about the lack of customers and dand. that's ronald reagan's advisers and george bush's economic advisers are saying that. we have lower taxes 17 times to small business. every republican slotted against it. we need to make sure we get the environment to create jobs. >> moderator: time. [applause] >> mr. fisher? ..

the problem in this country right now is a lot job creators it is hostile and once you are in that situation you are not going to take the risk or hire more employees. you're not going to spend your business. everything will some to the economy, and the private economy. it's not a government economy as the private economy, and i own a small business. i understand what is going on and i do think that there are a lot of things that can be done to get people the confidence to hire people and. >> moderator: the second question well go to mr. fisher to begin the hispanic congressman tierney has been accused of being a lawyer if not worse and mr. tsei a right-wing extremist.

can you please comment on the tone of the campaign and what it tells about the issue of character. >> i find it is heartening that it's come to this. one of the strongest statements economic about the public when they're mad as right to the good jobs numbers come out republicans who leave the books and democrats believe they were not. i know what the truth is that i'm worried about the fact that we have become so partisan we can't distinguish the true anymore. all we care about is what we are being told by the party masters. the fact of the matter is for me , please do not cheer anything like that at least during my time when you are talking about -- i lost the question. i'm sorry. character to character, right. we are talking about these guys

i think the best i can do is try to not get caught in the crossfire. i think that i could exemplify my character by standing up here and talking to you, looking you in the high been willing to answer questions directly and tell you exactly what i think. my position to be consistent from day one. i would like to think that even those of you who don't know me very well have a pretty good idea in reading my literature and hearing me speak exactly what i stand for. i'm not running because i am a politician. i am running because i am the average person, and i understand that to the average person, there does not have to be 100% agreement. when a candidate tells you they've done the polling that means they ask their parents and their close friends. we did a small internal poll and we found that these guys are in a dead heat but the next question that we asked was if your candidate wasn't running, who would be your choice? i think back on a 80%. that is a significant thing.

we are very partisan and i would jump into the congressman tierney supporters are never going to support mr. tsei. i never going to support the congressman that there is something to the fact that only 20% of you find me objectionable. [laughter] [applause] >> i think i will close on that when a note. [laughter] >> moderator: mr. tsei? tsei: let me say -- saxby to tsei: too flout? [inaudible] let me just say this i am disappointed that the tone of the campaign has turned out to be what it is because i do think that i've always run positive campaigns and positive commercials and i sent out anything that i responsible for to be practically positive. i do think that some of the ads obviously congressman tierney is raising our way over the top.

i am the only person in the united states running for office right now who supports gay marriage, who is pro-choice that is being attacked on the extreme tea party extremist. it doesn't make any sense. it's laughable and the fact of the matter is i do have a record at 26 years of public service to over 10,000 votes in the legislature. and believe me, if i had a record of extremism, it would have been something you would have heard about long ago. and i do think that right now it speaks to the congressman's credibility more than nine, because i'm talking to people all around the district and i am trying to say that the country is at an important point right now we really have to move for them. he people in washington are going to work together and i do that at the state house. i have the fiscal emergencies,

one of them 1990 was a bad one. the state was almost bankrupt. and i fought with democrats and the governor of the time to read we all got together. nobody got what they wanted but they put the straight back on track and if you look what is going on in washington right now the place has become totally dysfunctional. and i think that what we need to do is select people better independent-minded and put the people first rather than the political party. that is what i have done in the legislature when mitt romney is the governor i voted with him 54% of the time and i would against him 46% of the time and when each vote cannot i said what is best for the people in my district and best for the people in the state? in washington we have a group of people on both sides, 100% of the time with the leadership that is the congressman has done over 16 years. 99% of the time with the leadership and i do think that, again, on both sides putting the country first. and i want to assure the people in this district that when the votes come up i'm going to say

to myself what is best for the people than the district and what is best for the country and that is the criteria that i will use when issues come before me. >> moderator: mr. tierney? tierney: to say it's a responsible bill yes they are in the right wing extremism. [applause] i gave you an opportunity to say that we would keep out of the super packs and the 51c4 just like with eisel the debate could elizabeth warren on the different levels i agreed to what you wanted and you still didn't because you knew if you had gone down and asked them to run the strategy can pan which they say you were asking them to do and they are doing the took them to the sleaziest most misleading advertising campaign.

they're doing it throughout the country. they smear and then they move on on that. so you don't have to deal with the issues that are the ones you don't want to talk about. the fact that you said you would support the republican agenda, you said that he would come with it and you said that he party is a godsend, he said that he would vote the current leadership back in and you felt that the budget was just a good start. so, in order not to have to talk about that and those issues coming you went out and attacked my wife and family as a way to try to get to me. and you do it over and over again. [booing and applauding] the fact of the matter of the issues are going to be discussed in the public would know that he would stand with what has been the most conservative republican commerce and about 60 years, and that the agenda is antiwoman, and i equal rights and they are

absolutely proud of it. it is a false to complain about my running an ad using your own words in your own record we did in cielo record that was called a mixed bag on women's health issues. it was a full frontal assault on abortion rights. these are votes that you took and this is not anything equivalent to the idea of going after somebody personally as a way to get your political ambitions resolved. so the fact is you have a very mixed record on abortion yet you now say they support the party with anti-abortion and into a woman's health record. you have a mixed record in a number of areas on that but this time you go down the road that sets an agenda that is against what i think the majority the district really needs the would cut jobs and go after social security and change medicare and lose the guaranteed benefit. they would get tax breaks to millionaires and the deficit doesn't pay for that.

you wouldn't be creating jobs when you cut back on infrastructure and education and job training and all those things that you think are just a good start in the budget so that is what we get been doing is setting up with the record is, using your own words come in using your own votes and you're own statements. [applause] >> moderator: for 30 seconds. >> to define character things are in really bad shape in this country. you are going to get the characters out of us that you expect to be when you get the characters out of us that we see coming from the masses. the campaign and the candidates are going to be a reflection of the people, think about. think about what you want to read think about the example you want to set for us because we want character in government.

we can't have character if there's and character everywhere. the government should always be a reflection of the people. thank you. >> moderator: 30 seconds mr. tisei. tisei: i need more than 30 seconds after that. let me just say what you heard from congressman tierney is exactly what the problem in this country is. [cheering] one of the 28 most partisan democrats and the entire country votes 99% of the time with the leadership the "boston globe" had a story last week, tierney ad is misleading and they went through the fact just how bad an off-the-wall that was buried today politico came out with a report that his campaign as one of the dirtiest -- >> moderator: time. tisei: he is referring to it

being wrong this is when to be a campaign about twice and it's not a false equivalency to say that the trace is whether he wanted this republican majority that's been basically unable to get anything done because there's a partisan and the majority that is the most productive congress since 1964 to reach across the ogle and get things done even when george bush was the president. [applause] >> did you have a timer up front? the next question comes from susan jacobs and it starts with mr. tisei. >> as the editor it should come as no surprise that my job would deal with israel. do you believe that israel has the right to defend herself against the danger of a nuclear iran, and if so, what role should the u.s. plea? do you support a military response? tisei: i certainly think that israel has every right to defend

itself and let me just say i've been to israel it is an amazing country and the thing that is most amazing about it is that they share the same values as we do here and when you are in israel you have the right to speak and worship and they can act as individuals. there is freedom and the press. this country, israel, is surrounded by instability and countries with basic human rights are not getting rights in those countries around israel, no women's rights. i do think sometimes here in america we lose sight of the fact that they are living so terrible. we look at that as americans for me for distance. when you live in israel you have to always be worrying about rocket attacks from hezbollah. if that happened in the united states and a missile was launched over from canada and

massachusetts people would put up with that for 30 seconds here in this country. that is the fear that the israelis live under every single day and as far as the united states goes we have to be very clear and very strong that israel is our friend and they are pressed more often than not to coincide with ours. so i would hope if there is a problem there that the united states would be a strong ally, dependable friend and do what we could to help as best we could. for this district in the united states and allies and put our interest first but there is no better friend in the world with the united states than the state of israel. [applause] >> moderator: mr. tierney? i've always supported israel and the jewish people and that state

has been strong and unwavering and has the right to exist and the right to live in peace and the right to protect itself on its own soil against attacks on that basis and we have a strong alliance and friendship. we don't walk away from our allies and we won't walk away from israel. i think actions speak louder than words. every foreign military aid for israel and supported giving them the edge and that includes the irony of dome which has already proven to be a good effect on that situation. i've proved the increasing sanctions against iran and i think that siding with president bush the international sanctions and increasing demand following with president obama has been doing to the point now the currency is devalued 40% and starting to have an effect on that position to be able to use diplomacy and to use sanctions can get some results before time

runs out. let's be clear a nuclear-armed iran is a threat to the united states and israel, it is a threat to the world and we are not going to let them have a nuclear arms so we need to present these challenges and as allies we need to consult ahead of time and make sure we work together on this and if anybody has a disagreement we should resolve it behind closed doors and think about it in a unified front. we need to do this and keep moving forward. my actions speak louder than words and i think it is very clear. [applause] >> moderator: mr. fishman? fishman: i was raised jewish, not as orthodox as my parents or near as orthodox as my grandparents were but i understand what israel is and what it means. it is not just an ally to the united states. it is a place homeland and we

are responsible for our own security. in this place we will not defend others because in the past we have. in this place we understand we must defend ourselves against people who do want to eliminate jews from the earth. that is the stated purpose of iran. mahmoud ahmadinejad said israel needs to be wiped from the face of the earth to the charter of hamas in the charter it says you shall never make peace and work honestly in each process because our entire purpose is to eliminate the state of israel. in the face of that how can we begin questions about whether or not israel has a right to defend itself? how can there be a question whether one of people have a right to preserve their cultural heritage, and that is what israel is. the problem with our foreign aid right now is that we are giving foreign aid to everybody because

we think that is how we can buy goodwill. we think that if we get yasser arafat to have a billion dollars when he died, if we gave him a billion dollars he was going to be a friend. yasser arafat was never a friend to the jewish people or to the united states. saddam hussein, we gave him tons of money. he was never a friend to the united states or a friend to the jewish people. we have the history of supporting countries the largest arms deal ever be sold weapons to saudi arabia i believe the 60 billion-dollar deal and in saudi arabia women are not allowed to inherit property or drive cars, they are not allowed to be held in public without a man to chaperon them. why are we selling weapons to these people? in yemen and is legal for a husband to rape his wife. why are we giving foreign aid to these people? we need to understand foreign aid has to be something that we know goes to the rich people in a country. ron paul says foreign aid is

taking money from poor people in america and giving it to rich people in foreign countries. that is what we have ended up doing. we have to recognize that the way the foreign aid gets distributed and to countries is a complete disaster at this point in time. the best thing we can do is say there is a level of individual responsibility and supporting israel the jewish people of america have recognized that, the diaspora has recognized that and we've taken it upon ourselves to make sure israel even in the case of a president who's not an enemy was certainly not a friend, president like that we do not depend on the united states and the security of israel, they depend on themselves on the user and the world for its own security. >> moderator: okay. 30 seconds. i would just say i agree as far as foreign aid, and i would question whether the united states should be given additional foreign aid to help egypt right now with the muslim

brotherhood just recently had a tax on our embassy and go down and protest people to attack the embassy when but the something totally different and these new governments that have come to being, the united states again has to be very strong and very clear that they need to respect religious differences in individual rights and of their right to be friends with the united states. i will support military aid for israel and we continue to do that. it is a degree of foreign aid, and i think that is important. but i was one of those people working under the kerry-lugar bill with respect to pakistan and i was upset with of the money coming into the treasury in pakistan and not getting the results that should have been there and we worked under that bill to make sure that there were conditions and the money wouldn't be released until we

were sure it was actually being accomplished. that is a high degree of accountability on foreign aid when it is given. >> moderator: what is the threat of nuclear iran? it's important to recognize pakistan already had weapons. they have the bomb. isn't pakistan already a great however, i am not willing to commit to sending troops to iran to engage in another war. [applause] our next question comes those to mr. tierney. >> speaking of the tenor of the campaign, we needed a congressman who would work for the common good of the country

and not a particular party. so what would you do, what could you do to bring detente to this relationship that currently exists in the party system and in congress? tierney: they all think they are working for the betterment of the country and you have to get people's motives some credibility here. i think what it comes down to is that we have a party system. we have a two-party system in this country. in order for it to work, the majority in any given time has to have the responsibility to reach across the aisle to be open to the idea of working with the other party and making and accepting some concessions and moving forward on that. i would make sure that we do that again because we have in the past made in 2007 and 2010 when the democrats were in the majority, we passed over 400 bills that were signed into law. 70% of those were bipartisan on the basis and the ideas i mentioned earlier we had a republican president george bush that we didn't necessarily agree with philosophically but we

