iowa and assess what that could mean for primaries yet to come. >> brown: and gwen ifill sits down with former utah governor jon huntsman. >> i'm a hardheaded realist, absolutely i am. and i say we have come from last place, we now find ourselves in third. there is a lot more blue sky to go in the days ahead. >> woodruff: plus, margaret warner examines the comeback for the u.s. auto industry after strong sales in 2011. >> brown: and we close with hari sreenivasan's book conversation about life lessons learned from the elderly. that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy productive life. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: scale back and streamline, but maintain security. those were the watchwords today as the president and the pentagon outlined the re-shaping of the u.s. military and its focus. ray suarez begins our look. >> reporter: the strategy shift comes just over two weeks after the last american troops left iraq in december and as the u.s. presence in afghanistan has begun winding down. the president highlighted the moment at the pentagon today. >> yes, the tide of war is receding. but the question that this strategy answers is what kind of military will we need after the long wars of the last decade are over. and today, we're fortunate to be moving forward, from a position of strength. t >> reporter: the defense strategic review outlined at the pentagon aims to refocus u.s. strategy toward an increased presence in the pacific with an eye toward china and its rapid military buildup. the review also marks a shift away from military budgets that exploded in the wake of 9/11. congress enacted defense cuts last summer amounting to more than $489 billion over the next ten years. at the same time, the president said today, overall defense spending will still increase. >> over the next ten years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this it will still grow, because we have global in fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the bush administration. and i firmly believe, and i think the american people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next ten countries combined. >> reporter: but the cuts will mean streamlining with the army dropping from the current 570,000, possibly to 490,000 soldiers over ten years. the size of the marine corps is also expected to be reduced. the military also may have to find savings in pay and health care benefits for soldiers and their families. and at a briefing today, defense secretary leon panetta said the changes will not be painless. >> there's no question... there's no question that we have to make some trade-offs and that we will be taking, as a result of that, some level of additional but acceptable risk in the budget plan that we release next month. these are not easy choices. >> reporter: the choices could get tougher still. when the congressional supercommittee failed to agree on $1.2 trillion of deficit savings, it automatically triggered an additional $500 billion in defense cuts. they'll take effect in january of 2013, unless congress intervenes. for all that, the commander-in- chief insisted today he does not mean to repeat mistakes made after world war two and vietnam by cutting too much. >> so, yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know- the united states is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats. >> reporter: that did not stop criticism of the new strategy from republicans in congress. the chair of the house armed services committee-- california congressman howard "buck" mckeon -- issued a statement calling it "a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind america." in the meantime, no specific dollar amounts were outlined today. they will wait for the 2013 budget, which president obama will submit to congress next month. >> woodruff: we'll have more on the new strategy from defense secretary leon panetta. plus, the republican hopefuls in new hampshire; the big money in the presidential campaign; former utah governor jon huntsman; the good news for the auto companies and advice from america's elders. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> it was the second such large scale attack since u.s. troops with drew last monday. the bombing struck mostly at shiites in kbaing dad and in southern iraq-- in baghdad and southern iraq in a run-up to a shiite holy day. more than 100 people were wounded. in u.s. economic news: the u.s. job market showed more signs of improvement today. the labor department reported first-time claims for jobless benefits were down for the fourth time in five weeks. they're now at a level that usually signals a drop in unemployment. the overall employment numbers for december come out tomorrow. on wall street today, stocks struggled to hold their own, as worries over european banks competed with the jobs numbers. the dow jones industrial average lost two points to close at 12,415. the nasdaq rose 21 points to close above 2,669. the government of myanmar announced today that the party of opposition leader aung san suu kyi will be allowed to run in upcoming elections. it was the new regime's latest step toward political reforms, after years of military rule in the country once known as burma. suu kyi welcomed the development, but also cautioned that progress remains fragile. >> i wouldn't say there are many dangers but i wouldn't say it is unstoppable either. i think there are obstacles and there are some dangers we have to look out for. mainly, i think i'm concerned about how much support there is in the military for the changes. in the end that's the most important factor. how far are the military prepared to cooperate with reform process. >> holman: suu kyi would not say if she will compete for a seat in parliament in the april election. