there's never been a tax cut in history of new york city government. every single buyer in the past come including republicans had always raise taxes. i did it again for eight years and ultimately we got some really big tax cuts, ended up being three, $4 billion in tax cuts. we were adding higher taxes because it energized the economy. it took money out of the wasted pocket of the city and put it in the hands of people who actually spend money in a productive and sensible way that produces jobs. wasn't the only thing that turned round economy in new york city. but here's the difference, started with 10.5%. i left at 5.5% unemployment. a site with 1.1 on welfare unless a 500,000 people on welfare. i started with a city that had a

population of 7.5 million left a city with the .1 million people. a lot of that has to do with the fact that it energized the private or. that's the difference was going to happen with taxes depending on the choice the american people make on november 6th. were either going to be fighting a battle all of next year about how high this president about what to raise our taxes. i don't care if he raises taxes on the rich, the poor -- the poor don't pay taxes. the richer the middle class. for every raise taxes, it's too much money being given to a government that does know how to spend money. whatever ronald reagan did nice to be put on a diet. and it's less money. it is to figure out how to get a loan on less money. it has split the money in the private sector. if romney gets elected, that's a debate showhouse. so the how high do taxes go? if romney gets elected, the debate will be how low can they keep taxes. how can we reform the tax

system? how do we go to a flat tax or flattener taxes so that we end up with one or two rates. we end up with fewer deductions, fewer exemptions, put that into a lower rate. i think governor romney is absolutely right that you don't list all of this now. you couldn't possibly know what all of those are now. you couldn't possibly negotiate peer but the difference in direction will be germanic. in one case the direction will be, how do we increase revenues to the government? in the other case the direction will be, how do we have the steep revenues where they are and see if we can't reduce them a little and then where do we find reductions in spending? that's a very, very exciting period of time to go through. that's what i went through when i worked for president reagan as associate attorney general. president reagan as he notes, even with the democratic house

of representatives was able to do a massive tax cut. at the same time he cut spending, put all these agencies here on strict austerity. i was in the justice department for two years. and believe me, we didn't like it. after a six or seven month is fun like that, we started to find the justice department is not the most efficient organization in the world. it actually does waste money and there are places you can save. that kind of discipline in our economy will mean tremendous economic growth next year. and i think that's one of the major difference is the american people have to decide on november 6. health care of course you know two different directions in health care, right? president obama is elected he obama cared becomes the law of the land for sure. it becomes institutionalized.

it becomes nothing is impossible, but it becomes close to impossible to reverse four years from now. it will be operating then. people will have moved over. there will have been tremendous changes. a mandate would've been enforced already to 20,000 irs agents will get hired, which is absolutely ludicrous. just we need, 20,000 more irs agents. and there's almost no way to stop that because even if you have a republican house, which i think is almost for sure. nothing in life is for sure, but that's almost for sure. even if you were to have a republican senate, which is unlikely if obama gets elected, but possible. well, he could veto any attempt they would make to overturn obama cared. american people and reelecting president obama are basically reinforcing obama cared and accepting it as their future.

if a president romney is elected, even without a republican senate, basically the present those in the house about the same in the senate was then one or two those of the republican and he can get up on the care overturned. he can do it through reconciliation. there's easily four or five democratic votes in the senate to go within. 2014 elections are right around the corner. a lot of democrats in 2014 are and state, and that do not do obamacare favorable. it would be really easy for romney to pick off for five democrats. probably not get to 60, but he could probably get to 54, 55, 56 through reconciliation to get rid of just about all of obamacare. so to totally dramatic directions. were either going to expand the government controlled health care, which is what obamacare

guys. the government expanded to manically controlled over health care. it becomes the price setter. the vast majority of customers. everything else has to fall in line. the committees are permissions decided not being like what constitutes your insurance? this part of obamacare has not been examined. the real damage to obama carries on that committee gets together and gets to define ensuring. the mandate, which is either a tax or a fine, the mandate applies if you don't have health insurance. but what constitutes health insurance? not anything you say constitutes health insurance. not anything i say. is what the commissaries in

washington say constitutes health insurance. they get to write the list. they get to write the list of what is legally sufficient health insurance. i hate to bring this because i don't think governor romney would like me to bring this up, but it will appear this is what made health care in massachusetts three times more expensive than people thought because when they sat down to define health insurance, everybody added everything to the list and the cost of health insurance were way out. that's going to happen on a national level and you know and obama appointed commission is going to cover everything. if you cover, you've got to cover everything, right? they're going to cover everything. every single thing. so whatever the government is suggesting, obama cared is going to cost, i guarantee this in