passed the science, technology engineering and math programs on the compete to get more teachers and their and more innovation and scions investments to move forward. we passed an energy and security bill and raised the minimum wage. the president's financial situation started to erode in this country we tried to work with him and even though we didn't agree that it was the best way to go, we did that as a way to stress to stimulate the economy and move forward. so, time after time it was shown to do that. this particular congress is sort of a tea party congress. it's the one that doesn't believe in government. you take to experts, one of centrust and one in the american enterprise to be more conservative 40 years they say this is an extremely odd a logical group. they don't give any credence at all to their political opponents of positions. they are uncompromising and they take great pride in that and they have 61 votes. that is one for the bills that the do nothing congress passed and. truman was complaining about

them. they are not interested in getting things done they are interested in making political statements. 33 votes if you get rid of the affordable care act, not to fix it or improve it, but to just basically try to buy something that had already been democratically decided. this is not so i think that what we need to do is have people in the responsible positions that will reach across the aisle and have a track record of doing that so they are not ideologically driven on that basis and that is the case. when you get the votes i've made for the structure education system therefore making college more affordable and accessible and making health care more available for protecting medicare and privatize social security for making sure there's an environmental there that will create jobs and the of work-force training and skills to take those jobs. these are the things that i'm a democrat, i'm republican, my opponent might say that he thinks he doesn't agree with them but they bring a certain percentage to the party this

district council on it and it's things that this district wants done and that is why they're sending me at eight times and will send it back again. it's the middle class that meets the detention and we need to get those done not to worry about getting the tax breaks at our expense. [applause] >> moderator: mr. fishman? fishman: i intend to work with the other libertarians. in the sense that they would get 334 seats, there is an understanding that we have in the two-party system it's incredible to people the number one people from deacons hmes you are so willing to give it and fell spoken. why would you say that? why would be shocking to you that a citizen that wanted to run for office to express political ideas, could express

an interest in the future of the country? it shouldn't be shocking. it should be a wake-up call saying this is what we are, this is massachusetts. we have a history. john adams ruda reconstitution of the first citizen soldier, the idea that citizens are the backbone of our government and that we all have a civic duty. i think one of the worst things that has happened in the united states is that we don't teach civics anymore in high school. used to be important and we could understand how our government work and why our government worked this week and where there were ideas where we should compromise that sometimes we shouldn't have to compromise. democrats complain a lot about an obstructionist congress of the republican party today is the republican party the democrats made by making a small majority to push for legislation that a lot of people disagree with strongly. we have a bill of rights and the constitution so that when we don't have an idea that 51% of the people would say you 49% or

as mitt romney would refer to them, 47% are no longer people that we consider worthwhile. we are going to use our small majority to inflict upon you what we think is best for everybody and that is not what we are founded on. we are found on the idea that we should each be able to choose our own destiny. we should each have as much liberty as possible so long as we don't interfere with anybody else's liberty. that doesn't mean that 51% of people can see this is not okay for you. it's important that we understand, to act, that ideology is not a sin. the idea that you are committed to an idea, the idea that this idea is so important to you is something we should respect to the we talk about the fact with 33 votes against the portable care act those congressmen are not going home to lose elections. we are going home to win the elections because they are voting for people that represent and agree with them. [applause] we can argue that it's good or

bad but we have to understand this is a strong difference in the country and when there is a difference like that in the country they are not meant to be one model when the government they're meant to be 50 different states and we can decide these at a smaller levelland disenfranchise by saying the government doesn't have to be this monolithic. [applause] tisei: like i said earlier the problem in washington right now is it is partisan and not putting america first and between congressmen tierney: and by we have two different histories. 99% of the time of the leadership by a different history having served in public office. i represent a district where there were only 10% republicans, so i would always bring people into the fold trying to build coalitions and the minority the entire time i was in the state legislature but i was able to get a lot accomplished.

i felt drop the welfare reform act in massachusetts and rhode the antifraud provisions. one of six people that worked on the landmark bill in the entire country. i passed a piece of legislation for people to become teachers in massachusetts and i set up an alternative certification process so if you are changing careers you don't have some obstacles, you can go into the teaching profession. a number of people came to me that worked in the health care industry the or been fired because they were reporting substandard care. i sponsored and what a path for whistle-blower protection act to provide protection for health care employees and hospitals and nursing homes somebody came to me and said i'm a veteran and i can't believe there is no veterans' preference in massachusetts. i passed a bill to do that. i want people to understand what i did when i was in the legislature. spent my time on the human services committee. i believe the government does have a role to play in people's lives but some people in

washington don't think they should be everything. the government should be there to help people who can't help themselves and who are meeting in the deserving. legislator of the year by the national alliance, but as leader of the year by the association of citizens on this about the developmental disability council, a legislator of the year by the hefty decline in ca and by the home health organizations. i just want people to understand that is what i'm going to spend my time doing as the congressman is to protect the programs that we need the most to the people that need the help the most. that is my view and the government and with the government should be doing. bayh older sister is a brain injury in the lives and a group home with help from a federal housing grant and she's also on medicaid and depends upon that to live. understand there are a lot of people up there that do need government help and assistance and i want to be a congressman

who protect the programs to help those people. [applause] >> mr. tisei says he would support the exact party that's making sure that the abstract everything with the intent to be done and shrink and the ones that want to see medicare on the vine. the majority of the republican side it is in the case of democrats thinking governors should do everything. we think we should make sure the colleges affordable and accessible and that's why ford on is a was a guaranteed benefit he's a third-party candidate. there is a point in time that it should be understood that it doesn't have to be just two

parties and the conversation is emphasized. the idea of the conversation is the important part of the process and there isn't conversation going on right now it doesn't have to be that we've you don't want to be that way. the problem is right now we are split. that is what i did in the what sectors work with them across the aisle. i have the history of being able to do that and that is what the country needs right now to get back on track. nothing will change if john kerry is elected. we know the record is and we won't go across the aisle. u-boats 99% of time and is rated as one of the most partisan democrats in the chamber. people are willing to work together and act like adults.

>> moderator: the next question goes to mr. fishman. >> you have all had a chance to see how health care reform the matter for obamacare is worth that. can you tell us what you have learned from the massachusetts model that leads you to either support or oppose the affordable health care act? tierney: of the things that bothers me is the ideal mother was forced on the entire country by a small majority. we were meant to be 50 united states, 50 engineers and innovation and what everyone to say about the portable kheyrabad it cannot massachusetts which i believe in the us i believe that we are a leading example of innovation in this country to massachusetts has always had to the health care plan was innovative.

what ever else you want to say about it, massachusetts was the right plan for them at the time. this isn't the right plan for mississippi or for texas. they voted that we repeatedly. gives us the right to ignore their preference and what gives us the right to say this plan is going to be one-size-fits-all. what gives us the right to say we want to shut down the innovation and want to go with one basic central party plan? in terms of specifics about the plan i think if there's a real problem with the idea of saying that there is a right to health care and i want to explain what i mean about that. health care is provided to you because of somebody else's labor and you never have a right to somebody else's sleeper i believe that there is a duty on the society to provide health care for everybody and that is on all of us we have the duty to provide that for everybody but you don't have the right to say

that a doctor test to work 24 hours so there's health care available. you have the right to say that of doctor corners or hospital has to say we are going to lose money on this process because we are going to provide this all the time. we have to find a way to say that health care is delivered by health care providers. health care providers must be afforded their own liberty all the time our system cannot be 100% but it's pretty good at this time. we have the best of care for many things in the world. but there's a reality that is the financial cost house well. it is cancer for a lot of people. it's an amazing technology. it costs $150 million to build a new machine and requires a giant building. there's a reality that we cannot

provide that therapy for everyone and the country for the resources are not there. passing a law saying what we want the resources to be there it doesn't solve the problem. we have to recognize the fact that there is a mathematics that has to take place and we have to say how can we do this? test be done with partners, the partners and the caregivers and by trying to take the caregivers of the equation, we can spend the rest to begin what is an excellent health care system. [applause] >> moderator: i was proud to vote in favor of the health care reform act here in massachusetts. it's not perfect. i would say a couple things about it though. they got everything they wanted. they sat down and work together to get everybody in massachusetts in shirt with 92% and we were able to get everybody up to 100% and what

dance that is true of the national level that is just no amendments. we are going to get this bill passed and we don't care how we do it. that's why it's become such a divisive bill in our country right now. the bill that we passed here in massachusetts was only 70 pages, 70 some pages and in washington was 2700 pages. a lot of the congressmen never heard of the bill. the bill in washington had 21 tax increases. we had no major tax increases in the bill here in massachusetts. the bill out of washington turns the whole health care system upside down. we didn't do that here in massachusetts. we didn't settle with one-fifth of our economy and we didn't interfere in the doctor patient relationship which is what happened with the national bill that the change that basic relationship, so i do think that there is a success and went the

federal government and we got a special deal and asked for a waiver for additional money and that is the way that this was the work we set up an innovative bill here in massachusetts rather than a one-size-fits-all plan being imposed upon every state in the country. other states should have the same opportunity that massachusetts has to devise their own plans and things that might get us through 80 or 85 or 70 something percentage of the people. let them do the same thing that massachusetts did. incentivize them to get people injured and force the system on every single state in the country so obviously a lot of people waited a long time on the others come on the democratic side. they waited 40 years and when the bill cannot they threw everything into that bill at the kitchen sink and i do think that you could go down right now and sit down and put together a plan that offers basic protection.

we have protections of a bill here in massachusetts just like the federal government does. but conditions would have to be covered up until age 25 to a mistake. we are able to do all of that without turning everything upside down and there's a lot more about the bill that we could talk about if we had more time. tierney: the reason they were able to take care of pre-existing conditions as they have a mandate devotee had to be covered and voted for it because there is no other way to make sure that everybody that a student or school doesn't have their own coverage can stay on their parents' plan until they are 26 and there is no way you can take care of your pre-existing conditions and get rid of annual and lifetime caps unless you spread it out to where everybody is covered and has the ability to get insurance and then you are able to do that in the that is what you did in massachusetts. you also then say that you thought that massachusetts was a

great model for the nation. it turned out that you were right. they took the massachusetts model and essentially put that in to play but then like mitt romney you decided when they started getting angry and upset about that you agreed with them that this wasn't after all such a good model. >> the fact of the matter was for the fact that the entrance are able to do all those things we are able to extend by eight years and give the seniors preventive health care and get them exams every year without cost to them that we were able to close the doughnut hole by the republican majority and we were able to do this in a way that was natural and the sense of and come and sit in to hundred 9 billion in the first 89 years and 1.3 trillion in the second time and i would disagree a little bit on this one, too. i think that the access to

health care, that affordability to health care is our right. [applause] and nobody ever said that doctors are forced to do anything on that but should have access to health care and should be affordable and this is the way to do it under this plan and it was a plan that had over 70 hearings and a multiple committees of congress any number of amendments were brought in and built upon and a good number of republican bills and amendments that had been presented by republicans were incorporating in the bill this fight that republicans didn't vote for their own bill an amendment that were dead set at opposing the fact of the matter is we've reached across the aisle and incorporated the needs of the bill and what rank them on the hearings and move forward on that. this is a bill with people think they can be improved but to improve those that you think would be approved, taking 33

votes to eliminate the affordable care act without offering them one thing to make it better or to improve it and replace that you're taking away doesn't show with the action in terms of making for a better future in health care for protecting people that need to be protected. as a lighting that is naive to say that he's going to go down there and become a part of this majority and they're going to say they're taking 33 votes to repeal we are printed a sidebar to become -- we are going to decide. >> moderator: mr. fishman? fishman: i worked to train and the practitioners. nurse practitioners can step into health care right now and make a difference to allow. they can prescribe medication. right now the government is getting in the way of the nurse practitioners in the business because legislation being passed the nurse practitioners have to work for doctors.