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jeff. >> brown: and we come back to the new military strategy and to our interview with defense secretary leon panetta. i sat down with him at the pentagon this afternoon. >> brown: mr. secretary, welcome. >> good to be with you. >> brown: the president said today we're turning the page on a decade of war. as you look at the changing world situation now, what war or kind of war are you preparing for? >> well, we are at a strategic turning point. the president kind of made the point today and i think it's true. we just ended the war in iraq. we're in a transition course of eventually being able to give the afghans the ability to handle their own security in afghanistan. we just completed the nato mission in libya. we have made significant progress against terrorism, particularly al qaeda. and now we're facing obviously the budget cuts that we have been mandated to do. but it comes at a time when there are a number of other challenges that are out there. this isn't like past drawdowns where the threats kind of went away. we're facing still a series of challenges. we're facing terrorism, we're facing threats from countries like iran, north korea. we're facing threats with weapons of mass destruction, proliferation of those weapons. we're facing challenges from rising powers in asia. we're facing a situation in the middle east that continues to be in turmoil. so what we have got to do is to be able to have a flexible, adaptable, agile force that can deal with a myriad of challenges in today's world. that's what we've got to be able to do. >> you doing this of course a mits all the fiscal constraints and you said today that a leaner military with a smaller budget will need some trade-offs and, quote, some level of additional risk. now what risk are you referring to? >> well, any strategy, particularly a new defense strategy as we are putting in place is going to involve some risks. what are the risks? when you're smaller and leaner, you're not going to have that large a presence throughout the world. and so we are going to have to be much more agile and flexible in moving forces around. that creates a risk. you have the risk of, you know, our ability to mobilize. can we mobilize quickly, effectively enough if we confront another aggressor who is, you know, beginning a war against the united states. our ability to do that has to be done rapidly. we've got to have a strong national guard and reserve. we have the whole issue of technology. this is going to be a technology-advanced force. it has to be. can we develop that technology? can we put it in place? what are the costs associated with develops the technology. so as you look at this, and the other area is partnerships. we have to rely on partnerships. like nato and others. and yet those countries are facing budget constrictions of their own. so you can see the risks that are out there. we think they're acceptable but they are risk. >> if you are look in concrete turns, the stance for decades for u.s. policy has been able to fight two major wars at the same time. and we have been doing that for the last decade. is that changing now where we will no longer be able to do that? >> i think the fundamental principles of that construct of being able to fight two wars is will the united states be able to take on aggression for from more than one enemy, be able to confront them, defeat them and win. that's the fundamental question. >> brown: is that a semantic difference or a real difference from fighting two major wars at the same time. >> i think that even in that construct of fighting two land wars, the fundamental question is could we confront two enemies at the same time and be able to win? if we bring that to the present, we've asked the same question. because that is a major question. the united states has to have the capability to deal with more than one enemy at one time. and be able to con frokt-- confront them and win. we think we can do that with the force that we're designing and that's what counts. >> so if the u.s. were forced to confront again, to put in it in as concrete terms as possible, iran on one hand and a threat from north korea or china at the same time it would still be possible? >> exactly. the best example is if we were enmeshed in a land war in north korea, or in the korean peninsula, and suddenly iran decided to do something in the straights of-- straits of hormuz, would we have the capability to be able to confront that threat, the answer is yes. if there were a threat somewhere else, would we have the capability to confront that, the answer is yes. we have got to be able to have sufficient capability to be able to confront more than one enemy and be able to win. that's the keys with. >> brown: now both you and the president emphasized the major shift to the asia-pacific region. >> yes. >> brown: what exactly does that mean? does that mean containing china's growing power? >> well, the united states is a pacific power and we've always had a presence in the pacific. china is a pacific power as well and we recognize that. and frankly my view is that we need to continue to work with china, continue to build a relationship with china because they are a power. because our economy, our economies are related. because there are other relationships that we have in that area. we have a common interest with china in dealing with the threats that exist in the pas civic. stability of korea. one example. the whole issue of being able to have commerce move freely through the oceans in that area. the whole issue of nuclear proliferation. the whole issue of dealing with humanitarian crises and disasters. all of these issues in the pas civic and the possibility that any one of those could develop the kind of challenge that would demand u.s. power to being invoked, that's the reason we've got to focus an emphasis on the pas civic region. >> brown: but when you call for this new emphasis or shift, what would you do now that-- what would you do now that you are not able to do. >> i think the most important thing is obviously maintaining our naval presence out in the pas civic. maintaining our military presence. we have a large military presence, obviously, in south korea. >> brown: maintaining or enhancing. >> i think some of this will be enhanced. for example the announcement that the president made in australia where we will have a rotational deployment of marines in that area. we're going to look for other opportunity as long those lines to be able to enhance our presence, to be able to indicate that we are a pacific power and we are there to work with the countries in that area to try to maintain the peace. >> you spoke today of scaling down the size of the army and marines. but no specific numbers. >> right. >> brown: you spoke today of hard choices that really have to be made including weapons systems but again no specifics. you can give me an example of a hard choice that you are facing right now? >> well, there are a lot of hard choices here when you cut a half a trillion dollars from the defense budget. it affects almost