican party.

you're going to make that decision. and the people you're going to meet and hear and listen to today, tomorrow and the next day are the ones who are going to lead that revolution. you have to decide which ones to pick and which issues are important. no i am very honored to have a distinguished and diverse group of people with different backgrounds. congress ryan zinc ki. he is a former navy seal. and the republican representative of large from montana, deneen boar really. she is the chief lit call correspondent of conservative review and a colleague of mine from fox news new york. and jim cara fan no, vice president of the heritage foundation. [ applause ] >> and i said that we're a

diverse group. he's here to represent the army because he's an army veteran. >> beat army. >> definitely beat army. i'm a navy mom. the reason this is so exciting and important a cpac is when ronald reagan came here in 1980 we were in a similar place in the nation. the economy wasn't working right, we wer getting pushed around all over the world, we had lost our sense of self as a nation and the country really if you had taken a public opinion poll, the poll said that the majority of the american people thought our time was done. that we used to be a great nation but we no longer were. reagan came in to cpac and said i challenge that, i challenge the republican establishment and i challenge the democrats. here's the vision i lay out and here's what i think is important. he said, we got to fix the economy. he said we've got to reassert

america's leadership role in the world and we've got to restore a accepts of who we are. i know because i was there. i was a member of the reagan revolution. yeah. go. as a child. but i was a white house intern. but when i went into the pentagon in the beginning of the reagan administration, president reagan's team was peace through strength. what did that mean. it seems like a throwaway line. what politician is against peace through strength. you're not for peace? you don't juan to be strong? reagan thought very deliberately and for a long time about what that meant and he chose the words carefully. it wasn't the absence of war and it wasn't the peace from capitulation. and it wasn't the peace that

comes from conquest. and it wasn't just peaceful coexistence. and when reagan talked about strength, he didn't mean the strength of our armed forces and the military. he meant the strength of the economy, system of government, representative of democracy and the national power that adds to our strength. but what he was most interested in in peace through strength, his first step was to rebuild the united states military. when we went into the pentagon in the beginning of the reagan administration we were horrified by what we saw. after a decade of neglect of our armed forces we had ships that couldn't sail, we had airplanes that we couldn't fly because the pilots for the airplanes didn't have enough training hours to qualify. and for every tank we had that worked there was one sitting right next to it that was can that baized for spare points. but what was most horrible that we saw at the beginning of the

reagan administration is the way that the previous amendments, republicans and democrats hads treated our veterans. our veterans did not have the adequate mental health care, physical health care and we paid them so little that our most junior enlisted qualified for food stamps. reagan turned that around. he rebuilt the american military and he challenged the soviet union. he said my policy towards the soviet union is simple. we win, they lose. [ applause ] but when reagan took office, that was a fairy tale fantasy because the united states wasn't economically trong, military strong. so reagan turned it all around. he fixed the economy. he rebuilt that shattered military and he targeted our main enemies major vulnerability. he said the greatest security

threat that the united states faced in the 1980s was the soviet union and the nuclear weapons. how did he challenge the soviet union? he looked at their great vurnl rablt and that's where he targeted. -- the soviet union in the 1908s didn't make anything that the world wanted. he targeted the oil, they were bankrupt. and then reagan challenged them to a star wars missile defense system. at that point the soviet union collapsed and then reagan handed the hand of friendship over to the soviet union and did arms control, arms reduction negotiations with them. regularen turned it around in 1980 because he started right here. here we are gone, the economy is lousy, we're getting pushed around all over the world by the same people and we've lost our sense of self. we're going to ask these three

distinguished americans who they seeprb"p as the greatest threat america's national security. okay. you're a war veteran. you look around the world. what do you think is our greatest threat? >> first. if jimmy carter gave us ronald reagan, can you imagine what president obama is going to give us? [ applause ] i sit in the house armed services, i'm a former seal commander and what i see is this. first of all, it's fixable. there isn't a problem i've seen in congress that isn't fixable as far as a country, as long as we lead. but what i see is we're in retreat. and as we retreat across the globe, vacuums are being formed and filled. in the case of south china sea, china is building the islands and we' retreating. and our traditional allies view