government doesn't have to get involved in that sort of thing we have an educational procedure and hospitals that oversee their own health care we don't need the government involved. i would just point out that every single opportunity to improve the bill the congressman has disapproved of. one vote in particular, 1099 for small businesses there was a provision in the bill to require every single small business to follow the 10994 rahm for every single expenditure. most of the democratic colleagues voted to get that out of the bill. a number of them didn't put them on something like that he wouldn't change the bill. >> moderator: -- [applause] the changes have been offered in

the bill whether it is 1099 the police come up with a price paying for the cost to do that taking away health care benefits to others so we sought to having fallschase as we could probably move forward on that and i was supportive of that without the full story suspect. the fact of the matter is if we try to fix the health care bill if you think there is anything wrong it is going to take a democrat and a majority to reach across the aisle and try to get this done this kind of maturity as they could 53 times all about repeal and not about offering an alternative as your career public officials in the private sector what are you most proud of, and on the flip side, what would you like to take back given the chance. >> moderator: mr. tisei? tisei:. when i had my democrats on the

democratic legislators that i served with in the state house came and stood beside me and then burst me because the worked with me and they knew that i would be a good congressman and that i am somebody that can look across the aisle. it just made me feel so good knowing that if in the opposition party in the house. it should help people in the district when the plan should be coming out and saying i am somebody that can work with somebody, can work with people. i have been able to get along with people across the aisle and i've worked out of the state house after 26 years feeling really good that i had spent my

time wisely and got a lot of things accomplished. [applause] >> moderator: mr. tierney? tierney: i'm proud of the 20 years i was in business and representative families and small towns and municipalities and middle class and serve on the board of trustees and the college and universities and there is the president of the local chamber of commerce and my goal is to represent people in my family and the way i grew up. concentrate on education of all levels and higher in education, public higher education and put together on health care for people and of making sure they protect the medicare and social security and work to create -- people to be trained and skilled for the jobs that are out there and also making sure that we protect the minimum wage and

making sure that the work pays and the conditions on the job have a right to organize and we can move forward and have a good society that is healthy on that and that is what i think i am proud of and i am proud of the fact that by working across the aisle as well. the bills with jim leach and i've done bills with trade goudy i've done bills on the committee hearings with chris shays and mr. chaffetz. we have done some very bipartisan investigations and bills on that basis. the thing i'm most proud of is the republican party looks over to the right and became more and more extreme. this party supports the right and budget. is that what is happening to people? i think with respect to a lot of people would be the kind of republic massachusetts used to have and maybe mr. tisei wishes that he was. the fact of the matter is that -- [applause]

bill switched parties that the indian supported my campaign and i asked about what happened he said these people down there in the house of washington, the extreme people, they are not the republicans i grew up with and the pope to become republicans that represent me and the people that understand they come over to support my campaign. [applause] >> moderator: mr. fishman? fishman: should i have the privilege of serving congress would be my third year. i was a special-education teacher. i did that for seven years. i worked with a very severe population and i loved it. it was a fantastic job. there is something about the job and something about the interaction not appeals to me. i felt like i was really making a difference.

i went back to school in 1996 and became a computer scientist. there was a job i enjoy it. i like it now three years ago i made a decision that i could actually go back and use what i know to improve special-education again and would be the situation to take what i know about computer science and apply it to the special education community and say we can make special-education better. there are ways you can bring technology tabare and why is that we can use the data that we collect. but i have to say that i am a little proud of this, too. i am proud of standing up at this point in time. i didn't do it because i wanted to be a politician. i didn't do it because i wanted power. i did it because after september 11th i wanted to find a way to serve my country. i was too old to join the army. i thought about applying to the fbi also am a strong supporter of the second amendment rights. i should never have a gun in my

hands. [laughter] but this i can do. i can stand up and speak and contribute to the conversation. and so, i am very proud of this and i am very proud of you guys because everybody has talked to me and embraced me and said we can do better. we cut the electorate can increase the conversation and we can make the government better. now, i am going to going to the indians are the other part of the question, something that i would take back. i was offered a job at amazon and 99. just kidding. [laughter] thank you. [applause] >> moderator: 30 seconds, mr. tisei. tisei: i would say in addition to the government experience i am proud of the fact that we made it through the recession with my business and had a lot of sleepless nights worrying about how i was going to make payroll and pay the bills come keep the doors open and keep

people employed in oz a trying time. i can understand what people are going through. they have had to deal with this great recession that we are in, and i thank god that i was able to get through it. tierney: i am a little -- would probably be difficult for mr. tisei that he made a statement before mr. mitt romney was elected 50% of the people didn't pay taxes. it is a dagger in me as if they are freeloading off being useful as a society when in fact the last two and a half years despite having to resort house in martha's vineyard and having business property and rental properties and a home and having a state payroll attack paid by taxpayers seniors, students.

mr. fishman? fishman: i came here in the '94 and i have learned to embrace the difference of character. i came to texas. we have realized that there is simon amazing aspect incredible diversity i finally learned to become the resident, i'm happy one of the reasons i'm learning to represent you guys. >> moderator: each candidate is going to have a two-minute statement and we start with mr. tierney. tierney: first one to think the jewish panel as well as my opponents on the debate tonight. i think that we have seen this election comes down to the

similar traits. on the one side has accepted freely from the tea party who said he supports the republican majority in congress across the two-party and the republican budget in the agenda and if you read the tea party has done right and has the right idea if you like what you've been seeing coming over washington with the republicans in charge and with their plans to end medicare's your nt benefits to restrict access to birth control and raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay the cuts to the millionaires do you think mr. romney and mr. tisei are right the government, seniors and working women with young children are freeloaders and not paying their fair share in taxes and deserve to payless mr. tisei is somebody that interests you. would you support president obama if you believe what i do fighting for the middle class to get a fair shake is the right thing or do you support my vote to get 17 tax cuts to

small-business as. can you believe in protecting medicare and seniors deserve the time and dignity that he support the laws to expand training and jobs and all the insurance companies accountable. to keep the dream of college open to all, then i'm your candidate. voters do have a choice this november. it's a vote for keeping this right-wing congress and power. the stronger middle class focusing on creating jobs and the quality treating for the people of this district not the interest of big oil. i hope i've earned your vote and by asking for the opportunity to serve again and thank you for the opportunity to serve tonight. [applause]

[applause] two more statements. there's a website called core values.com. it's kind of a tea party purity test. all three of us failed. however i passed a couple things. i am a strong fiscal conservative and this differentiates me from the rest of these guys. i will not vote to raise the debt ceiling. i remember the tea party is an acronym enough already. we were taxed enough already at this point in time. we don't need to change the level with which we are being taxed right now because we are being taxed enough already and this is something that i think we really can look at and say

where is the disconnect right now because republicans and democrats have both shown a consistent history of growing the size of government and that is what makes me different from these guys and this is where i have to ask you for your vote because if you don't vote for me, if you like what you have heard of here because you think i can't win, you are telling the parties these ideas are worth less. these ideas couldn't get 1% of the vote in the election. if your vote counts and your vote has to account for what you believe in. this election and asking you to vote for somebody, i'm asking you to say this amazing gift that has been given to us in this country to vote on the opinion you have to use it and what i have said appeals to you you should vote it because if you don't vote for me the only

message that gets sent is those ideas that you vote for nobody to the [applause] thank you. >> moderator: i want to see this is a good opportunity to change things and, this man in exhibit a of what is wrong in washington, d.c.. i also want to respond to this statement "boston globe" tax returns i did it, i had a tough time, no doubt. the company almost went over and to keep things going but the congressman didn't lose his taxes with a libel suit and when he was finally forced to do it low and behold over $240,000 according to the federal prosecutors that went into his household didn't pay any taxes

on and that's the problem. [applause] i do think this district is a lot better over the past couple of years and i do think that this is an important election to change the way things are done in washington, d.c.. the record of being a problem solver i have the record of working across the aisle, the record of being an independent minded legislators that is exactly what we need in this country right now, to get this country back on track. [applause] [cheering]

>> moderator: that concludes the debate and i would like to think the school for the use of the auditorium and staff and volunteers and the access television for covering this put together. they taped it and they will be sharing it with other access stations and everybody will get a chance to see it. again i would like to speak for everybody for coming and the candidates for participating. and for the panel. [applause] thank you. [applause] ♪

.. would i like to be senate majority leader? >> sure. >> yes. >> have you fired a gun or rifle within the last year? >> yes. >> senator? >> no. >> is andrew cuomo the best new york governor in your lifetime?

>> no. >> senator. >> i'm going say it's not finished but . >> have you read "50 shades of grey? [laughter] >> no. >> senator? >> no. >> me neither, for the record. [laughter] >> no comment. leading up to election day following the key house and governor races on c-span, c-span radio and c c-span.org/campaign tbfl. up next the missouri senate debate between clare mccaskill anded to akin. they rank this rice as likely democratic. it's just under an hour. ♪

♪ >> good evening and welcome to the u.s. senate debate. my name is mike bush, i will be the moderator for the evening. we need to thank the presenting event sponsor the law firm. st. louis public radio, 90.7, and the st. louis business journal. we're televising this live to the affiliates across missouri. ky tv in springfield and colombia and st. louis public radio is doing the same. the broadcast is also being streamed live and stl public radio.org. we also invite you to take part on social media. our hashtag on twitter is mosen. our appreciation to the police

and fire department as well as the school district of clayton for hosting the event. before we begin i would like to review the format. each candidate will give a throw minute opening statement and a three minutes closing statement. our panel of media response or so will ask question of the candidates. both candidates will respond to the same question, and have one and a half minutes to do so. rebuttal will be at the discretion of the moderator and ask 45 seconds president of after that we will take questions from the audience who received an indebs card as they entered this evening. they were asked to print the questions out. ly pose those questions as long as time permits. let me introduce the official time keeper rose community relations of washington university. rose, please hit the green light, this indicates that the time is officially begun for a candidate to respond.

when 30 second remain the green and yowl low light will appear. when ten seconds remain, the yellow light will come on. will there will be a red light and we will have to cut the speaker off. the audience has agreed to be polite tonight. we will set aside the agreement once. on behalf of the clayton chamber commerce and event sponsors please welcome senator clare mccaskill and senator todd akin. [cheering and applause] [cheering and applause] now a coin toss was held last week to decide who would make the opening statement. congressman akin has decide god

second. senator mccaskill. you have three minutes. mccaskill: thank you very much. to the sponsors and i know the audience is not suppose to make any noises. it people could hold up fingers for the score during the debate. that would be great. if you're watching that at home having taped it. i understand completely. it is great to be here and have a gait about important issue in missouri. i went washington, d.c., as prosecutor to solve problems and hold government accountable to taxpayers. i knew it would take a couple of thingses, it would take some hard work, it would take comprise, and it would take a willingness to work across the aisle with my republican colleagues. so i rolled up my sleeves, first earmarks. i had no idea how ugly the earmarking process was until i got there. a factory, lobbyist, campaign

donations, i aid said i'm not going play the game. we should spend public money based on merited, not based on who you know. i never asked for an earmark. wind to work with republican senators mccain other republicans colleagues against the majority of my party, and banned earmarks. i'm proud of that work. akin has requested hundreds of earmarks and was a proud defender of the earmarking process. then there was contracting, as a prosecutedder, i looked a the the government contracting going on. i looked at what was happening in iraq and afghanistan with the abusive wasteful contracts, once again working with both democrats and republicans we were able to move across government and reform the burke obamacare that were wasting your money. and jeff sessions a couple of

years ago more than a couple of years ago came to me a conservative republican senator from alabama and said, clare, you seem like the kind of democrat that would work with me on putting a cap on federal spending. i said i am that type of democrat. together even though my party's leadership fought me we worked put a cap on federal spending. ii think our legislation made a difference. a strong bipartisan record. it is different than congressman akin's records. congressman akin has been one of the handful of congressman voting against a program extreme program. a extreme record. he once wants to privatetize medicare he. s to say that rape victims can't get contraception. he wants to say that no more student loans in the federal system. he wants to in fact privatetize social security. and he even says that the boss has has the right to

discriminate against you if you're a woman. he said that's freedom. i say that's unfair. moderate v conservative ifm. i think that's a big choice. >> moderator: thank you. akin: thank you for being here and making the debate possible. i'm an engineer served as an amy officer, worked for ibm i meant my wife of 37 years. we have been blessed with six children, eight grandchildren. throw of my children were in the navel acat achad me. one is in the met met train yen serving. i'm blessed to have my parents who are here with us, dad is 91, served with patent in world war tabor two and -- we are here because we want an america with a bright and cheerful hope for the future. but that good future that we

want has to come with right choices and wise decisions. unfortunately, clare mccaskill and barack obama have not given us such a future. clare mccaskill was the first to endorse president obama and she was his strong right hand passing legislation, voting with him 98% of the time. what exactly does the record look like. first of all in the area of jobs instead of the promise from the 878billion stimulus bill. we have 43 months of the worst unemployment since the great description. we were promised the deficit would be cut in half. they are tripled. we are off by a factor of six. energy, the obama mccaskill, the funding of solyndra, the epa given the power to shut downtown coal industry, and stopping drilling in the keystone

pipeline and gasoline prices have doubled. health care it's even worse. 71% of us and missouri voted against the government take over of health care and clare voted to pass it a reason for the record of failure. that's because and obama and mccans mccaskill have a deep and apieding faith that big government is a slowings to every problem. that's why they couldn't fulfill the record. clare is going to washington, d.c., and brought us red tape and taxes and all kinds of bureaucracy, and executive orders. and she doesn't understand that these big governments solutions choke out freedom. now what i would suggest is that you could bring me to washington, d.c., in the senate so that we could take the missouri common sense back to washington, d.c., and not a model bureaucracy.