every area in the defense budget. as i indicated today, the specific decisions on the budget are going to be contained in the president's budget. so i'm not going to talk about the spvk areas which are still in the process, frankly, of being finalized. but we have looked at every area of the defense budget. efficiencies, obviously, this is an area that involves this huge department that's here, duplications that are here, tightening the operations up that we have to titleen. secondly, the whole area of modernization, weaponization, procurement, being able to develop the kind of reforms that are necessary in that area in order to save costs, making decisions on weapons that we need with this kind of flexible and agile force that we're going to have. compensation. compensation is an areas that's grown by 80% in this department. we are going to have to develop some cost efficiencies there as well. as we try to maintain faith with the military. and lastly, force structure. force structure is going to come down it was going to come down in any event based on the changes that are taking place out there. but we are going to have a smaller and leaner force as a result of having to make these decisions. >> you have some, will you have and already have some critic whose are worried that you're going too far. will you also have those who think you're not going far enough. why not cut more? you've cuts there, today you warned again about the possibility of more cuts through the sequestration process. but there are some who point out that that would even only get you to 2007 budget rates or so. w not go further at a time like this when we're able, when we perhaps are able to? >> exactly because of what i said earlier on. that this country still confronts major challenges in today's world. we are still fighting the war on terrorism. we have got iran. we've got north korea, we've got all of these changes taking place in the middle east. we've got the challenges of dealing with rising powers in asia. we've got the challenge of, you know, dealing with countries like russia, rising countries that like india and others, all of that represents the kind of challenges that we are going to have to deal with in this world of the 2 1s century. for that reason we've got to be careful. how we do this. now cutting almost 500 billion dollars is not chump change. the fact is it's a half a trillion dollars coming out of the defense budget. and that's going to impact on a lot of areas in the defense budget. >> brown: and cutting another 500 billion you think is unaccept wnl. >> well, you know, what i would ask people to do is kind of hold your judgement as to whether or not we ought to cut the defense budget a lot deeper. when you see the decisions we are going to have to make in order to be able to achieve 500 billion. >> brown: that is what i want to ask you. because you are speaking big picture today but you are an old budget hand. >> yes, indeed. >> brown: a lot of years in congressment and you know that when you get to the specific cuts, weapons programs, everything. >> that's right. >> brown: these are hard decisions. >> exactly. >> brown: these are inevitably political decisions. and also here we are in the midst of a political campaign so you expect all of this to be fodderable? >> i don't think there is any question that this is going to be controversy. these are hard choice-- controversial. these are hard choices, hard choices on the budget, inevitably are not just numbers. they affect people. they affect states. >> brown: job, the whole thing. >> they affect jobs. all of that is in play here. and as a result of that, having been a former member of congress, there are going to be members who are going to be concerned about the impact this is going to have on their constituencies. i understand that. but at the same time it's the congress that made the decision that we have to cut the defense budget by almost $500 billion. if that's what they want to do and they want to do it in a balanced way that protects the defense system for the future, then i urge them to take a look at our larger strategy here h what we have released today. and hopefully be able to work with us to achieve the same kind of balance wereuk' trying to achieve here. >> all right, secretary of defense, leon panetta, thanks so much. >> thanks so much. >> woodruff: now to campaign 2012, the presidential candidates focused on the man they need to beat, jabbing at the front-runner ahead of the first-in-the-nation primary. >> i just want to remind you that this is the most important election of your lifetime. >> woodruff: for rick santorum, the task at a town hall in northfield, new hampshire, was presenting himself as the conservative alternative to mitt romney-- the man who beat him by eight votes in iowa. >> if you like what you heard and you interested in helping us out, we need your help. i know the other candidates will say they need your help. they're lying. i need your help, okay? ( laughter ) >> woodruff: santorum was getting more than just laughs, his campaign claimed a million dollars in contributions on wednesday alone. the former pennsylvania senator used the new media attention to take a swipe at romney, telling voters, "don't settle for less than america needs." former utah governor john huntsman also hoped to stop the frontrunner's momentum in new hampshire. at one event today, he declared, "we can't afford to have a coronation for president." ( applause ) newt gingrich was on the same page, at a senior center in plymouth: >> i continue making the case that there's a huge difference between a reagan conservative and a massachusetts moderate. i think that resonates. i think that's the central argument in this campaign. >> woodruff: gingrich pursued that theme in a new television ad released today in both new hampshire and south carolina. >> romney's economic plan? timid. parts of it virtually identical to obama's failed policy. timid won't create jobs and timid certainly won't defeat barack obama. >> woodruff: the target of all that attention started his day early, in new hampshire, then flew to south carolina for an afternoon rally... mitt romney touted himself as the only candidate who can block president obama's bid for a second term. >> i don't think he is a bad guy, i just think he's way over his head, and when it came to protecting us on the national security issues of iran, he's failed us. and when it came to balancing our