that as a weakness. and china is expanding their influence and territory in the south china sea. then you do a pivot to the ukraine, russia, we're abandoning our treaty obligations and russia is 'em bolden. they're putting flags at the north pole. continuing to move. and finally in the middle east, you have a rise of iran looking at recreating persia. and aided by, of course, russia. and then you look at the context of the iranian nuclear deal and the damage that has done. not only the billions of dollars that has been spent and will be spent shoring up organizations like hezbollah and hamas, but also what people need to understand is it gave a legal framework for iran to acquire as many as 100 nuclear-tipped icbms

in 13 short years. so how did that occur? well, in five years the sanctions on the conventional weapons get lifted. and remember, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey said in no circumstance do we give iran advanced missile technology. in five years we do that. in eight years we give them the ability to launch icbms. there's only one purpose for icbm. in ten years the centrifuges that very supposed to be dismantled come out of storage, never dismantled, they get enhanced. in 13 years they could have as many as 100 nuclear-tipped missiles pointed at the united states. and believe me, that is not in our best interest. and i'll go back to john f. kennedy. what we see as our enemies don't

fear us and our allies don't trust us. and john f. kennedy in his inaugural address said we as a nation bear any price and pay any burden if the defense of liberty. i can tell you that's a rallying call for our allies because they always knew that in time of need america would stand. that we would be a reliable ally you could count on. and this is what retreat has done. the greatest threat that i see in national security is ourselves. because we, as a great country, also bear a great responsibility. doesn't mean we have to be the policeman of the world but certainly we have to be that reliable ally and show strength and lead from the front. and when we don't, it has a consequence. and that consequence is felt in refugees, 3.5 million. and if we don't lead, that refugee crisis of 3.5 million in

syria will spread across the middle east, into africa and we'll have a refugee crisis comparable to world war ii. it is absolutely fixable but under this administration there is not a chance. [ cheers & applause ] [ cheers & applause ] >> we . >> well that's pretty grim but very realistic. i'm going to come back to you and ask you what do we do next. think about that. i'm going to turn to doreen boar really who has been an outspoken critic. what do you think our greatest threat is? >> i realize this is about national security, and my focus really is on the security within the united states of america and the threat that is posed there. and i have two quotes that i want to read really quickly. one by abraham lincoln, american will never be destroyed from the outside. if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we

destroyed ourselves. that's president abraham lincoln. president ronald reagan, the whole theme of this panel today, a quote from reagan. freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. we didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. it must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same. or one day we will spend or sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the united states where we were free. that was ronald reagan. today, my friends, yeah -- [ applause ] so here we are in 2016 and what we are witnessing is an onslaught of massive growth of government. and under president obama i believe he has done more harm than good when it comes to his

leadership for our country. and i look at the fact that when you look at the gdp under 3% under his watch, unemployment is through the roof, our debt is over 90 "biçñtrillion, million, counting. the numbers don't even make sense anymore. over $90 trillion. individuals who are on government assistance. his energy policy is harming hardworking americans. i'm looking at this also as a threat to our country, claiming that he's helping the environment when in fact it's a command and control energy policy, doing more harm than good, especially for those who are unable to afford energy at the higher costs because of regulations. but not only that, the regulations are putting fossil fuel industry businesses out of business, bankrupting coal companies. there are thousands of coal miners who are out of work. look at what is happening in

west virginia, states where coal is mind. these communities are being decimated. these are economic issues that are harming our country from the inside out. there's also the politically correct aspect of what is harmful to our country. political correctness kills. [ applause ] and it's sad because the most recent example is what happened in san bernardino, california. you had these two terrorists individuals and there was a neighbor who saw all of this activity going on, and she was afraid of being called a racist. that is why she didn't come forward. political correctness kills. the other pc, race card. i don't know about you, but i am tired of hearing about the race