cut down the taxes and the red tape in the bureaucracy and build the american dream and american family once again to be strong and restore a bright hope for all our future. thank you very much. i look forward to joining you in the rest of the debate. >> moderator: congressman, thank you. next we turn to the panelist nicer questions of the candidates. ellen publish of the "st. louis business journal qth will pose the first question. it goes akin who will have one and a half minutes to respond. >> congressman akin, just today the heads of goldman sachs, bank of america, city group, and many other financial institutions sent a letter urging the president and congress to avoid the looming tax hike and spending cuts that we call the fiscal cliff. which of your stated positions are you willing to comprise to

break this budget gridlock? please be specific. akin: yes what you're talking about is january 1, 2013, we're facing a number of problems all at once. first of all, there's the problem of the sequestration another 10% cut to defense, the largest tax increase in history of the country, all of these things pose a lot of challenges. and i think the solution to the problems has to be done in a couple of things. first, you have to reduce the size of the federal government, and the second thing you have to do is get the private sector going. you can't do it with just doing one or the other. the best way to get the private sector going, there's two steps to that. the first thing there, is to get the red tape under control. they're driving our business efficiency down and pulling people and driving jobs overseas. the second thing is we've got high unemployment and yet we have the highest corporate tax

rate in the world. that doesn't make sense. we need reduce the corporate tax rate, and on imietion of those things you have to reduce the size of the federal government spending and take care of the red tape and reduce the taxes. you put that together, and you have a hope over a period of time of putting the budgeted under control. >> moderator: congressmen, thank you. senator, your response. >> i'm not sure i heard anything he's willing to comprise about. i've been part of the group trying to work together to hammer out the comprise. there is a lot of these provisions i've been quote, unquote, scored by the congressional budget office. we need get do a $4 trillion reduction in the long-term debt over the next ten years. the simpson bowls had a lot of things in it that were worthy of our discussion and consideration. i'm willing to look at pieces of simpson bowel -- kier we're

called the moderates and there are some democrats and republicans. that's the hope for fixing the problem. it's not on the far end. it's in the middle where we would take a balanced approach. i'm welcome to comprise and lower the corporate rate if the akin advocates. it's the importance of. we have to revenue for the deficit. not just cutting the size of government. i'm for that. i talk abouted that in the opening. also cutting the spending of gofortd. maybe doing some means testing. i'm not sure we need to be pieing donald trump's prescription drugs. the combination of things is how we can get to the comprise. we're not going to be get there by being in opposite rooms shouting. we're going gettedly bipartisan work. i think we can do in in the senate through the moderate middle. >> moderator: thank you. the news channel 5 will and the question. and senator you have one and a half minutes to respond.

>> senator, what will the national press say about missouri voters if your opponent is elected? [laughter] >> i don't really care. it's just not something that i worry about with the national press says. i'm more worried about the people here in the state and the problems they face. you know, i was a single mom for a long time with three young kids. i know, what it's like to pick up the dry cleaning until you get your next paycheck. and that's what i'm focused on. and i think that this preoccupation with what the press is saying and the horse race, i want to get to work and help missouri. i want to make sure we halve student loans and halve social security and medicare. i want to make sure that people with he rely on minimum wage. i want to make sure that the workplace is there. and so i'm honestly not that concerned. i will be honest with you. if i lose the race i'll hate it

because i want the government to reflect our values. i want our government to reflect the best hopes and dreams. i think congressman akin's view is very narrow and leaves a lot of people out. i will be sad, but i always trust the voters. i'll respect whatever decision they make. i could careless about the national press. >> moderator: congressman? >> same question. akin: it seems to me, i had chance to travel for 18 months around the state of missouri, and i have a pretty good sense where people are. if you had any question of where we were about a government takeover of health care, called obamacare 71% of the people have already voted on that. if you take a look at some of the other things that are important too the citizens of missouri, the idea about the idea we have to jobs and you have a record where we have 43 months of the worst job record since the great depression,

people care about the second amendment and the constitution in the state of missouri. my record is in clear in that. i sport the second amendment. i support the constitution. i didn't support the president bombing libya without the constitutional authorization. it seem z know my views are in sync with the voters of the state and what's more, i have opposed the failed record and the failed policy which have given us the unemployment. the lack of jobs, and the other miscellaneous problem such as gasoline prices doubling. so i think my views are consistent with the people of missouri and i believe they will re-elect elect me to the u.s. congress. >> moderator: senator, would you like a rebuttal. glask i don't think so. >> he will now ask the next question which will have one and a half minutes to respond. >> congressman akin, the federal

wind production tax credit has been in place for twenty years. but it's set to expire at the end of the year, some groups estimate up to 2,000 missouri jobs are supported by the credit. will you vote to renew it and what role do you see for wind and other renewable industry in missouri's economy? akin: look, i think that the approach we should take on energy, first of all, is have an energy policy. i think that energy sources should compete with each other. and the approach that we have been taking, of course, doesn't wosk. and in terms of wind, i'm happy with it to compete with solar ceils, expeet, coal, oil, gas and nuclear. and let the different sources of energy work on their own. the fact is we haven't been gopg energy the way we should. if you think about america's it's amazing we have an unlimited almost supply of coal, natural gas and oil. and while we're sitting on all of these resources in america, yet we haven't developed them.

why? the reason is because of big government. all kinds of rules and regulations that don't allow us to do the things that we should be doing. and what's the cost? our gasoline prices have doubled. if we continue with the policy to shut down the coal industry, as barack obama has told us he's going to do, and clare mccans call voted to give them the power to regulate carbon, our electricity prices go up. what we have to do is take the blessings we have in america, use it wisely, and allow the different forms of energy to compete with each other and let the citizens make the choices what kind and where they want to get their energy. >> moderator: congressman, thank you. mccaskill: we have a treatment here. he does not believe we should be encouraging necessity or investment or credit any kind of alternative energy. on the other hand, ironically he's perfectly willing to do whatever it takes to protect big oil subsidizes. and all of the goodies they get

at the expense of the american taxpayer. keep in mind, the big oil are the most profitable corporation in the history of the planet. they book about 123*d billion in profit a year. we're giving there somewhere between $4 and $10 billion. not the small independent guys, the big guys. we are tried time and time again let's stop giving big oil corporate welfare at the expense of the american taxpayer. every time the republican keeps blocking it. he will not support hope grown energy with subsidizes, but he'll do anything to protect big oil. i have it the other way around. i think we need to be supporting alternative energy including wind, solar, we need all of it. i support the keystone pipeline. i support tracking as long as we are doing it safely. i support wind, solar, all of that. i don't support continuing to give taxpayer handouts to big oil.

>> moderator: congressman, would you like a rebuttal? akin: i think it's interesting. i would like a rebuttal. i think it's interesting that clare talks about being a moderate and the fact she's worried about the spending and the tax. she supported $6.9 trillion woot of deficit pending and calls herself a moderate. i guess the thing that comes to my mind, how much do you have to spend in disef sit spending to become a liberal? >> moderator: senator? mccaskill: i will say congressman akin spend a lot of time talking about stimulus and other things he said is wasteful. if you look at the record, the interesting thing about it is congressman akin is only opposed to stimulus it's f there's a democrat in the white house. many times over the $400 million in stimulus he voted for president bush was president. three different times. december toth, 2001, $150

billion stimulus package. march 7, 2002, $108 billion. february 7, 2008, $145 billion and a lot of deficit spending. during the bush years they blew the clinton surplus. and akin was right there asking for earmarks. >> moderator: thank you, senator. next joan bergman, and representing the clayton chamber will ask her question to senator mccaskill. >> the channel leer rents a large number of small business who had to make difficult decisions like cutting their labor force, holding an reducing their salaries and cutting back on expense during the recent economic crisis. it's clear that most governmental organizations did not make the same decisions. evidence by a grow. federal deficit and state and

community are bankrupt. do you have a plan to encourage all governments, especially the federal government to cut back on expenses. mccaskill: we have shed a lot of public sector jobs during the economic times. and finally we're beginning to shed federal jobs. most fralg employees with i have to shed. if we put an artificial lid on employees the government might do what they do during the bush years and contract everything. not just buying stuff but buying services. so that's why i supported a federal cap on spending. that's why i am number 50 from liberal to conservative. i had worked to bring down federal spending. it's very, very important. i also think it's important to fight regulation for smawt. and cut taxes for small businesses. and i have done both of those. in fact the st. louis home builders came to me and said you're not going to believe. they're going to put a new rule on us when the businesses are in

the tank. can you help us with the regulation they're proposes. i went work and we stopped it. they wanted an unreasonable safety requirement of the home buildings during the most economic and difficult times in the economy for them. so common sense in terms of making sure regulations don't go in to place. they go too far. keeping protection on small businesses for tax cuts, and continuing to have the discipline to spend less money in the federal government. >> moderator: thank you. congressman akin. akin: i sure understand what it's like for small business because they're coming down to my office in droves. and each particular groups in different kinds of businesses have the same story. the only thing that changes is the particular federal agencies that giving them a hard time. everybody has the same story over the last number of years they say, it feels to us as if the federal government is trying to destroy us. there are enemies, it's not just

a matter of safety rules. it's these inspectors that come and no matter what you do, they're going find more things wrong with you to the point that businesses are telling me that they're intentionally leaving some things for the inspectors to find because they know they're going to get hit with a fine no matter what. and so we have created an environment that is toxic for business. we have radical deficit spending we have a federal government out of control with the amount of red tape and things they're imposing on businesses and we wonder, and a high tax, we wonder why we don't have any jobs. why the jobs are being chased overseas. and the talk is fine. the fact of the matter, is, that the unemployment and the deficit and the whole situation with the economy speaks for itself. it's not working. and big government is not the solution.

>> moderator: thank you. the next question will be posed by meredith mcman. she is the senior coed or it of the globe news magazine. >> congressman akin, would you speak about your commitment to improving public school education in missouri especially given the educational choices you have made for your own children. i am referring to congressman akin's discussion to home school his children and senator mccaskill's decision to send one of her children to private catholic schools. akin: thank you for the question. all of us understand education is critical. one of the thing we have in america is something we called freedom. people can choose to educate the way they want. i think we need preserve that freedom. and one of the things i have done that not another congressman in the state of missouri was willing do was vote no on no child left bind. it's not that i want to leave

children mild. i don't have a biding faith in big government to fix problem in education. even though it was my president that offered the bill, i vote nod because i don't think that big bureaucracy generating in washington, d.c., help our schools. i was willing to stand on basis of principle that education needs to be local. you know what makes the best education? it you have a mom and dad that love their kid and put a high priority on education. with that kind of form whrab education can work well for people. so i support that freedom for people to choose the kind of education they want but i don't believe that the answers to fixing our school in missouri have any -- can be helped in any way large bureaucracy of federal government. i have encouraged we can save a lot of money and get rid of the educational burke bureaucracy

because it doesn't contribute to our education. >> moderator: your response. mccaskill: i'm great to feel my public education. all through school and undergraduate and law school, a proud graduate of the university of missouri. it allowed me to be who i am today. for our country, it allows us to be the beacon on the hill. the other countries of the world look to our country if or every sis on public education and particularly higher education. congressman akin has been very clear. he wants the federal government completely out of education. no more department of education, no more school lunch program, and everyone even harder to understand do away with pell grants, do we with a all federally backed student loans no he thinks the private banks that should do. i don't know many banks that loan money to a 17-year-old that has no money. 300,000 young people in missouri are attending college because a

federally-backed student loan or pell grant is helping them. that was me. i had a federally backed student loan. i couldn't have gotten through local without it. i had to wait tables in addition to the loan it took me eight years to pay it back. i paid back every dime. most people co. we have to leave it open. it's not the third stage of cancer. federal government is involved in public education is an important for our country. it's not about bureaucracy. it's about whether or not the middle class survives. it is a huge difference between congressman akin and me. >>you have 45 seconds for rebuttal. akin: i think there is a great illustration of the principle i was talking about. i talked about maybe because the fact we're a trillion and a half overspend in federal government maybe we need to maybe the school lunch program should be shifted to the state. i don't know whether the lunches