budget and reigning in the extraordinary deficit, he failed us. >> woodruff: and romney aired his own new ad, attacking the president's economic program. >> you're seeing a president adopt policies which affect our economy based not upon what's right for the american worker but instead what's right for their politics. >> woodruff: texas governor rick perry spent his entire day in south carolina, hoping for a comeback in the primary there, on january 21st. and congressman ron paul remained at home in texas. he planned to start campaigning in new hampshire tomorrow. what influence will super political action committees have on the vote? in iowa, the groups pumped millions into last minute television spots. pro romney super pacs spent $4.6 million to help their guy; rick perry boosters forked over almost $3.8 million. and after spending little of his own money, rick santorum finished second in iowa thanks in part to almost $650,000 from two groups there. some of all these outside ads were sharp attacks. "winning our future"-- a super pac backing newt gingrich-- this week reprised a 2008 john mccain ad attacking mitt romney as a flip flopper. >> i will preserve and protect a woman's right to chose and i am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. i am pro-life and favor that legislation. >> ever notice how some people make a lot of mistakes? >> i made a mistake. >> woodruff: the "restore our future" superpac behind romney went after gingrich in that web ad. and in a positive spot, the red, white and blue superpac touted santorum's conservative credentials. >> rick santorum-- dedicated defender of the unborn, resolute leader in the fight against radical islam, courageous leader. >> woodruff: while the pro ron paul endorse liberty superpac made a web ad starring voters. >> ron paul has been consistent for more than 30 years. and he's been absolutely right about the most important issues facing this country today. for a closer look at the difference super pac spending made in iowa, and what might be ahead, we're joined by bill allison of the sunlight foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates government transparency and eliza newlin carney, staff writer for "roll call." we thank you both for being here. eliza newlin carney, let me start with you. remind me where these superpacs came from, they grew out of a supreme court decision, citizens united in early last year -- dish should say early 2010. >> early 2010. the citizens united ruling rolled back limits that had existed for some time on corporate and unit expenditures. and that unit said if you are operating independently from candidates and parties, you can spend however much you want and you can raise however much you want from corporate sources and union sources that previously were barred from direct campaign money it there was another ruling calls speech now. which a lower court ruling which together with citizens united paved the way for these pacs. >> woodruff: and bill allison, how different does that mean it is for these groups than what it is and the rules for the candidates themselves and what they can raise and spend. >> well, these groups can take contribution of up to $500,000, a million dollars t is unlimited how much an individual, a corporation, a labor union can give to these organizations. a candidate can only raise money in $2500 chunks for his campaign. so you can very quickly build up a huge warchest in these groups to support a candidate. >> woodruff: and what are the rules around transparency? if someone writes a check to one of these groups, is their name going to be found out. fanned so, when? >> this is one of the big problems is that we don't have very fast disclosure for these organizations. and the restore future pac and several other superpacs have changed their filing status, taking advantage of a quirk in the rules which will allow them to not disclose any donors until the end of january by which time not only will we have had iowa, we will have this have new hampshire, south carolina and florida. so you have four early contests and we won't know the money behind these groups. >> woodruff: and eliza newlin carney, that is not a coincidence that they asked for that change in the reporting date. >> when you see how many of the different pacs have taken advantage of that opportunity, it does start to look like it might not be a coincidence. >> woodruff: how much did they end up spending all together in iowa? and how influential do we-- is it believed that they were. >> i believe that they spent approximately $10 million all together. and i think that the pro romney superpac restore our future, has been very widely credited with really helping romney beat back a surge that had been enjoyed by newt gingrich. one reporter said that the romney pac should get an oscar for this year's election that may be overstated but i think there is a perception that in this case that pac in particular was very influential. >> woodruff: and bill allison, who is running these organizations? and what connection do they have, if any, they're not supposed to have a connection; is that correct? >> well, actually, there was an fec ruling, james bach who is the lawyer behind the citizens united case,-- a superpac and he got the fec to rule that candidates can raise money for superpacs. they can coordinate fund-raising. but the superpacs themselves are being run by people who are very close to the campaigns. you've got a former treasurer and general counsel for the romney campaign in 2008 and a couple other individuals who worked on the campaign running restore our future pac. newt gingrich's pac is run by a pair of long time aidees of his including they were involved in a 527 that newt gingrich had. so you have people very close to the candidates running these organizations. and really, if you think about t they don't need to coordinate the message because these people know what the candidates need. >> woodruff: but there are rules, eliza newlin carney, about what they are and are not supposed to communicate with one another, isn't that right? >> yeah, there certainly are rules. and if you ask any of the candidates they will say we have an absolute firewall. we never communicate with the superpac. but the funny thing about the coordination rule is, there are two things. one is that some argue the fec coordination regulations are too lax. in fact, they have been challenges multiple timed in court. so