all, cheers to not hope it don't have to. it will cost twice as much. it'll be a disaster for our economy. no way our economy can have a healthy recovery with this tremendous burden, additional burden placed on it. if romney gets elected, then obamacare will be gone and what will be substituted is trying to get the are about more revitalized in dealing with health care and health insurance. maybe a very significant tax exemption for people to buy their own health insurance that we don't rely on employers to buy health insurance. so we can go and negotiate further on policies. you'll see tort reform really happened, which can bring down and take a lot of the cost out of it. the feel a lot more ability to buy health insurance from different states instead of being stuck in one state for the state gets to define the policy coming over 50 seats available. so the health insurance provided

will have to compete with each other. if you set up an exemption level of 20,000 for a family coming of the insurance companies trying to price their product a little below that, even a product now selling for 22,000 or 23,000 to sell for 15, 16 or 17,000 because they can get a lot more volumes at 16, 17,000 that they can get a 23,000. that doesn't happen right now ecosystem market dynamics bringing down the cost of health care. so i think that's a direction you'll see and that's the direction that will revitalize our economy. it will underscore the private enterprise, entrepreneurial nature of our economy rather than sit on it. another big dramatic difference in direction is energy. i work in the energy field quite a bit so it's probably the one i know the best. basically it's going to be a

difference of just say no or just say yes. basically we have been at evisceration that has said basically no to all the areas of energy developments that will actually help us become energy independent or more energy independent. let's start with coal. america's oracle reserves in saudi arabia has over the reserves that we can't really expand on because we're worried about what cool will do to the environment. here's the irony of this. china is buying are cool. india is buying our coal. they are burning in china or india. it's going the same place. so why are we burning a? if they are burning it, why are we? we can figure out how to burn it in a safer, cleaner way that we are, but the obama administration has put the just say no to coal. will that cuts out half of your

present source of electrical power this country. see tommy hunt country can grow. a country that grows the need for energy. you tell me how this can of hybrid vehicles plugged into the wall providing more electricity. this is like living in some kind of fantasy land. the great hybrid vehicles have to get plugged into the wall. would have to have about 30, 35% more electricity. we are on a path to less electricity, not more. 50% is gone. that's going to keep going down because we put a stop on cool. okay, so where else we get electricity from? we get it from a nuclear power. but that 100 four nuclear power plants. we get 20% to 25% in case of my

city. nuclear power -- we have a license to nuclear power plant except one in the last 30 years. the other ones are getting real old and there is no appetite in the part of this administration for expanding nuclear power. have you ever president obama say expand nuclear power? nakedness, jane fonda would go crazy if she heard them say that. so we're not going to expand nuclear power. that cuts out now 70% of our present source of energy supply. we just say no to that. so now are going to do it on the remaining 30%. no, we're not, because about 20% to 25% of that is natural gas. now we have this wonderful reserve of natural gas we didn't even know about seven or eight

years ago through phrack team. we can get gas from deep down below the earth. we can also get oil from that. what is china doing? well, what is china doing about nuclear power by the way? to building 50 new nuclear power plants. boatbuilding none. what is china doing about cool? they're building coal. china is moving as quickly as they can to expand phrack team as much as possible. what is the epa during? everything they can do so at down. my goodness he could do terrible things. we've only been doing it for 18 years intact this and it hasn't done anything terrible yet. we've only been doing nuclear power for 40 years and no one's ever died from nuclear power in america. we've never had a single loss of life for nuclear power in 40 years of operation. we had one catastrophe in

pennsylvania, three-mile island. no casualties. that's a pretty good safety record. that's a pretty good risk reward analysis. if you're being practical about this, if you're exercising common sense come if you're not letting ideology overcome common sense. but we're going to slow that down, too. so now we have hydroelectric power. that's about 7%, 8%. when's the last hydra like derek facility that's been developed about are the chances this administration would approve a new one? none. so you're sober down to. here's overenthusiastic about. we are at the siesta but two sources of energy that presently produce less than 2% of our source of electrical power this country. this country is going to grow unto%. one is called wind and the other is called solar. and of course the administration has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in a couple

wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of it. so wondrous as only one of four similar situation of disastrous economic decisions that are now approaching maybe trillion dollars. nobody's figured out how to store the power that comes from wind or from solar. nor is there anything on the drawing boards that makes that assembled the next 10 to 15 years. if you can't store the power from wind and solar, it's basically useless because when the wind doesn't blow, my city blacks out and when the sun is down, which is like the nighttime, i freeze. can't help a little? could we go from 2% over the next 10 years to five or six or 7%? yeah. it's a cost effective to do a? probably not.