card being played -- [ cheers & applause ] -- constantly. constantly. the progressive play the race card to cover for their failures. they have all the bases covered. i'm black. i am critical to anyone who is harming our country because of the massive growth of government and rules and regulations. [ applause ] and i also criticize president obama. i wouldn't care what color his skin color is. he is doing a disservice to our country by harming hard working americans. and he has been inclusive in this race card baiting that is happening. [ applause ] so to summarize, the pc culture and obama's lack of leadership are harming the country from within. and we look at the outsiders who want to do harm to our country

because of the greatness of america. i also say america is an exceptional country, no matter where i go. and it is. and it is up to us to make sure it remains that exceptional country. thank you. [ applause ] >> all right. two really hard acts to follow. what do you think our national security threats are? >> first of all, this is exciting. this is more people than i've ever met in my life. and no, really, i'm so excited to be here because i get to be here with three amazing people. this is the congressman that cares. if there is a vote or debate in congress about is this going to keep the nation free, safe and prosperous, and the answer is yes, that is the firsthand up. and if the answer is no, that is the first fist down. this is a great american. we're lucky to have him there. and these are two very powerful voices. these are the people that drive the left looney.

they're clear, they're concise, they're confident and they have common sense. thank you for what you do. i'm the sad sack on the panel. no, really, i just get to talk about things that are bad. you know, i call my mother every week and she says don't tell me what you did today. so i'll try to be really quick. you know, part of people say we hear all the bad things ryan is talking about, but, look, they're not going to attack the united states. i mean, they're not idiots. and i would agree with you to an extent. the goal of almost every one of america's enemies in the world, whether it's a state or non-state actor is to win without fighting, right? their idea is to find the conditions to create them to find the gap or exploit the opportunity to find a way where america will say that's not our problem, we can't do that, that's too hard, that's too dangerous, to incrementally walk us away. and that can lead to a very dangerous place. and why that's so bad is because the policies of this administration are tailor made to be exploited by that.

let me give you four examples, just real quickly. nuclear weapons, right. like north korea's got nuclear weapons. north korea doesn't want to have a nuclear war with the united states. of course they don't. but here's what they do want. we talked about this prophetically in our document we did, it's to hold america hostage. all i have to do is to demonstrate that if we are going to have a tussle, you could lose a city or more. and america, are you willing to make that debate? so one of the things that really do that, we have a long range nuclear weapon and then you have a thermonuclear weapon that's a city killer or about to detonate a weapon in space and create an emp effect that destroys your entire electric grid and takes out your economy. north korea has both those capabilities. and that is a growth industry. they are a marketing campaign and a walmart waiting to happen. unless we do something different, the greatest threat in your lives this will be the age of nuclear proliferation. where not just them but every state and nonstate threat

expands under that field. cyber. here's one of the things the next president's going to face. putin wants to find an opportunity to demonstrate nato is just a paper shell and won't really meet its defense commitments, right? he doesn't want to start world war 3. he's going to find a way to poke us and hope we just crack, right? and cyber is a good way to do that. russia is one of the premier evil cyber actors in the world today. but other people are watching and will emulate what they do. and other people can create the possibility to create situation where is they hurt us and we're fearful to act. i'll give you another example, terrorism. isis and al qaeda, what makes them a great threat today is not that they have a state in the middle east, but they've used those opportunities to create networks that are stretching around the woshld. i've been all over south asia, malaysia, indonesia, people in the middle east, a lot of europeans, everybody is fearful of the same thing, these networks are out there. and they're going to be used to