there is some dispute over whether the fec has gone as far as it should in enforcing the rules. but the other interesting thing is that even if there were really strict rules that were carefully enforced, these folks don't really need to go to a lot of trouble to signal what they are doing. all they need to do is put out a press release saying i'm advertising in these regions of the state. and the candidate will know. well, they're advertising there. i don't need to advertise there. so you know, if you read about, certainly if you go back and look at what the supreme court ruled, bill allison and you read what people say who defend what the superpacs are doing, they are-- they are living proof that if you want to support a candidate and you want to put as much money as you can behind that candidate, this is a way to do that. so are these living up to what the supreme court intention was? >> i really don't think that they are. i mean one of the central points that the supreme court made, and it's the majority in its ruling, is that it's a reasonable restriction on campaign finance to avoid corruption. and they argued that these kind of independent expenditure was not influence candidates because they really don't benefit candidates directly. and clearly what we are seeing is with superpacs closely tied to candidates and people able to dump, you know, a million dollars into these things, especially late in the campaign, these candidates are going to be somewhat beholden to the people without donated to the superpacs. >> and, and in reading what the supreme court's intention was, eliza newlin carney, does that live up to what the court indicated? >> well, it's worth saying that there are certainly, those who think the superpacs are a good thing that they have enhanced speech and there is more competition now. but it's also true that the supreme court said these entities will not be corrupting because it's independent and it's fully disclosed. and i think arguably neither of those premises is really being born out by the reality of modern campaigning. >> woodruff: well, whatever is the case in that regard, how much influence do we think these groups are going to have in the primaries to come? i means what's the sense. because you follow these groups very closely. >> well, as i said, in iowa, i think there's a perception that they were quite important. but i think one of the interesting things about these pacs is that they are quite unpredictable. this is the first election that we have with these entities here. and a number of them have sprung up and either changed their names or changed their allegiance. >> woodruff: you reported in fact on one that sprang up for santorum and disappeared right after the end of the caucuses. >> yes, so these are unpredictable entities. and in fact both gingrich and romney have lashed out at these pacs. now that may be somewhat taking a stand for political purposes but i think there is a sort of innate discomforture on the part of the candidates that these outside groups that they have no control do so have much power and money so their role will be unpredictable. >> woodruff: what dow expect to see from these superpacs in new hampshire, south carolina, the contests that are coming up right away? >> they can spend whatever they want. and they probably will. >> woodruff: in fact, they are already running ads. >> of course. and they will be, you know, it's just amazing how much, how quickly they can raise money and get on the air and influence a race. and we've already seen winning our strategies, going after mitt romney and hitting our ca candidates so we're just going to see more and more spending. you wouldn't be able to turn on the tv without seeing somebody paying for a political ad. >> woodruff: and we know know if that is more than what the candidates are spending because that is not disclosed just yet. bill allison, eliza newlin carney, we thank you both. >> thank you. >> brown: as the campaign shifts from iowa to new hampshire, one republican has staked his entire candidacy on the state. gwen ifill talked with former utah governor jon huntsman last night in manchester. >> ifill: governor huntsman thank you, some of for joining us. >> a pleasure. >> ifill: you've had the state of new hampshire to yourself for a very long time now, 150 appearance you've made here since you started campaigning. now what? >> well, that wonderfulfully peaceful period that we have taken advantage of the last several days, we've got this category 5 storm brewing cooled the new hampshire primary. and we'll have to share that with some others. and it means all of the work that we have done over the course of many months and 150 now public appearances will have to leave with the good people of this state. because you get your message out, you knock on doors. you do town hall meetings endlessly. and you try to win over the trust of the voters. which is never an easy thing to do. and in this state, in order to win over their trust, they've got to know your heart and soul. they've got to know what you are thinking. and what you are hoping to do for this country going forward. and they want to look at your past. they want to see what your record is they want to get to know you and your family. so we've done all of that. and now we'll let the voters render a judgement in the next few days. and live with that ooirz well, you're not working in a vacuum any more. everybody blew in from iowa, you weren't there but certainly you were watching very closely. is there an iowa bounce or at least a possibility that the public-- publicity of iowa can obliterate what happens here? >> there is an iowa awareness. and i think that iowa awareness is the fact that 75% of the voters opted not go with the establishment candidate in mitt romney, which means there is a lot of wlu sky and opportunity for other people. but i would argue that new hampshire is a pretty isolated state in the sense that they're not going to be terribly influenced by the opinions of others outside. or by the trends that are set by other states or regions. they don't want to be told for whom to vote. >> ifill: is the republican party as splintered as it looks right now? >> i think it's splintered. i do. >> ifill: in what way? >> well, in the sense that whether from a foreign policy standpoint there's some divide between the isolationist wing of ron paul, the cold war mentality of a mitt romney. i think there are different