could we do it because it makes people who treat this as a religion rather than a commonsense enterprise happy? yet, we could do that. but this is that the obama administration energy policy is. as wind and solar. more drilling? the only truly occurred is on private land and they go through torture to get permits to expand. they pay big fees to my law firm, so i shouldn't complain about that. but they go through torture to get permits on private land and there's no expansion on public lands at all. we have a pipeline on the drawing boards from alaska are they down from texas that has been stopped by the obama administration, even though it was approved for the state department, hillary clinton. and here's the one that tells them the most. you know the way china is burning our coal and sending it up to the environment?

china has agreed with cuba that is going to drill for oil 20 miles off the coast of cuba, which is 70 miles off the coast of florida and were not drilling for? explained that to me. china is going to do it safer than we can do a? were not drilling because were afraid of an oil spill. but china will extract in a safer way than we do. so this election is going to be two very, very different directions. obama gets elected, reaffirms an even stronger terms is just a new approach to energy. i think nuclear power is finished. i think cole is finished. i think phrack and a slowdown because if you can get intimidated or for the keystone pipeline, just wait until you see what they can do.

we are going to work on wind and solar and china on everything else. once again we're going to lose the competition to china. if romney gets elected, think of the basically just say yes approach. they go have an energy policy that tries to exploit all the resources we have available to us, do it in environmentally safe a way as possible, but don't become completely immobile because of fantasies of what can happen. and then finally, foreign policy. in the debate the other night, it seemed to me that there was the difference between a president who's extremely angry, extremely sarcastic and amanda seems to be ready to be president of the united states. maybe because mitt romney has achieved a great deal in his

life and has been successful in everything he's done and barack obama never really was prepared to be president of the united states. we took a chance. we took a chance on a man whose resume would not have been approved to be head of any corporation in this country. a man who never ran a business. a man who never ran a military unit. a man who had no practical experience. you know, sometimes somebody can have these talents to be a great executive never had a chance to show it before. well, he got his chance. we have the highest unemployment for a sustained period the great depression. now we have the chance to the man has been successful in life and the way that can pursue self, where you put practicality ahead of ideology, which is a president ultimately has to do. even the president i love the most common of us conservative

we've had in the last 20 years always put practicality ahead of everything when he was making decisions for the american people. so i think that the difference in choice. one final thought and then we'll get to the question. it's about foreign policy. i will not talk for a long time about foreign policy because i don't think the american people are going to decide this election based on foreign policy. but i need an answer as a citizen. the only unsatisfying part of the debate the other night is getting the same server. twice before the attack on september 11, 2012, on our consulate in benghazi, twice before. in april and june of 2012, that exact consulate was attacked by islamic extremist terrorists. second time it was attacked, they blew a hole in the wall and according to eyewitnesses was big enough for a chart to go through. now i want to note the president

knew that. i want to know the president do that on september 12, 2012. i can't concede that he didn't know it. if he didn't know what, then we're really in a disaster. if somehow the consulate in benghazi can be attacked twice, once with a big hole in the wall and national security adviser during the national security briefing uses to get every day didn't tell him about it, but we've got a serious problem. so what's the answer? did he know about it? if he didn't know about it, then explain two things to me. why wasn't there further security for the council a? by repairing the first place? the british pulled their counsel it out after these attacks. the british government wasn't afraid of the embarrassment that might have been because maybe libya wasn't a successful is the obama administration was trying to pretend it was. there were more concerned about

the safety of the lives of their personnel. well, we have the two attacks. we didn't have the conflict any more security. according to state department employees, we rejected requests for more security and reduce the security. when the attack takes place on september 12, 2012 and you're the president of the united states, and there've been two prior terrorist attacks on the consulate, how long does it take you to figure out that this was not a protest over a mohammed movie, but was actually an attack at the same islamic extremist terrorist to try to attack it twice before. i say it takes you about a minute to figure that out. i figured it out about three minutes after i was told about it, while his meeting with many of the people i survive september 11 with because on the evening of september 11th, for the last 10 years to get together with old people to work with me me that day.