come after us without isis having to do this themselves. and this is the breaking news that the next president's going to face. let's say even we push isis down. we have so allowed al qaeda in the last eight years to get back in the game that al qaeda will just stand up its flag and the forces will rally around them. this is a generational challenge that's not going away. and the last one, really quickly, is the economy. china's probably the best example of that. one of the greatest self-restraints that we have, not just us but our allies is what we can't mess with china because we do business with them and it will hurt our business. and the chinese like that thinking. they like that talk. but it's absolutely not true. if we don't defend and protect our security interests, they're not going to be nice to us. and how can we push back economically? well, you have to really look at what's the great driver. and it's economic freedom. not just opening up your own economy, but those of your friends and allies. so one of the things we produce is index of economic freedom, under president obama our level of economic freedom in america has fallen every year. we're not in the top ten.

we're not even a free economy anymore. so unleashing our economy at home and a foreign policy that unleash to our allies, friends abroad is absolutely crucial. and then the problem is, just to sum up, is obama's foreign policy of the last eight years is really revisiting the '90s. how did we get here? under president clinton we withdrew from the world. and bin laden wrote his really famous fat wa and said america has become a paper tiger. if we push them they will fall. that's what we're doing re-creating the withdrawal from the '90s. we grade america's capacity to defend itself against the threats in the world that we face, the threat in our vital national interest. our grade is marginal. we spend $600 billion a year and the most your president can deliver you is marginal.

and here's i think the consequential choice. i think regardless of who the democratic nominee is, you're going to get more of the same, more continuity than change. you're goipg to get more withdraw from the world and more principle weakness. but i really believe when you look that conservatives will put forth a candidate that believes in peace through strength. regardless of the candidate you pick, i believe the candidate that this country feels will be peace through strength. and conservatives will lead the fight to keep america free, safe and prosperous. i really believe that. it's an election of consequence. >> thank you. [ applause ] okay. congressman zinky. you've teased us a little bit. you told us the problems but you didn't tell us solutions. you didn't say they were fixable. how would you talk about everything as a problem? >> well, real quick on the department of security, i don't know why we ask the state

department for hillary's e-mails, we should have just asked putin. >> oh, yeah. >> but here's the middle east. before we put troops on the ground, and i think it will take american troops with our allies, but you got to make sure our troops are well led, they have the right equipment, the right training and right rules of engagement to win. [ applause ] and there's a lot of frustration in the troops right now that they don't have the ability to win because the rules of engagement are tight. and we didn't learn anything in vietnam because we're right back and probably worse. so i do think it will take troops on the ground probably in northern syria. but it has to be with our allies too, because the war is not just about east and west. it's not just about us against isis. it's as much as a war within islam as it is east and west. and we have to do our part asymmetrically to look at the

defeating of isis and these islamic terrorist organizations and it's not that hard to say, islamic terrorist organizations. it's not. but it will take -- it will take asymmetrical warfare and we have to convince the muslim world that is as much of a threat to them as it is to the west, more muslims are getting killed than christians. but it will take a force. it will take our allies. and you have to put a force in there that will move the needle. if 50 s.e.a.l.s or special operations are launched, you know, if they can fix that, that's not much of a problem. so you need to put a big enough force in there to remove the needle, protect our force, make sure we have medevac, qrf and we can do that and will. last point is, when we do that, and i think the next president will have to, we have to make sure that as we push isis out and create a vacuum that vacuum

isn't filled by iranian-backed forces. is what we don't want is emboldened iran in persia of expanding territory. that is fixable under a president that understands peace can only be obtained through strength. >> excellent. [ applause ] >> let me ask you. you both articulated a number of big ticket items that the united states might have to deal with. you talked about nuclear proliferation. well, i guess the answer is missile defense. cyber, that is a major economic issue as well as a security issue. terrorism. you've talked about maybe the united states has to get militarily involved in the middle east. and we've all talked about the economy. so if admiral mullen, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff several years ago was at a congressional committee hearing, i don't think it was your committee, was it? >> no. but i know what he said. >> okay. but he ai