opinions on things like tax reform and how deep to cut. and deal with social security and medicare. i think there are a lot of ffering opinions right now. >> ifill: what is your path to victory in new hampshire and assuming that you can do well here, after that. >> our path to victory in new hampshire is exceeding market expectations. because as you go up in the polls, so go the expectations. they change. so when we entered new hampshire, the very beginning, months ago, the expectations were nothing. we were the margin of error can the das. we have gone up, now in third place. the expectations changement and i think in the days ahead we're going to continue to rocket upward and that means the marketplace expectations are going to change commensurately. >> ifill: as you pointed out everyone has their surge in this race. everyone has had their chance to be the anti-romney. so how do you surge? >> well, you surge by putting out your record which compared and contrasted with romneys is dramatically different. i am run on a reform-minded agenda. which is saying we have two deficits that we must deal with in this country if we're going to get out of the hole we're in. one is an economic deficit and it's going to call for a bold tax reform package. and it's very similar to what i did in my own state where i delivered a flat tax. phasing out all the loopholes and deductions in total. no more corporate welfare, no more subsidies, it also impacts the lobbying activity. that carries on to promote one trillion, one00 billion dollars in nonsense. romney is calling for a little trimming around the edges on tax reform so we come at it from different perspectives. my state was number one in job creation. his state was number 47. when you compare and contrast on the other deficit side, not an economic deficit, it's a trust deficit. and that is i believe this nation is suffering a trust deficit, almost as corossive as the economic deficit. and that is where people no longer trust the institutions of power. >> ifill: are you suggesting mitt romney isn't trustworthy. >> i'm saying when you have half of congress supporting you, you are not going to be inclined to want to take on the institution that needs to be changeddide why can't that be mitt romney. >> how you can do it when are you protected and supported by the status quo which is congress. an institution that carries 8% approval by the american people. >> ifill: what about ron paul. he got a pretty significant group of new participants in the process in iowa. independent voters who i'm sure would you love to have. is there a way you can speak to that, to those voters or are they unbudgeable. >> no question about it, if you were to disaggregate our town hall meeting in new hampshire, the average town hall meeting, you would see that there are republicans, a whole lot of independents, and even democrats who are showing up. they are looking for leadership. they are looking for somebody who can transcend politics. i think that's a critically important aspect. >> ifill: how do you get -- >> of success. >> ifill: how do you get them not to go with ron paul. he seems to transcend politics in the eyes of so many of his supporters. >> many of them who come to these town hall meetings say he sun electable at the end of the day. will carry maybe a 150% support rate, approval rating consistently for three election cycles running now. but in terms of being able to go the distance where you can actually beat barack obama, it's not going to happen. >> ifill: you talk about leblt ability but i don't think we often define what that means. does elect ability mean me, are you electable if you are me. or are there a set of qualities people should be looking for. or is it just, i see on a good day i might be able to beat barack obama, what does it mean? >> i proven track record that speaks to leadership, the kind of leadership that allow its you to coalesce enough support to succeed in electoral politics. because at the end of the day, the math has to work for you to win an election, to be leblt able. you've got to actually convince some people who voted for barack obama last time to vote for you. >> ifill: does that mean you consider yourself a moderate, someone who could appeal to people like that? >> it means i have crosscutting appeal. if you look at my record t would speak to being a consistent conservative. >> ifill: wait a second, why not call yourself a moderate, crosscutting apeal s that a bad word? >> well, we get folks from a lot of different political spectrums. i don't think it's a bad word at all. i have a hard time with people putting labels on your forehead. i think that's unfair in politics. and some people actually confuse a moderate temperment with a moderate track record. >> ifill: i feenlly want to ask you to put on your analyst hat. because one of your supporter, tom ridge, the former governor of pennsylvania was interviewed and he was asked about your chance. and this is what he said. he has a chance, a shot at second, maybe. maybe? second. >> i love surrounding myself with hardheaded realists. now if i surrounded myself with spin artists you know what you would be hearing. i surround myself with hardheaded realists. >> ifill: are you one of them? >> i am ray hard headed realist, absolutely i am. and i say we have come from last place. we now find ourselves in third. there is a lot more blue sky to go in the days ahead. and i say we're going to beat market expectations. >> ifill: governor huntsman, thank you. >> its it's a pleasure to be with you, thank you very much >> brown: while polls showed huntsman in 3rd place last night, today some put him in 4th trailing romney, paul and gingrich. >> woodruff: next, how the u.s. auto industry picked up speed in its ongoing recovery. margaret warner has the story. >> warner: 2011 turned out to be the strongest year for detroit's major automakers since the financial crisis hit in 2008. nearly 13 million vehicles were sold here last year-- 10% more than the 11.5 million in 2010 and far more than the 10.4 million sold in 2009, which had marked a quarter-century low. what's more, the 3 major u.s. automakers captured 47% of the market in 2011, up from 45% in 2010. the two automakers bailed out in 2009 showed a healthy jump in sales: chrysler, up 26% and gm, up 13% ford's sales were up 11%. for more on detroit's steps toward recovery, we turn to david shepardson. he covers the auto business for "detroit