some of us to the luck of god escaping death or should understand edge. when i was told about it, my first reaction was september 11? and attack? benghazi? got to be a planned terrorist attack. instead, we are treated to two or three weeks of all this nonsense about the mohammed movie and how this crazy man who did this movie really caused this. there's something really wrong here if fact the president do about those two prior attacks. it can't be possible he would allow his to paddle for two weeks when you know this counselor was the target of islamic extremists as before this was the third time. before this election gets decided, someone should get that answer from the president. i was kind of disappointed at

the debate because we didn't find that out. hopefully before the election is over, we will. so who has any questions? yes, sir. >> hi, tom symonds, executive director of the lawsuit reform alliance of new york. we work with your successors often to turn the tide of tort reform in the state. my question to you is when you were mayor, what tort reform specifically did you advocate or that she thought would really help the city relieve itself of this burden of lawsuits and litigation? >> the most important thing for the city was to have a limited unit of damage, pain-and-suffering, a connection to actual economic loss. may be limited to 50, 500,000 those days. the bill that was supported in the state legislature that never passed because of the democratic majority state legislature. i do want to blame it on the democratic majorities because the trial lawyers on about four

or five republicans as well. so we wanted was a limit on pain and suffering of the punitive damages of about 250. maybe we would've negotiated to 500,000. and the rest of the connect it to economic loss in maybe two or three times economic lives. that would have probably stayed s. back of the envelope calculation, probably $150 million a year for.net through in the trial lawyers have such control of the state legislature, even in times of much of a terrible budget deficit, we couldn't get that through the legislature. not texas, in 2003 -- 2002, 2003, passed pretty massive tort reform. we have.tercel overtraining hospitals in new york in the first place they want to go to practice medicine as texas, not new york.

so it's not only a financial burden of mass proportions, it's also a brain drain problem. ending, were losing a lot of our best doctors to other states that have now passed tort reform, were being a doctor can be a more enjoyable way of life then being harassed by lawsuits when you did nothing wrong. >> mayor, a state representative doug miller from texas, sir thank you for your compliments. i appreciate that. we have been working hard and that's one of the reasons i'm here today. i think another issue that you didn't address, but i think to hear your comments on this at this election also is two different directions on whether we're going to allow, and i know several of my colleagues from other states, state legislators here. but the direction of whether we're going to allow states to have their right versus a

stronger centralized federal government, which we see all over the world has not worked in a number of occasions. at that your comments on state rights versus federal rights. >> i think you're absolutely right. if president obama is reelected, they will be more concentration of power in washington. i mean, obama carries a massive concentration of power in washington. all of the new regulations, dodd-frank. doc frank has to be one of the great ironies that is famed dodd-frank. since his name for the two people who do most to create the financial crisis in the first place. right? i've been coming to dissect protected finian friday from any kind of meaningful reform, including the clinton administration and the bush administration. the two people who fought any reform and all those mortgages given to people that couldn't

possibly have paid for their homes. i mean, i totally unrealistic, silly, crazy idea. everybody should have a home. that's wonderful to say. but everybody should have a phone who can afford to pay for the home. everybody cannot have a home who cannot afford, otherwise were going to bankrupt the entire system, which is what fannie and freddie did. but wall street at the? of course it did. but with the banks have made the loans to the people who couldn't pay if the government hadn't jammed it down their throats? of course not. axolotl is money unless the government is giving them encouragement and protection. so the major reason for financial debacle at the core were millions and millions and millions of mortgages given to people that have no ability to pay those mortgages.

and that was forced by the federal government, starting in the click that mr. chin. there was a time, to slow it down when it started to get out of control. i think they realize they push things in the wrong direction. the bush administration tried on three occasions and people who blocked over senator dodd and congressman frank and the bill is after them in one of them got a great portage along the way. and when you read the bill, it doesn't address itself to the problem. it doesn't do anything about stray shannon noll the border situation in the future. it has to do with lots of regulation, about five times more regulation and sarbanes-oxley. most of it hasn't been because the sec does not decide to write them. when obama gets elected to have the staff and our financial and did two shows burdened by many, many more cost and productivity will continue to lose ipos and everything else to london,