taste as good if the state does it or the federal government. but clare seems to think it's a crisis if you don't have everything done by the federal government. just a year or two ago, there were student loans that were made by the private lending institutions obamacare changed all that have. do you have to be against college and student loans to suggest we don't have the federal government doing all of that for us? i think not. if you -- >> moderator: you're out of time. senator, would you like to respond? mccaskill: i want to clarify this. what happened with the private lending. private banks were not assuming the risk. they were middle man administrating the loan. the risk remained with the federal government. they were taking a cut. and what we did with say we don't need the miblgdz man to take a cut. we're going to have them go directly to the student. not do deficit spending. save the money administrating the loan and allow kids to get the loan directly from the

school. what congressman akin is saying is is that the federal banking of the loan is the problem. if it's not there, the privatebacks will not be making the loan. >> moderator: senator, thank you. we now need to proceed to the next segment of the program with questions from the audience. and the first question will be directly to senator mccaskill, you will go first and have one and a half minutes. i was born in mexico and immigrated to the u.s. at the age of four. since then enemy family and i kept a close eye on the immigration policy. if you are reeffected, senator, or if you become a senator, congressman, how will you influence the policy and the related factors? mccaskill: first, we are a nation of immigrants but i'm a former prosecutor and i believe very much in enforcing the law. i don't think anybody should be allowed to jump the line by breaking the law. i believe it's important we

enforce the law particularly against employer who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. that's the magnet. why got washington, i asked the immigration and customs enforcement agency under president bush how many employers have you prosecuting for the employers taking advantage of them. they didn't know. they hadn't every sized that. we have turned that comper and you're beginning to see a crop in ill local immigration. part that have is because we are pushing them harder on pushing the law. on the other hand we should be saving -- who wants to stay here, we should be stapling a green card to the college dip ma. we need them in the country. if you're young, a child, and so you brought here through no fault of your own, i believe what the bible says the sins of the father should not be adescribed scribed to the

child. and that's why i did support the dream act another difference between me and congressman akin. >> moderator: thank you. congressman, your response. akin: thank you. all of us at one time or another our parents were immigrant toted land as well. and one of the things you find in all of those instances were that people did what we do in america. we followed the law. america is a nation of laws and so we definitely first of all have to clean up our laws that have to do with immigration we but at the same time we can't allow the president the authority to just impose a law that's not been passed by congress. which is of course, what happened on the dream act. and the situation with immigration is one where we have to allow different states to be able to enforce their own laws. and the federal government has not been enforcing the immigration laws and you see a crisis on the border, they have even gone to the "fast and

furious" idea given high powered rifles to drug dealers and stuff as people are doing human trafficking across our border. and somehow we don't have the backbone in the senate and the administration to even enforce our laws. and the first thing off if you're a nation of law, you have to enforce the law. i'm very sympathetic for people coming to this country but it has to be done in an orderly and legal process. and that means businesses also shouldn't be hiring illegals. we need to be doing the check on that which it has been closed down. >> moderator: the second question from the audience. it it will go to congressman akin first. what misconceptions codo you want to clarify about yourself? akin: well, thank you for that question, and i suppose that there's nothing like a debate like this for people to just get a chance to take a look and visit people. we have been all over the state

and i really believe that the election process is a fair one and a good one. as i have mentioned, the reason that i'm running for the office is because i see the bright hope for america is being diminished, diminished by a failed record. the thing is you can talk and you can use any distractions that you want, but the fact is that there's a record and the record has not been good. we've had unemployment unlike anything we have seen begins the great depression and a huge level of deficit. you can talk about being responsible, about spending money and everything, but when you promise that you're going cut the deficit in half and then triple it, that's not a good sign. and the health care situation, also these are things that people are going have to take a good look at in the election. you said 71% of missouri citizens said we don't want obamacare. and you have a senate that just write after that goes and votes for it.

and so i think that people are starting to get an understanding that this is an election about records. it's an election about what have we seen in four years. and the fact is i understand as traveled around the state people realize it isn't working. it's time for a change. >> moderator: senator, same question about misconception. mccaskill: that's a hard one. i think there are some people that have a misconception i'm noel not willing to stand up to anybody and anything when i think the policy involved is wrong. the misconception that because i supported barack obama that i 0 agree with him 98 percent of the time. i don't even agree with my mother 98 percent of the time. muchless the president of the united states. i was dispoibtded when the president wouldn't support my spending cap. when he was disappointed when i wouldn't go along with cap-and-trade. i was disponted when he refused

to quickly approve the keystone pipeline. there are differences. what i try to do as a member of the united states senate is think about missouri people, and i don't worry so much about whose idea. ty don't worry about whether the leader of the democratic leader is mad at me. i had time outs many times especially on the earmarks. correcting misconception congressman akin is anxious to put out there that somehow i am doing the bidding of my party or the president when i'm really trying to do the bidding of missouri people. >> moderator: senator, thank you akin: a chance to respond >> moderator: you can. akin: i didn't say she agreed agreed with blame out% of the vote. i said she voted 98% of the time with him. that was just one want to make sure that's clear. this is a record. it's isn't just talk or promise. it's a record voted 98% of the

time. thank you. >> moderator: senator? mccaskill: that record included conformation and procedural vote. if you look at the ranking of the senate, which is done every year by the nonpart disan group. most liberal to conservative. for six solid years i've been in the middle. you continue get to the middle by doing what your party tells do you do. you get to the middle through hard work, comprise, and working with the republican colleagues. >> moderator: our next question from the member of the audience senator mccaskill it will be directed to you support. do you support all forms of stem cell research. mccaskill: i do. i think that the lord gave us intelligence to discover scientific advancement, and i particularly support all of the research that is done that has made us the envy of the world in terms of our ability to find cures.

finding cures is an important part what stem cell research is about. it gives hope to millions of people in the country. i'm proud of the work that has been done in missouri in terms of this important medical research. and i think it's important that it continue. >> moderator: senator, thank you. congressman? akin: yes, i think stem cell research is phenomenal in the kinds of things that are being done. in fact you think some of them are miraculous. there were over 40 stem cell cures for things with anybody else in the previous decade thought would be totesly impossible. it there's the embryonic stem cell support which don't support. i believe life begins at conception. there was just a major breakthrough last week which shows you don't need the embryonic, because they found a way to make the cells what they call plastic so you can take an adult cell and make it do any kind of function of my other cell. there's no need to do the

embryonic. i believe some of you know, i'm pro-life. and i believe life begins at conception. >> moderator: all right. our next question from the audience and this will be directed to the congressman first. what criteria do you plan to use in deciding whether to vote to confirm a supreme court nominee? congressman? akin: i think the first thing is that we are a system of laws as i mentioned before. and the job of the court is to interpret the existing law not to create law. so that would be the very first thing i would look for. if you take a look at some of the big social upheavy and lousy decisions you get out of washington, d.c., a lot of them have come from judges who got frustrated and wanted to become legislators. and so that would be the thing i look for. first of all in a judge. i would look far judge that doesn't think that maybe the constitution is plastic and we

need adapt some ideas from some foreign country and stick it in and pretended that's part of the constitution. i don't think that's the right way to go. and so i think about we have to keep the judges doing the proper function of judges and that would solve it awful lot of problems. it also tends push problems farther down in the system so states can decide and local community can decide what they want to do instead of having the federal government and the supreme court acting like they're god and telling us one thing or another. thank you. >> congressman, thank you. mccaskill: somebody spent a lot of time in a courtroom, i really look to judges who have actually had experience in a courtroom. i think it's important that you can relate to the cases that you hear in a real way. so whether you have spent time as a lawyer in the courtroom, or a trial judge, that's important to me. i'll tell you a truth too, it

may irritate the justices on the supreme court now, but i'd love us to have a supreme court judge that didn't go to harvard or yale. i really think having somebody on the supreme court that went to a really good state school that may be didn't go to one of the elite ivy schools would be good for court. they have to make a lot of difficult calls. and i know, i know we don't want activist judges. i don't want activist judges either. we have conservative court in some ways, it is a very actist thing by giving us the citizens united case. there was no precedent called corporation people. so, you know, activists judges are in the eye of the beholder. if you like the decision, they're not activist. you don't like the decision, they're activists. so it is important, i think, that the judges and the judges that -- are the ones that had real-life experience in a courtroom and can relate to the people whose lives are at stake when they make the very

important decisions. another question from a member of the audience and senator you'll be first up. how would you preserve medicare for current and future retirees? mccaskill: differently than my opponent. congressman akin has advocated he said he believes medicare is unconstitutional. and he advocates privatizing medicare. he -- i don't think it works to make seniors -- to figure out whether or not the claim is going to be paid or whether or not they can afford the coverage and the way they are planning on privatizing is giving you a certain amount of money to help you buy the ?urntion. after that ran out, you're on your own. i do think we have to -- i don't think question afford to buy prescription drug.

>> what is the $716 include? $260 billion for hospital services, $39 for skilled nurses. $17 billion for hospice, $66 billion for home health care and $166 for head caravaning. that's money she voted to take out of medicare. that does not helped me care. in addition, she voted to put in the -- that 15-person board that has the net effect of moving no rationing health care and deciding how would you are that you can get some particular treatment. that also is a bad idea. now what do we have to coto fix medicare? what we have to do is get the government out of the price setting business for every particular procedure and allow a whole host of people to bid on that so seniors have a choice of

the providers that they want. seniors deserve a choice and they ought to be able to pick the kind of system they want and not have it forced on them by the federal government. there's one thing worse than having the insurance company between the patient and the doctor and that's having the federal government in between them. >> moderator: senator, 45 seconds for rebuttal. mccaskill: the $176 billion kills me. congressman akin voted to remove the same for medicare not once but twice in the ryan budget. the difference is that instead of using that to fill the doughnut hole like question in the affordable care act, using that to make sure that the hospitals don't need so much reimburstment they're not taking care of so many people in the emergency rom that don't have insurance. what did they do? they cave kim kardashian another tax cut. they gave the wealthy in the country another tax cut on top

of the bush tax cut. that's what they did for the $716 billion. i strength end medicare and never cut one dime. they decided the money, the same money that they were going give another tax cut to the wealthy. that's another big difference between congressman akin and me. akin: yes, what claire is saying. she that is it wrong. the $716 stayed in medicare. bedidn't take did out and put somewhere else. that's just fact julie not correct. >> moderator: congressman? this question from the add audience will start with you. what is your policy and your position about the israeli-iran situation? akin: well, that's a ticklish one. i think what we should do is work with the people who are alis and stop app guiding people to people woo have been the

enemy. i think it is unsafe for our country and for the civilized world for iran to be able to develop nuclear weapons and in one way or the other, that has to be stopped. i believe that we should -- when we have netanyahu come to our country, if he wants to have a visit with the president, i think we should show respect to him and have the visit. and the situation with iran is like the situation in other parts of the middle east. these people when they see us weak and vacillating and leading from the rear and apologizing, all that does is to encourage them. our enemy understand in the middle east and other places are enemies understand something and that is an america that is strong. that's why i haven't voted to cut 20% out of the defense budget the way clare mccaskill

has. >> moderator: senator? mccaskill: iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. and military action must be on the stable. -- table. the sanctions are working. we were able to press, and i was part of the group that did press doing once again bipartisan legislation with the republican colleagues to screw down the sanction not just economic sanctions in terms of trade but also cutting them off in the world bank. and people around the world that have joined us. we have iran isolated now. she in real political trouble. we have to stay vigilant and can't let them get the weapon. i'll tell you the middle east is stuff. you have to be thoughtful. nobody is app guiding or leading behind. we're navigating a different area there are difference. i have been on the leading edge of sanction. congressman akin vote forked aid for iran not once for twice in the congressional career and voted against aid for israel. this is backwards. we have to always support

israel. and we should not be supporting iran. >> moderator: congressman a rebuttal? akin: the packages she's talking about she's misrepresenting the record. and i'm in fact the one that supporting the fact that we should not be giving foreign money to a number of places. and that includes, of course, libya and pakistan and -- let's see one other country as well. mccaskill: syria. akin: when somebody burns our flags and tourture people to give us information to get islam. those people are not our friends. i don't support giving them foreign aid. mccaskill: congressman akin is having -- ads are being run against me about voting no on the effort to remove foreign aid from libya, pakistan, and syria

me joined a small group in the senate about the position. not one member of the armed service committee supported this extreme amendment. every single republican said this would make our country in danger. this was not would makes safer or the middle east safer. there were only ten senators that vote forked the amendment inspect the position he wants to take to the united states senate. once again, being on the extreme edge not being thoughtful, not being reasonable, this is not politics, this is the safety of our nation. >> moderator: our time is running out. we have to proceed to the final part of the program. by asking the candidates to offer your final remarks. first senator mccaskill. your three-minute closing statement. mccaskill: it has been great to be here in the debate tonight. i appreciate everyone watching and people participating. there are many differences between congressman akin and me.