news." welcome back, david, so in the big scheme of things how significant a rebound is this for the u.s. automakers? >> it is a very big step forward. this is an industry that you know, was on the brink of death, basically, in late 2008 before president bush stepped in and bailed out the two companies. and the three companies have gone through a really big restructuring. and now they're making gains across the boards, not just in the suv pickup truck sector where they have been strong strong tra decisionally but in small cars. both gm and chrysler had success in new small cars and next week at the detroit auto show they will bring out a couple of new small cars. so i think you have to give a lot of credit. >> warner: what do people say about the corelation between car buying and the overall health of the economy. >> there's a big one. because there is the second biggest purchase that most americans buy after a house. and people, in order to buy a car, have to be confident, one about the overall economy about the stability of their own job. i mean are you not going to buy a car and today it averages about $30,000 for a new vehicle, bought last year. unless you do feel confident that you are going to be able to make those payments. and that's why, it is one of the reasons that the average age of the fleet today is about 10.7 years. it's the oldest it has ever been. so most people don't drive their cars until they drop over and die in their driveways. they have some option. and if they don't have to buy a new car when times are bad, they try to get another six months out of that old clunker. >> warner: so you are saying though that last year some of the pent-up demand got released, so in december, for example, the sales were really high compared to the year before. >> last seven months of the year, sales were going up. we're now at a sales rate more like 13.5 million vehicles. we could be another, up to as high at 14 million vehicles sold next year. but because of the last three years people haven't bought as many cars, maybe 10 million fewer used car approximates in the market. and that's driven up the price of used cars and made the difference between a used and new car smaller, therefore more people are considering a new car rather than a used car. >> warner: now we also of course have to look at the competition. in other words, if the u.s. automakers increase their total market share to 47%, that means 53% are foreign automakers. now some of them, especially japan had its only problems last year. >> right. let's put that in context. in 1997 detroit still had 70% market share, so it's still, yes, it's an increase but still down from where they were at 90% in 1965. so japan-- . >> warner: never to be seen again. >> not in the new-- . >> warner: given all the manufacturing that is going on by foreign automakers. >> absolutely, never happen again. so japan's struggle with two issues, the tsunami earthquakes in march, pushed back a lot of production. and then flooding in thailand where they have a lot of plants as well. so both toyota and honda were down about 7%. they struggled to get enough inventory to the u.s. they say they have basically resolved those issues. nissan, however, the third largest japanese automaker resolved those issues faster and were able to actually be up last year. >> warner: now we referred to the bailout, the problems back in '08 and '09. how much of the increase in sales and i know this is a hard corelation to make, but could be attributed in part to the restructuring and the changes that were made in these auto companies? >> there is certainly a big part of that. in the sense that these are companies that don't have to produce as many vehicles. they don't have to keep all those plants running as they did prebailout. these companies got smaller. they reduced their labor cost, their debt. and therefore are able to be profitable at a smaller overall sales rate. in fact the obama administration sized the companies to be profitable in as little as 10 to 11 million vehicles sold. so that's where you are seeing the companies making billions of dollars it in profits as opposed to pre20007 when the industry was at, you know, 16 million units. general motors and ford were still losing billions of dollars. >> warner: did it also, though, make them change the kind of products they offered? >> there is a new focus on small cars. and a good example is gm and the chevy cruz. it was the best selling compact, outsold the toyota core la. which say big shift for these-- companies that rely on suvs. essentially abandon the car market to toyota and honda. and they are ready for that segment when gas prices go back up. >> now finally how hard is it going to be, though, for the three u.s. automakers to hold on to even that 47% market share in 2012. in other words, are there advantages they had in 2011 that they are not going to have in 2012 or new challenges. >> oh, it's going to be a huge dogfight. the big slew is japan is back. there is lots of new models. hyundai, kia, the korean auto group had a huge increase in auto sales, volkswagen, bmw, mercedes, the european companies have a big focus in the u.s. it is going to be a real battle, every sale these companies know that yes, things are looking good now, but they can't take anything for granted. every day it is a battle for the hearts and minds. >> warner: and does the slowdown in europe there terms of the recession there make the foreign automakers focus all the more on the healthier u.s. market of consumers? >> absolutely this is the most profitable auto market, second to china today but this is where the companies are making a lot of money. europe is very uncertain so that's why you are seeing a lot more focus. a lot of new models coming from europe. >> warner: david shepardson of the "detroit news", thank you. >> thanks, margaret. >> brown: finally tonight, navigating the trials of life and aging in the words of those who've experienced them. it's advice spelled out in a new book. hari sreenivasan's conversation with its author includes the voices of elderly americans interviewed for the book. >> america is on the verge of losing yet another natural resource. in about ten years, 3/4 of american's oldest generation will be gone. they will take with them lessons learned about living through illness, failure, poverty, loss and danger. and more basic things like love, work, parenting and growing old. -- wondering if all that wisdom