tokyo, to the middle east, to other places in the world. wellbutrin in this concentration of power here because i think this is an honest disagreement between two philosophies. i think their philosophy is wrong. their philosophy is central government works. my philosophy is the government closest to the people works and maybe having been a mayor, i saw that if washington got a fair way i could expose problems. washington got out of the way of education. the problems of education are enormous, but they are not helped by federal intervention or federal guidance or federal direction. i mean, almost all of it is utterly useless expenditure of time and money, writing reports that don't exist. hiring people that are teaching a classroom set of filling out reports of someone in the

department of education launched. people wonder, budget from a school system and i was the mayor was $12 billion. apodaca spent on the kids in the classroom. it was a lot. a lot of the big budget is because of the department of education. there's a state department of education in a city board of education. by the time to get the kids, there's only a few pennies left. yes, sir. >> banks, manhattan institute. i wanted to ask you to reflect back looking at your day for the prosecutor on what we see and is an increasing trend in terms of business prosecutions was really nonprosecution server for prosecutions. clearly there is a state to prosecute real fraud you did it yourself. over the last 10 years at the federal level we seen an explosion against businesses

with the business is taking shots for how the business operates. the state attorney general has taken this old martin act off the shelf and often with a press conference, not even filing anything has reshaped entire industries. how do you think about this and what's a good way out of that? >> well, i think that the whole concept of prosecutorial discretion has eroded. prosecutorial discretion does that mean that you don't bring a case when somebody is in a sense. that's a decision the prosecutor has to take that. prosecutorial discretion as you don't take the case on the consequences outweigh the wrongdoing. ..

>> a different view from the justice department about how you handle prosecutor discretion. you cannot enact anything into law to change that. that becomes an exercise of equity and common sense by either the attorney general, the u.s. attorney, the chief prosecutor in a particular jurisdiction. yes, sir?

>> mr. mayor, i'm dan conway. recently, there's been reports about cyber attacks on the federal agencies and financial institutions. how serious is this threat, and what's the best way -- what are we going to do to defend against it? >> it's a very serious threat. it's a very serious threat because we haven't moved -- our security has not movedded ahead at the same level as our technology so our security is lagging our technology. the way i describe it is in the old days before the interpret; right? we had enormously important records or money, and it was kept in vaults guarded by people; right? you couldn't get to the money in a bank unless you broke in and got past the security guards, gun, and alarms.

now, all of that is sitting in space; right? it's in cyberspace. that sensitive information, cash, money, records, sitting in cyberspace, and how protected is that? i don't think it is protected the way it should be because we have not invested the money we have to invest in order to figure out how to secure it. the best method of securing it, by the way, is to hire a company that will attack it. hire a company that will constantly go after your information. i work with a company for a couple years that iced to make the following offer. it only failed once. they said they would come to you and say give us a contract to protect your information in cyberspace. how much it is, enormous amount of money, you didn't want to pay it. give us a one month period, and we're going to hack in. if we can't, don't hire us. if we can, you better hire us

because we'll fix it. they failed only once to be able to get in giving you an idea how insecure a lot of these protective systems are, but the only method that presently exists that's effective is the method the united states government uses to protect our most important secrets, our defense secrets. we have skilled people working for us, working as part of the military, that attack that system all the time. as soon as they are in, they close that breach, and then three days later, they get in again, they close that breach, and private business does not invest enough money in doing that to have the kind of protection we should have given the kinds of records there now. the way i describe it is our technology has gotten ahead of our security. our technology is state of the art, and our security is, like, four r --

or five years behind that. once again, i thank you very much. i thank you for the work of the chamber and encourage you to continue pursuits because i think you made a tremendous difference. thank you. [applause] >> it was just a breath of fresh air to hear a different perspective than just one or the other, the red or the blue, and

as far as wasting votes, i just want to say anyone who thinks voting third party is a wasted vote, not true. it's a vote voting for someone who lied to you or not voting at all. vote your conscious, vote what the guy, you know, vote for the candidate who really speaks the truth. >> last time in 2008, i voted for the bob barr because i just couldn't stomach obama or mccain, all right? this -- and what happened, obama got legislated. this time, i'm not taking chances. i'm voting for romney because -- i'm sorry, i can relate to the third party supporters now, but, you know, let's get realistic here, a third party vote, most are conservative, all right? let's face it. a third party vote is a vote for obama so you better vote for romney. >> i started off voting for obama, and i was going to be voting for obama, but after watching the debates, i feel