and we had a chance to talk about some of them tonight. but there are many more. i certainly hope that people look at truth about akin.org and learn learn the truth about todd akin's position. i would like to spend minute on what we didn't get to talk about. that was equal pay for equal work. if somebody who was a single mom with three kids and somebody who had to work their way through school, i focused on parity in the workplace. i support equal pay for equal work. i think it's part of the equality that is guaranteed in our constitution. congressman akin has said that is not what he supports. he supports the boss being able to decide whether or not you get paid less just because you're a woman. and if you look at congressman akin's office, in fact he is the boss that does that. his women staff make 23.4%less less than the men in the office. that is not way we should have

it in america. if you're doing the same work, you should be getting the same pay. also, i think it's very important that we keep government spending down. i have in fact voted and working to do away with automatic pay raise for congress. i think it's a dumb idea. i have sponsored effort to do away with automatic pay raise for congress. in fact, i have never voted for automatic pay raise in congress. congressman akin voted to raise his pay and five days voted against the veteran program. voted to pay his pay he was the only member of the missouri delegation to vote against the farm bill. 2003 voted to raise his pay four months earlier one of 14 to say no to a center for exploiting and missing children. september 14, 2004, voted to raise the pay, six months earlier he was one of five to oppose the national school lunch

program. 2005, once again, voted to raise the pay, two months earlyier had to voted to cut the veteran program by $13 billion. voted to raise the pay in stwix, and then voted to cut the deficit program by $6 billion. in 2007 voted to the raise the pay and one of 36 people to vote against funding for head start. i went washington affiliate learning about the pain of victims and beauty of just nice courtroom. i learned about how to hold accountable as a government -- i believe in comprise. i believe in mod rights. i believe working with people no matter what their party is. >> moderator: time. mccaskill: i ask for the honor of representing you again. akin: thank you for making the evening possible. you may have noticed that clare

seems to want to escape from the failed basic economic mess that's been created in washington, d.c. it's a little bit like a imagine jigs. look over here while i put any manned in your pocket, and of course her advertising and everything backing up anything but taking a look where we are with the economy and jobbed and failed programs we have seen in energy both of us voted on a whole series of things. what your decision should be based on is you need judge on our records. starting off clare made the promise she was going to be transparent in the things she was doing. but when you go to take the close look at that, you find out that she is gotten rich making a business that takes advantage of other people being in poverty. she transferred 39 million dollars to her home business, and there was no record of

transparency whatsoever. she talked about the stimulus bill, it had a million dollars in there. she cut funding for veterans and teachers but managed to get $1 million for her home business. so much for transparency. you have seen what's going on nor energy. we have a war on coal, we're stopping drilling, the keystone pipeline jobs you see what we have. a record as bad as the great depression. deficit, they said they're going cut the deficit in half and barack obama and clare triple it with $1.5 trillion and health care we said we didn't the president. 71% of us said we didn't want it. what do we get? obamacare because of clare mccaskill. now the reason for these failures is because there's instinctive sense that the federal government has to do everything and that's why the budget is out of control. and the reason they failed is because they forget the secret of america's greatness. you see, america was founded on

the visionary idea that we have a creator that blessed us with life and liberty and the pursuit of happy pes. the things came from god. and then life we as americans respect life. you see it the way the policeman work in the hospital and the firemen, liberty, the idea question vote, express our opinions and keep the things that we earn. and then the pursuit of happiness, the the greatest of all bless, the idea that every single one of us is different and each of cuss pursue the dream in our own heart. and has earn americans have done that you can't do it won't work. there are americans that courageous and say i'm going try. and as they do that, america has been built one dream at the time. it's called the american dream, and it's about freedom. that's the reason why 4% of the world population has produced the great results we have. so i ask you -- >> moderator:

we are out of time. akin: and vote for me for the u.s. senate. thank you. >> moderator: before we adjourn i want to thank the candidates. employees know how much we willing tons share your views. a round of applause is appropriate. thanks to the event sponsor. ed media sponsors and st. louis public radio. business journal and ellen, the clayton chamber legislative committee and joan bergman, the school district of clayton and meredith mcman the clayton high school jazz band and the direct per the school district of clayton and the superintendent and the two member of the communication team. also clayton high school theater manager david and the city of clayton police and fire department. our time keeper as well, rose of washington university.

and the chamber's president. executive directer ellen gail and the associate directer. adopt forget to vote on tuesday november 6th. it concludes the program for the u.s. senate race. thank you for joining us. we stand adjourned. [applause] ♪ coming up today a look how the 2012 campaign is being covered. judy of. "newshour," glen ofway week and candy crowley of northbound cnn talk about covering the race. that's live here on c-span2. over on c-span, the third party candidates presidential debate. the free of equal election foundation hosts the debate futuring libertarian party candidate gary johnson. green party candidate jill stein. constitutional party candidate

virtual and rocky anderson. see it live saturdaying at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. i regularly watch "washington journal" i watch call-in shows in the morning and whenever there is a hearing that is of any significance, i'll tune in. directly -- from the policy makers you make up your own mind about who is right. .. brought to you as a public service by your television provider? between kyrsten sinema, vern nonparker and libertarian candidate. the ninth district was added to

the state after the 2010 census. .. for one of the state's most important offices. as such can the ejections at times interactions are a lot provided those that are erected get a chance to respond. and we'll do our best to see

that happens. a new congressional district located entirely in maricopa count includes 10:00 p.m. parts of phoenix, chandler, mesa, scottsdale and paradise valley. three candidates are in the race. they are at democrat kyrsten sinema, air state legislature, vernon parker, former mayor paradise valley and libertarians , powell gammill commit retired microbiologist is making his first fifth run for congress. we'll have one opening statement. will honor those two. powell gammill. gammill: i differ from the other two candidates because they matter to rule over you, but to advocate for personal freedom. it is by a single principle that it is wrong to initiate force or fraud on others. and expect everyone else to live by that same standard. that is what the founding father was trying to give us come to a system that maximizes personal

liberty and profit and minimizes the cost to a nicer life by providing the freedom to keep and enjoy the fruits of our labors. and not to let a bunch of thugs and financiers come along and steal from those labors by rule of confiscation. so tonight is really about the only two choices you have. you choosing who rules over you or you choosing not to participate in that process. it is wrong to initiate force or fraud upon others. >> moderator: thank you very much. for the next opening statement, we are kyrsten sinema. sinema: good evening and thanks for having us this evening. i wanted for congress because i believe congress is no longer serving with the people. we are all across this great country, to get jobs and keep jobs and take care of family. by cumbersome or interesting political bickering and taking partisan ideology swipes at each other than solving real

problems. i believe we can do better. across the state, folks who don't have jobs are trying hard to get them and make it to the middle class. folks who have jobs are struggling to keep them and take care of kids and prepare for their kids future. we need folks went to work across the out to solve problems. i've got a record of doing just that. in the seven years i served in i served in the arizona state legislature, i have a reputation working across the aisle with folks on both edges of the political spectrum do solve problems. books that barry goldwater provide a great opportunity for us to fill those roles and carry on the great tradition arizona. >> moderator: thank you very much. our final opening statement is from vernon parker. parker: thank you for tuning in. our country is going through difficult times. with out-of-control spending, unacceptable unemployment. when i served as mayorcome i to make difficult decisions to either raise taxes or to cut our

spending. i work with republicans, democrats and independents in the cut our spending by 30% and our time is better off for it. if you send in a congress come i promise you that i will work across the aisle to work with republicans and democrats to make sure that we get america back to work, and a and a week at the middle class back to work in that we have a health care system that is second to none, and education system second to none and that we restore the 716 early in that they rated for medicare. i promise to work and put the american people first and do not put republicans or democrats in front of the american people. thank you. >> moderator: thank you good kirsten, how best to re-create jobs in arizona, in america? sinema: at about a 12-point jobs in john thune talks about specific ways that congress can

help create a better job climate in arizona entered the country when it is time to talk about this choke points, but will mention. first, right now companies get texture words for shipping jobs overseas. which leaves american out of jobs and shortchanged. i want to switch the tax code around and provide taxes for businesses that hire folks right in america. number two, a disparate business and give them tax credit and senator have veterans who served our country when they come home have great skills that we can put to use right here in arizona. a good example is the research and development tax credit. when a circular state legislature, i hope after a research and development credit that brings high tax highway shouts to her. we need to do that federally in the long term to bring those jobs right here to america. parker: at a 16-point plan, so maybe minus four-point better than ms. sinema. the first thing we should do is we should freeze the current tax

rate. if we do that, we would put $4000 in the pockets of middle-class americans. the second inning as we must become more competitive on the global scene. we can no longer have the highest corporate income tax in the world. right now we were in the high 30s and if we lower corporate income tax to 22%, we will create 2 million jobs here in america. and if we reinvest and make sure that the research and development tax credit, if there extended by 25%, and another 500,000 jobs. the next point is that i fully support elting i. 11 from las vegas to phoenix because that will create jobs. but also advocate that we keep luke air force base open. the pervasive in 2500 jobs to this economy with $2.2 billion, which ms. sinema proposed richart. >> moderator: respond to that,

please. sinema: this is something i find offensive. micro is an army veteran. he said the world war two and purple heart. i have a big brother who served in the marines and a little brother who's currently serving in the united states navy. so lots of guys in my family. i've got a strong record of supporting military families and veterans. in fact, i'm the only candidate at the table this evening has got a record and luke air force base. i voted not once, but he tends to protect and preserve luke air force base. it's just another -- parker: did you ever advocate to close luke air force base quiet sinema: when i first ran for the legislature is an independent come i grew up in republican family, so it took me a while to be a democrat. when i was younger, i not based on information and been told is a different idea.

but my brother started the most important thing we can do is to keep those jobs open. and that's why it i protect military veterans throughout the state. gammill: seriously, seriously, this is how you reduce the debt uranus keep an air force base open. now, come on. jobs, how to get jobs and to this day. jobs are created when businesses have surplus money and need. there must always have needs. how do they get surplus money? with the federal government ripping them off left and right with high taxes come you got to basically go been married and got that. my personal opinion is we eliminate all federal taxes and corporate taxes at the federal level and see how good debating skills are these two now. before you jump on that comment the other thing i'd like you to jump on is we need to get rid of all the regulations and mandates the government puts on

businesses that crashes the life out of them. and you do that in a suddenly a surplus money and is businesses. they'll start to hire people. >> moderator: the idea of supply-side economics. some argue, why would return to that particular ideology philosophy would have the win sends the data is one of the reasons that the great recession the first place. had he responded that? parker: i respond by saying they must be competitive on a global sense had once again come we cannot have the highest corporate income tax in the world. we must reduce or contacts because our number one export right now, we are exporting jobs to china. we are exporting jobs to india. i firmly believe that in order for us to be more competitive that we must take a look at our current tax structure. >> moderator: at what you think about the idea that cutting taxes is the best way to stimulate the economy and that the idea that tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves? sinema: some tax cuts make a lot

of sense. i support the bush tax cut continued for middle-income families. they are struggling to put food on the table, prepared their kids for the future. but there's a fundamentally different idea of how a ticket because people back on their feet. he suggested ways to cut corporate taxes. i think the way think the weighty duties to support is to support middle-class families. i wrote we should stop the bush tax cuts for the richest 2% and are country. if we continued those for the richest 2%, it will add $1 trillion to our country's deficit over the next 10 years. and i don't think we can make up for kids and grandkids. that's not a legacy to grieve for them. parker: yeah, let me respond. ms. sinema, she is proposed in the past that we raise taxes on middle-class sealers to make $75,000 or more. she's also propose that we tax services such as barbershops, hairdressers. and she's proposed that we tax

plastic bags 25 cents per bag. that will put an enormous burden on middle-class families. now look, when people talk about let's not cut taxes. when you cut taxes on people who are making $200,000, those are small-business owners. those are llc is. they are paying individuals. they are hiring americans. so the notion that someone who makes 200,000 or $250,000 that they are rich and wealthy and that they should not receive tax breaks, that's unimaginable. transfer the one i'd like to respond is to clarify my record. i never once voted for a tax increase on middle-class families. setting the record is clear here. but again, there's a very real difference between us that he wants to give tax breaks to the wealthiest americans and i think we need to get us to

middle-class families and folks struggling to make it to the middle class. when i was a kid, my dad bought his job and we ended up homeless for a few years. we worked hard to make it back to the middle-class. but if it hadn't been for programs like the low income tax credit would help folks like me with poker and feedback on our feet, we wouldn't have made it. parker: the reason she did not raise taxes because the legislature was and is controlled by republicans. so she never had the opportunity, but she had advocated tax increases. so that's a little unfair to say that she didn't vote for tax increases because she never had the opportunity to. would you raise taxes and the federal government? =tranfour -- most americans agree with that. >> moderator: respond to that. we've heard that in presidential debates and based on the country. the idea that the june $50,000 plus year should pay more of their share. valid? parker: dozer individuals. you must understand this.