could be simplified into a guide for younger people. the new book 30 lessons for living asks close to 1500 of american's elders one simple question. what you have learned. he joins me now. thanks for being us. >> thanks, it's great to be here. >> i know you have had 30 lessons but in summary what have we learned and what are they trying to pass on? >> you know, i think we have in america's elders our most credible experts on one thing. even though you might not go to them to learn how to reprogram the vcr, they are the truest experts on living well through hard times. and they really know, i think, how to be happy despite these kind of difficulties and problems. and right now, when we're both involved in wars, and going through one of our worst economic times, i think really that's a core of their practical advice for living. >> so how did they get through it? how did they get through, say, intense loss or intense grief. >> you know, i think if there is one thing they know, it's that you have to be responsible for your own happiness. and that sounds a little like a cliche. but it hit me strongly with one of my first interviewees with who metaphorically grabbed me by the lapels and said, young man, and it's fun to be called young man at my age, in my 89 years i've learned that happiness is a choice. and not a condition. and a lot of the ellers experienced a turning point, you know, when they were in despair or devastated. and they turned things around in a moment. they believe that younger people are happy because of things. you know, they're going to be happy or they plan to be happy if something happens. in their view, younger people should learn how to be happy in spite of things. and choose happiness. >> she was my middle child. and at that time she was 21 years old. and american airlines, and somehow the pilot made an error landing and he ran into a gas station there at the airport. and i think about 30 odd people, 38 or something like that got killed. and she was one of them. for two years i guess i tortured myself and the rest of my family. and then one day i said to myself, okay, you have to stop this. you have to push it in. doesn't mean you forget or you let it go. but you have to think of the living ones. >> what's fascinating is so many of the elders, they're not necessarily expressing regret but how much more, or how much less risk averse they are than you think they would be at this age. they are really trying to prescribe that we say yes to opportunities in our life. >> exactly. having talked to over 1200, close to 1500 older people, there is one lesson they would like to convey to everybody. and it's almost in the form of one of those nightmares where you are yelling and no one can hear you. and that lesson is, it sounds simple but it is that life is really, really short. and you learn that in your 80s and 90s and beyond. and my 100-year-olds were the most likely to say, life passes by in a nanosecond. they weren't younger people-- they want younger people not to be depressed by that insight but rather to use their time more wisely, to be more selective of how they invest their time. >> at this point in their lives, are there perceptions or relationships with death different than how we perceive it? >> there is a striking and fascinating corelation. the older you are, the less panicky or afraid you are about death and dying. and that for me really came home in these interviews. in fact, one of the lessons in the book is as odd as it sounds from very old people is don't worry so much about dying. you know, they would say to me things like this. oh, the panicky feeling of i'm not going to be here any more, that's a 30-year-old's game. they are much more concerned with planning for the end of life, with preparing for the journey and using again the sense of limited time to make life richer and more interesting. >> i'm not afraid any more when the time comes to go. i want to go but not in pain. i will go willingly. i'm not afraid. >> so how did you come up with this idea? i mean people have been talking to you and chronicling the elders for so long. but why did you decide to take on this assignment. >> i came at it, i have been a ger ontologist for 25 years or so. and i came to the revelation one day that i was looking at old people almost entirely as problems to be solved. as abuse victims, as alzheimer patients, and our society does that too. it sees older people as weak and frail. and dependent and in need of care. at the same time i was personally meeting extraordinarily resilient older people. and there was a body of research which now is quite large that people 70 and beyond are happier than younger people. have higher life satisfaction, in spite of loss and disease. so i began to ask myself basically what's that all about. and i rent on this really personal quest and a series of scientific studies to find out that what older people know that we don't. >> carl fillmer from cornell university, thank you for your time, the book is called 30 lessons for living. thank you for being with us. >> thanks very much for having me. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day: president obama unveiled a new defense strategy calling for a leaner military, and a new focus on asia. on the "newshour", defense secretary leon panetta insisted that even with spending cuts, the u.s. military could handle multiple wars at the same time. a wave of bombings in iraq killed at least 78 people. and republican presidential hopefuls swarmed new hampshire with rivals stepping up criticism of frontrunner mitt romney. it's science thursday on our web site. kwame holman explains what's there. kwame? >> holman: we have a story we dubbed "honey, i blew up the ants." the discovery by scientists that they can create supersized ants with giant heads may be a key to evolution. don't miss the slideshow. on the rundown, judy ponders whether the internet and social media signal an end to the tradition of candidates meeting voters face-to-face. and on art beat, jeff reflects on the past year and what's ahead for our arts and culture blog in 2012. all that and more is on our web site: newshour.pbs.org. jeff? >> brown: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with mark shields and david brooks, among others. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by h.gdia access group at vo:geico, committed to providing service to its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.