there was more comps in the first 30 minutes of the debate than the main street cock fight of the fiasco so i'm voting for independent. i was going to say gary johnson. >> i'm between gary johnson and jill stein. if i had the choice to choose rocky, i would choose rocky. i like the stand point. i didn't understand or know him until the debate. >> people that are voting for the third party candidates are just taking away a vote from either democrat or republican, and there's just wasting time doing it because it will be one of the two in office. >> i learned more and heard more questions answered with the third party than with obama and romney. what's sad, though, the power house with the democrats and republican party, you know, these guys got the money, and the third party's not got a chance to voice the opinion. they were able to sit down with

romney and obama, and, you know, get the questions i just heard. >> as we follow candidates on the road to the white house, watch and engage with 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. i also watch c-span online. c-span provides a source of unvarnished information to us that is rare in today's spin oriented society. we can't regularly get the kind of information that we need to make decisions for ourselves. we often have to hear it from either the left or the right, but the great thing about c-span is you get the information directly from the policymakers so that you can make up your own mind about who is right and

what's good for the country. >> geeing ri evans watches c-span on time warner cable. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979 brought to you as a public service by your television provider. former pennsylvania governor and former republican presidential candidate, rick santorum, agree that pennsylvania could move to mitt romney's camp if the campaign spent money in the state before the election. their remarks from the u.s. chamber of commerce legal summit are and -- a hour.

>> see what we can do to push concepts forward. our final panel of the afternoon focuses on the event that is dominating conversation across the nation and the world actually. i've spoken to many people overseas recently, and everybody is focused on the upcoming election. obviously, from our perspective here at the institute of legal reform, whoever wins the presidential election will have a major impact on legal,

regulatory, and enforcement issues going forward. just as crucial as the presidential election, for many of us, are the congressional contests that determine the control, obviously, of the senate and the house. to discuss the upcoming elections, we have invited two well-known political figures from the great commonwealth of pennsylvania, former senator rick santorum, a republican, and former governor ed rendell, a democrat. neither of these men are known for being at a loss for words so i think we'll have a very lively discussion, and moderating our panel is scott rasmussen, a nationally recognizeed analyst and pollster, a frequent guest on cable tv, a contributor to numerous prints, and online publications, and recently day -- debuted # a television show

"what america thinks," and with that, i'll turn it over to you, scott. >> thank you. it is a great time, less than two weeks to go before the election, but truly, we're already in election month. one out of three people in ohio have already cast ballots. voters in other states are doing the same. it has changed everything about the election process. we're at a point where everybody is guessing who is going to win, and from what i see in the numbers, anybody who tells you know who wins this is lying to you or deluding themselves. the race is close, and it has been very close. i want to set a little bit of context. in the last few weeks, the media stories have been about how mitt romney had a great first debate turning the campaign around, and he's now in some quarters considered a slight favorite in the race. the reality is on the morning of the first presidential debate,

obama was up 49% to 47% in our daily tracking poll. after that debate, it was mitt romney who was up 49% to 47%. that means 98% of voters did not change their mind 2% went from grudgingly supporting president obama to grand grand -- -- grudgingly supporting mitt myth. the swing state numbers moved in the same way. in colorado, our latest polling shows barack obama is down four points, and was up one point before the first debate. the numbers move in similar fashion across most of the states with a big exception of ohio. in ohio, numbers though 48 to 48, and there was great enthusiasm, excited about

participation, and the democrats appear to have a stronger ground game, and we're seeing that especially in ohio. before we get into that, we do have two guests. i was going to introduce them saying they both said a lot of things they regret, but they both informed me that's not accurate. they don't regret anything they've ever said, but some have gotten them in trouble. senator rick santorum shocked the world this year, especially in iowa, in the early primaries, governor is somebody who speaks his mind freely on nbc and obviously served as governor in the great state of pennsylvania. i want to start by asking about their home state. senator, is pennsylvania really in play? can mitt romney win? >> i would say yes, pennsylvania's in play, and i think pennsylvania's probably the best bell weather of what happened over the last three weeks because as they tell you,

i mean, neither campaign is particularly active in pennsylvania. they are not running 5 lot of television ads, have not because both campaigns thought it was going to be in the obama camp, and felt that an expensive state like pence, one for republicans, called fool's gold for a long time, that governor romney was not going to extend the resources. what happened in pennsylvania to move it from clearly a double digit race to a handful race or less, really was a national movement, not anything that the campaigns were doing in the states, and so, i make the argument that one of the reasons we have not seen the race change much in the swing states is because there's an intense race going on. in a race where there isn't that, you see movement. pennsylvania's one of those states. the question here is, you know, who is going to invest the resources? pennsylvania's a state that does not have early voting, and so i