those are small business owners who have escorts in loc is the pay at the individual rate. they hire people. so if they are taxed at rate, they will have the resources to reinvest into our communities. they won't have the resources to create more jobs. it is unfair to tax individuals who are supply 90% of the jobs in this country. sinema: trickle-down economics just doesn't work. teachers, nurses, doctors and millionaires and billionaires. parker: -- to hire many americans across this country can be considered to be a millionaire. that is totally incorrect. gammill: one, i never got a job from a poor person. so don't take away their money and expect rich people's money, and then expect jobs to go up. expected to go the opposite way. second my, no corporation or business in this country pays

any tax. all those taxes that she woo hoo out there, we are sticking it to the rich, sticking it to corporations. guess where? basket passed on to the products the company manufactures. so effectively you are basically taxing yourself when you sit there and share the businessmen getting hammered. >> moderator: all right. and that's a health care. which you go for the affordable health care act? sinema: i would've voted for it. as many folks i were turkey shaped outlawed. i had a first to say this was not perfect. there's a lot of thinkers in the legislation. there's important parts of the law that must be protected. protection for kids but autism are down to some, protections for folks like rest cancer so they don't get kicked out their insurance. what we need is not a repeal. first of all, it's not practical, not likely to happen.

we'll be shooting this bipartisan action to come together and fix parts of the law that don't work well for americans, small businesses and families. >> moderator: how was your voted for the affordable care act? parker: i would not have. this is very personal for me. i went to her stage breast cancer. the last or insurance because we could not afford it. but she recovered. she recovered because with the best doctors in the world. with the best health care system in the world. but it's not affordable. the affordable care act is several things that i believe went too far. for example, it's too expensive. it will cost us $2.6 billion. but the one provision that is iran percival is about as it wants medicare to 700 i get to congress that will fight to make sure those cuts are restored. and third, we are going to bureaucrats in washington d.c. destroying the doctor patient

relationship, telling us when we can see doctors, how we can see them. and for us, it will destroy small business because never before in american history have we said if you hire more than 50 people and they work more than 39 hours a week that she will be penalized. >> moderator: too intrusive, too expensive, too damaging. sinema: a repeal to the law is no realistic. but we need to do is work together to create more affordability for midsize businesses. businesses between 50 and 200 employees. there's something about to point out that i was concerned that mr. parker said. the story repeated over and over in the media and he blinked as a lot of. it's the massive cuts to medicare. the truth is the affordable care act cuts open his fraud and abuse. i think we'll agree want to get rid of that in our system. the concerning thing is mr. parker's support for the mommy find budget. he recently said that he

supports their approach to entitlement. not that that should would touch medicare and cost seniors like my grandma $6400 more each year it at my grandma can't afford that kind of an increase. parker: ted, i am on record. i've never said i supported the ronnie ryan budget. now let's get back to this health care. look, i agree with certain aspects. one, but we should be able to purchase insurance for children until the age of 26 and god knows we need it now because these kids do not have jobs. in two, we must address preexisting conditions. now in order to drive down those costs, we must be able to purchase insurance across state lines. but this is a very important point, this point right here. doctors practice defensive medicine. but my wife who had third stage breast cancer, we had to pay for tests. so we told the doctor. the doctor says you need this test, this test.

and i said i could pay for this. he said you don't need this one in this one. i said way to prescribe it? is that i'm afraid that i will be sued. that is not medicine. gammill: health care. is there in a greater example for why the constitution and the federal government are completely at odds with one another? the constitution is supposed to limit the federal government. there's nothing in the constitution about health care or permitting congress to pass health care was coming but they do all over the place and mandate. so i would've voted against it. this shows more of a difference between myself and the other two candidates than any other issue because i completely oppose the federal government having any say in any aspect of people's medicine, especially the many provisions. >> moderator: social security, should it be turned over to states? i mean, should there be just a radical re-look at these

programs? sinema: that's a great question, ted. earlier this year, byrne told the tea party audience that he was interested in the ronnie ryan budget as it relates to entitlement. parker: that's not true. that's not true. sinema: medicare block payments to arizona to this one than half of the funding we get to pay for health care in arizona. that hurts arizona's kids and it also means that those tax dollars go to other states. that makes no sense. but arizona was paying taxes, we should get dollars back. in terms of social security and medicare, these are personal issues to me. my grandmother was widowed when she was in her early 20s in tucson. she raised three kids on their own, working minimum-wage at the cafeteria in south tucson. when she retired, all she had was social security and medicare. so republicans in congress are supposing to privatize social

security to end medicare as we know it. there's a dangerous program. dangerous idea. parker: i have never advocated privatizing social security. i am on record for continually saying that we must uphold our commitment to our seniors. we must preserve medicare. we must preserve social security. now, the system is broken, so we have to do some things to fix the system. when i get to congress, is it with republicans, with democrats to make sure that in the future that we resolve the issues surrounding social security and medicare. >> moderator: what about returning medicaid to the state? tranter have no problem with that. i think it's a good idea. transfer this is a real difference. because of medicaid were a blocker, with this over 50% of the funds they currently get.

this means low income workers, people with disabilities and seniors who make up 65% of the folks who benefit from access in the state. so making those cuts would mean that my grandma wouldn't get care, kids with disabilities would get care. >> moderator: some argue states and the government simply can't afford was going on right now with access. sinema: we can't afford to not do appear from folks don't have access to affordable care to care, they show up in the emergency room. uni post now cost 12 times as much as the doctor doctrine emergency-room fancy that are in his or her office. it doesn't benefit arizona to cut this program. parker: there is a clear difference because ms. sinema will continually say the federal government should be in their control. every decision should be made at the state level. we are here. we don't need washington d.c.

telling us how to do business in the state of arizona. social security, medicare. gammill, polity would cost your grandmother up the street because she does not health insurance, which is what i just heard you say. i think you'd come up with money and help a row, but i guess and studied rather put a gun to every american in the country and fleece them of their hard-earned wages. they used to happen up until the 1950s was we had charities, et cetera, but take care such people. church groups, et cetera in the federal government has come in and run them out of the business of doing not been taken over on its own. does you any good guess, social security, medicare, medicaid, zero all the way across the board. as a tax, nothing more. >> moderator: is man-made climate change real?

parker: look, i don't believe al gore invented the internet either. man-made climate change. we must be good stewards of our environment. we must make sure that we protect our environment. >> moderator: is man-made can't change real? sinema: there's a lot of overwhelming evidence that man's impact has made a difference. i support plans to help create solar energy and improve alternative energy here in arizona. it's part of my job plan. it's not only important to help us address climate change, it's also important from a national security. the faster we become more dependent on renewable sources right here in arizona like solar energy, the less likely will continue being dependent on volatile markets the middle east. parker: here's the problem we have right now. we have the largest oil reserve in the world and if we tapped into that reserve, believe me,

our economy would take off. and so we have to make sure that if someone said, that our president does not bow down to a saudi king. we have the reserves. we must utilize reserves. i'm in favor of nuclear. i'm in favor of clean coal. i'm in favor of solar. so whatever that gets us away, independents, we need to pursue. >> moderator:, delmar cannot find the resources in america? sinema: is important to keep options on the table, but the truth is we can make up our clean energy using solar type elegy on an even cheaper rate than in the past without endangering some of our greatest wildlife resources and natural resources. >> moderator: you would not trail? parker: we have to stop it right there. we were just getting going. >> moderator: going in reverse order of the opening statements,

we start with vernon parker. parker, i am asking you today to support me, send me to congress. we must get our economy going. we must put the middle class back to work and we must protect our seniors, protect social security we must have an education system that is second to none. you have my commitment that i will work with republicans than democrats because right now we have a congress that gets nothing done because they are more concerned about pinning detail on the donkey or trying to lasso the elephant. and i can tell you right now the american people have been lost. i will work hard to make sure that we keep the prosperity of this country and we work to ensure for future generations that they have a future. please submit a congress. i will work for you. >> moderator: our next closing statement is from sinema.

sinema: thanks, ted. at the beginning of our debate smi for congress because we deserve better. my family has faced tough times in as a kid. my dad lost his job, we lost everything. but be homeless as a kid for two years, thanks to this great country and the opportunities and a good public education system, was able to get back on my feet and make it to the middle class. i want that same opportunity for every kid in every family in this country. i'm running for congress because i believe we can keep those doors of opportunity open. when we combine hard work and assistance to help each other make it through, we can create a country that we are all proud of every single day. and now, back in the day of arizona missed him for his pragmatic common sense solutions and they can be known for that again. without a history of working across yet to solve problems and i promise to do the same thing for you if you send me to washington d.c. thanks so much.

>> moderator: so much. our final closing statement from powell gammill. gammill: another two years and another opportunity to go for a whole bunch of offices are candidates for one candidate is obviously going to win in there for your doesn't count, or where an r&d are both unacceptable, were once again you choose between the lesser of two evils. choosing evil is still evil. the only alternative is to choose not to participate in what is a voluntary process. don't vote. you have better things to do than reaffirm the process were a bunch of thugs get annoyed to divvy up ursuline labor and a 60 fortieths split. the washington party does not need your choice because neither candidate is acceptable to them. what they need is your participation and consent in the anointing. deny them both by finding better things to do this election. >> moderator: thank you very much intended not for joining us on this special edition of arizona horizon.

i am ted simons. that is it for now.

>> i was undecided until watching this debate. what i saw it in obama was presidential. what i heard was real leadership i appreciated the fact that he was straightforward, was candid about his own position and what i heard from governor romney was apparent and that didn't interest me. >> i think governor romney won hands down all these debates. >> i am so proud of president barack obama. he's a statesman. and what might romney is asked a question, he looks like a man that can't take pressure. >> mr. romney seemed to me to be a little wishy-washy. earlier in the debate he made a statement about having back for. they yet, bader piece states that he wants to work with

china. he wants to deal with pakistan. >> i just want to say something about the moderators and the debates. they're one-sided i think. i believe governor romney and i hope people open their eyes and take notice of what's going on in our country. >> mitt romney actually answer the questions. he didn't tiptoe around them. everyone says he is tiptoeing and is not. he straightforward and say the same thing over and over again. he's very consistent as to where obama has not been consistent. >> i felt the debate kind of lack of the questions that mr. schieffer is asking because he got so much away from the foreign policy, which dealt with the focus then they started the domestic economy. i just tried to shoot tie that into what the questions was. and i don't think either candidate really stuck with --

they kept going back to the economy. >> i felt that governor romney had done an excellent job today. he's very presidential in the main point was the end of the comments were our family has felt that we are not being protected as a nation, that our borders are open and the issues discussed tonight on foreign policy i felt that romney is going to get my vote for sure on those planes. >> i thought governor romney was comfortable talking about the economy. i thought president of him is clearly comfortable talking about foreign policy and he did a better job of tying in foreign policy with our current economy. >> i was disappointed with the president. i was looking for him to layout his strategy on foreign policy and i found him to be the jimmy carter of our generation.

>> i am kind of thinking that obama won this because i don't know, romney sounded more like obama and less like himself, kind of backing down a little bit. >> president obama and romney both villa to say anything about small businesses, what are they going to do? >> obama did very well tonight. i think out of all three presidential debates, this by far was a stronger showing. he was extremely presidential. he was direct to the point, straightforward and very assertive. he caught it and some of his equivocations of such prowess and being so polite that it's almost admirable to watch our president continued to defend his policies of the last four years. >> a live picture here at the

museum in washington d.c., where in just a few minutes, three notable political journalists are in the bipartisan policy center for a conversation on covering presidential campaigns. judy woodruff, gwen ifill and candy crowley have all served as moderators for presidential and vice presidential debates. crowley moderated this year's town hall style debate between president obama and mitt romney. ifill have done to bp debates. the first 2004 with dick cheney and john edwards in the second 2008 between joe biden and trim above and. in 1988, woodruff moderated the vice presidential debate between lloyd bentsen and dan quayle. this is live coverage here on c-span 2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am jim duff, ceo of the museum that will serve as moderator for tonight for what we think will be a very fascinating

conversation with rid the country's best real moderators and political journalists, candy crowley, gwen ifill and judy woodruff. i would like to welcome the staff and members of the bipartisan policy center, who are cohosting with us this evening. we appreciate the ppc's dedication to promoting civil debate and bipartisanship for the common good and were so pleased to be partnering on this program, highlighting the intersection of our two missions, the responsible use of our first amendment rights, which we champion here at the museum. i know two of the founders of bpc were also on our board here, senator howard baker and tom daschle. and i have the great privilege of working with senator baker for many years. on a personal note, i would like to thank her mutual good friend, david hayes four-inch producing jason hayes -- i also want to

give a special welcome tonight to our press pass members and donors who support of the museum makes programs like this possible. thank you. and i would like to recognize one particular supporter, the american association of university women and is executive director, linda homma. aauw is the premier sponsor of our every four years presidential campaign in the press exhibit, which explores the relationship between journalists and candidates. i'm sure the exhibit will be of particular interest to those of you in attendance tonight. i'm on the topic of presidential elections, i'd like to remind everyone that the museum will be open on inauguration day, junior one, 2013. the museum will be filming a scene with a direct view of the nine euro parade pennsylvania avenue. you can also watch all the days

preceding in the warm confines of the museum, live on our 40-foot high definition media screen in the history on. so please keep an eye on our website about this special day. it is now my great pleasure to introduce jason grbac, president of the bipartisan policy center. jason. [applause] >> thank you, jim. good evening, everybody. it's been a german displeasure to work with jim and the museum staff as we look forward to tonight's event. as the terminus honored to be in the company at the reformation's most preeminent journalists. as most of you probably know, the polls in california close in about 340 hours. so we have a nation very focused on outcomes, and who's going to win about discourse going to be in three counties in ohio. but tonight we're going to try spinnakers occur for a little bit because one of the guilty pleasures that we in the museum

shared that draws us together is our avid embrace the good process. jim briefly noted the incredible will to museum plays and focusing our entries on protecting first amendment freedoms. at the bpc, we connect policy projects and engage national leaders in efforts to solve the problems. in our process for jonas to the czech politics at the door. but instead reach out to proud democrats and republicans, people care deeply about parties, who fight to win elections and has still come together everyday to share solutions. press and press events in presidential elections are always about collisions. it takes a real talented member of the upcoming real talented journalist to draw out the constructive collisions of real ideas. today we are going to speak with three of our nation's most talented journalists. we have a panel that is well known and freshen the french lines of this.

judy woodruff, coanchor of the "pbs newshour" was surprised. a gwen ifill, her partner in crime on iterator and manager of view. and crowley, state of the union. now, the debates have had an impact nationally. as mentioned to candy as the cayman at the debate should moderated had an impact on me personally. that was quite close to home because tuesday night, my very created 10-year-old daughter preyed upon my civic mindedness and chemistry to let her stay up until 11:00 watching the debate. wednesday morning at the cacophony we essentially call breakfast, she raised her hand, sounds my four girls on, told in his time had run out. [laughter] and then graciously allowed my six-year-old daughter to proceed uninhibited. so it was the two most peaceful sips of coffee i can room for

the last decade and i doubt that very much to candy crowley. so they defend gentlemen, without further ado, please welcome back our moderator, jim daft and candy crowley, gwen ifill and judy woodruff. [applause] >> thank you very much, jason. a warm welcome to candy, glenn and judy. we are so pleased to welcome here this evening. we also thank you per server and on our board. we are delighted to have. >> that's how it happened. >> full disclosure. i'd like to ask each of your series of questions about the presidential debates would just as through and conventions in the most recent expanses of because we knew gwen and judy

were coming directly from their programs this evening, we've are sure you'd make it through the traffic on time, so we cheated up to start with one of the clips from your recent experience in the second presidential debate in which he minded. in other words there is no coin toss to determine who goes first. but, at the same order. let's look at a couple clips in the second presidential debate between president obama and governor romney just like last week at hofstra university. i think the clips demonstrate just how contentious debate was. q. when will the clips, please? >> let me mention something else the president said a moment ago. when he was describing chinese investments and so forth. >> called on, quick.

>> the president is speaking. >> governor romney, obvious people have been waiting for you. >> and investments i have over the last eight years are managed by a blind trust and i understand they do good investment contemplating chinese companies. mr. president, if you look in your penchant, have you looked at your pension? mr. president cannot do that look to your pension? >> now come i haven't. it's not as big as yours. i don't check it that often. >> ligature pension. you also investment in chinese companies -- >> we are way off topic here. >> i thought we were talking about immigration.

>> i think it's interesting the president just said something that on the day after the attack he went to the rose garden and said this is an act of terror. you said in the rose garden the day after the attacker was an act of terror. please proceed, governor. >> i want to make sure we get that for the record because it's at the present 14 days before he called the attack and mendacity and attack of terror. >> he did in fact, sir. [applause] >> he did call it an act of terror. it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a ride up there about this tape to come out. you read about that. >> the administration indicated that this was a reaction to the video and was a spontaneous reaction. it took a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a

terrorist group. am i incorrect in that regard? on sunday or secretary -- excuse me, the ambassador of the united nations spoke about how -- >> i'm happy to have a longer conversation. >> you can go through the transcripts -- >> i want to have a chance to do some of the questions answered. [applause] >> ibos have commented on this -- [cheers and applause] >> was told that clip until the end, please. we're going to come back to the convention coverage with gwen and judy. those gophers to candy's experience. i figure several times and it's

interesting hearing it and not watching it. and you just recognize how really contentious it is and you can really feel the tension. but with the lake from your death, candy? to make a couple of things. actually it was a blast. i did great time. i know that makes me peculiar, but it was fun. i mean, the lead up to it. and gwen can tell you this, that the tension leading up to it is so awful. i felt like i was pregnant for six weeks because the group morning i woke up and i was noxious. what if code hingis in there and in the middle of the debate. like anything that could go wrong header be gone wrong in my head. and once i got out there, i thought i know how to do this. so once i was there, it's funny watching it because i was conscious of these 82 people

sitting here, who'd been there since eight in the morning, and wanted to get as many of their questions then. i was conscious of wanting to let them go at it when they were going out it. so your going to go over time, all those things. which you also think we've now heard the six times, soak them in this time. or now wrapped around this or that outsole. this is so instinctual. you can't go into a debate thinking. it's really late parenthood in some ways. you think i will never, ever do that. and then you ended doing it. so there's parallels there. it's in our dna kind of thing and you react in a moment rather than through any sort of formula that people might set out for. >> could you tell from the outset it was going to be so contentious, or did emasculate? >> when you have two men standing on this stage, they

just were so black, you know, territorial. so that all started. and then we realized their firstborn argument was about whether we were drilling on public lands. it was so heated coming in now. i thought wow, the gas prices. but okay. we knew going into it as i'm sure you know the president could not have another paper that sake he didn't want to be there. and so we knew he would come, but we all made the mistake of thinking -- i made the mistake or do you guys are probably smarter, but i thought there's all these nice people there. they're not going to argue in front of them. they're going to have to tone it down a little bit. now, it occurred to me afterwards and is trying to figure out why so many of us thought it would be nice -- that they would be overheated.

i think that we mistook this as a debate for undecided voters and it wasn't. it was further basis. the undecided voters for the audience and that's what the questions came from. but they were playing to their basis and that's why so heated. >> i don't know nurturing it, but you can see listening to candy and lucky not gwen, they are looking for people who are not going to be intimidated by the candidates and can do at this situation, whether the candidates are very nice order the opposite of very nice. so you've got to have the skill set that a candy and a gwen and the other folks to do with the uncertainty and unpredictability. >> i think that's a compliment, but it might also -- never mind. >> were you ever tempted to come from behind the podium and separate them? >> now, because i thought it was fascinating. and also it was last taught then

appeared on tv. they look much closer together. i got the feeling that time is running out. there were certainly territorial and they didn't want to give up a sack and foreign edge of argument. but i didn't get the heat-treated that everybody thought they saw. i did not pick up that vibe here at >> i have to admit the last question came from a background of watching big ten wrestling when i was a child. he received a lot of attention on the libya question. in hind that which is handled in exactly the way he did? >> you know, no. i so would've done that. i think looking at it, but she don't see -- i saw them get wrapped around a sack full of what words were said in the rose garden the next day, with the

larger point romney was going to was we still don't know what the heck happened in this benghazi thing and you all took two weeks. so while this is going on, every bit transcripts and thank my lord were going to have to figure for 10 minutes. so i was actually trying to move them on. so yes he did it but the larger point here is this, that and the other thing. if they were both -- and again, i respect both of them. there both supersmart and they both have a tough job. but president obama is like right here. once in my right eye and one of my left eye and the president is sitting on the stool and the governor and they're both looking at me, saying yes i did. i did. now you didn't. then they both looked at me. i thought this feels so familiar to me. and so instinctively said while he kind of did, but i'd turn to

romney, but the larger point, our shorthand. >> a lot of people have asked me about what you get a weather if that is appropriate, as if it matters but i think it but aside from european my friend and i would defend you anyway, i defended you because the secret is not to chew energetic day. it's that you had it right when you interject it. and then we had all the conspiracy theories that somehow i had a transcript with me. i had a transcript because i knew somehow that was going to. casinos are orders, things come into your brain and you you don't know where they come from. >> the only do if your doing the work. >> i wish you'd been attending articulate in the second thing you are right that -- when i

said the first thing, people started to applaud, which startled me a little bit as i didn't think it would be startling. then i turned to the governor of that come your way about this, that and the other thing, and the other thing, the other side clapped. so another clapping, people miss the totality of what was going on. >> your observations, gwen and judy, i hope your answer as well. what is the role of moderator in these debates? invested effort? does it vary depending on the format of the debate? >> of course it differs on the format. when judy moderated as a panel of reporters. >> 1998, vice presidential quayle debate. there were three reporters in a moderator. >> you know, moderators have complete control. i mean, is a little different with candy because she was in town hall comes to that format was different from one and wish

i had other questions in my hand and no one else had seen them and i knew what order wanted to go when. nobody else did that. i put a lot of pressure me to make sure i had it right, that i knew the answer, read the transcript to do everything they said. that might not be what they said before. but it is every moderator has a different style, a different idea. you could bring off our for moderator is on these debates are never answered the question slightly differently about what they thought their ball was on the stage. >> i honestly want candy and someone to speak for themselves. if they are to bring the candidates out on the most important issue. whatever it is you think are the most urgent, most important issues that to deal with in the framework will differ from debate to debate, whether domestic, foreign. and we can talk later about what we think of that separation of

framework. that is to get the candidates a chance to speak up and say when appropriate to probe when you feel they are not answering the question. every moderator is going to do that in a slightly different way. >> is a town hall format useful, do you think? >> i was little surprise to people in the town hall in this case became more probably. but the candidate didn't take greater pains to answer the question. emu sassanian politicians take a question and turn it around to say whatever they want to say. we saw that last night. china? full text about domestic policy. i thought that maybe a little naïve. i thought maybe they would feel the need to do what bill clinton advice, which is always answer the question from both because otherwise you look like you're not respecting them. >> you got the sense he felt like there was so much at stake at this moment, that moment in

the campaign that they could not afford to carry out the mission. to prosecute his case progressively. and romney's case to continue to be presidential and how smart answers to questions. >> candy. >> i mean, i like the town hall idea. i like the idea of it. they were so eager to talk to them. the problem is always there were many times -- i cannot remember what the second question was about gas prices. the first question was natural. it's like i'm a 20 world from the word in not going to have a job. the second question that straight at the president and said, well, your energy secretary says it's not his job to keep energy prices down. on the next thing i know, we're having an argument about drilling on public land.

so i went back and said that the question was, do you think it's the job of the government? and then they went on the next public lansing. so then you've given up so much time in minutes that someone coming to commit three less townhall people. i don't know what it is, but the question asked -- i did a couple times. as many times as i felt i could do without following the format. with guns i think we went off. the question with guns. i think we're talking about single mothers. >> one thing i will say is the format evolved on the part of the commission on presidential debates is better today than back in the day when i was much structure. we were told to ask a question. no follow-up, two minutes, one minute. i was told to enter a them there

is a buzzer and authors of restrictions on the candidate. there are some guidelines, but they're given more time to have a conversation, debate, discuss the new learn more that way. >> i also think of the candidates come debate with every intention ignoring the rules they themselves had agreed to cover varies very little in moderator can do. it got steamrollered by it. when i get the debate, the sitdown debate with cheney and edwards, who are just different questions that today. [laughter] there was a lie. they could see the light. they knew when they were overtime. one occasion vice president cheney said that enough i can answer that in 30 seconds, gwen. i said that's all you've got. across america people began applauding even the worst thing the worst thing you got to stay to the time. i was trying to think what the rules are.

the candidates. >> and the moderators have any input into the rules ahead of time? >> they could be something they ask you to sign. >> i didn't even get that actually. ..