would make the argument if i have a candidate, that that's a great place to put money in the last week because in ohio, you know, half the people will be voted already. why invest more in ohio when you got 95% or 98% still to vote in pennsylvania? you can move numbers there. i think the romney campaign -- as you can imagine, i'm not talking and strategizing with the campaign very much, but i'm just as an outsider would suggest that's a good place to put resources because i think that the dynamic of the state changed, and the area of growth, for a long time, along the eastern part of the state, but with oil and gas exploding in pennsylvania, there's been growth in the central and western part of the state, and the character of the state changed as a result of that, and i remind you, one republican senator who controls a solid majority of the congressional district, a majority in the state senate for 25 years, and

we control so the idea the state doesn't vote republican is silly. >> governor, is this a state romney can win? >> one thing you said, i don't talk freely for nbc. [laughter] >> fair enough. >> plus, i have to tell you, just talking about getting in trouble. back, four years ago, i supported hillary clinton, and after she withdrew, i was on a show on cnn, and the commentator suggested i might be a good vice presidential choice for then senator obama as a key state governor, one the heads of the forces to bring the party together, and he asked me what my chances were, and i gave the usual stock answer, and i said a good answer, but i couldn't resist saying, on the other hand, i said, we'd be a balanced

ticket. we doesn't wear a flag pin, and he was not wearing a pin, and i do. i went like this. and the camera zoned in. i got off the air at 2:30 #, and at 2:31, david called me and said i hope you understand no one in chicago thought that was funny. [laughter] nonetheless, it was funny. [laughter] >> so what you're saying they have to work on a sense of humor? >> absolutely. in fact, i said in the book, i recant the story, and i said i told them, and i did, i said, david, get a sense of humor, you'll never get it to november. they made it just fine. i think almost everything rick said was right on. i don't believe -- scott said it's five in his poll. the polls range every from three to six. the reason i don't think it's in

play is because you have not seen the romney campaign or cross roads put a dime on tv in philadelphia. the -- the cross roads and the romney campaign and obama campaign track everything in every state every day. they do tracking poll. if they thought it was winnable, with ohio, and the nbc poll, ohio's five points down. if you lose ohio, but win pennsylvania, it's a wash. you won the election probably. why would they not -- they seem to have adequate money, cross roads does, why not be in pennsylvania? i've been in politics long enough that i started thinking about that, and i don't know if rick would agree with this. maybe they are saying with two weeks to go, we probably don't have enough time to influence vote ere choice by 5%, but maybe if we just stay quiet and the obama folks stay quiet, maybe

the democratic turn out collapses. democratic voters not as reliable as republican voters, regardless the enthusiasm gap, but especially in a year with the gap, maybe our turn out collapses, republicans turn out well, and sneak across the findish line and do a startling upset. i believe that's a possibility enough that i was on the horn to chicago and said, i said, number one, i want bill clinton robo call to every home in philadelphia and pittsburgh. i want the president one more time, even for an hour in philadelphia. there are a few things i think we basically need so i don't think it's in place because, again, we have not seen the romney campaign or cross roads involved. on the other hand, you never know. >> does that approach allow for what senator rick santorum said? a last minute television blitz? >> i don't think in ten days you can -- i don't think in ten days

you can change 5% perception. you can change -- you can move turn out, but 5%'s a lot, wouldn't you say? >> few people will change their mine. it is turn out. >> it's all turn out. >> right. >> it could be a very clever plan. let's let everybody go to sleep. >> there's another race, too, in pennsylvania. the senate race that really senator kc should have had locked up. it is competitive. we show the race leaning in his direction, but tom smith running an aggressive campaign. where do you see that? >> i think senator cay see made a mistake waiting too long. he sort of held everything in check to see if the race got tight. he played prevent defense. how many of you watched # your favorite football team play prevent defense and watch the lead dispate? absolutely. it happens every time. for bob, it didn't dispate enough for him to be in real trouble, but instead of having a

double digit victory which might have made him secure for years to come, he's going to wind up winning, i think, by five or six points and it's going to embolden the challenger next time to go after him. >> senator? >> i think that, you know, he's the favorite to win the race, but we have a candidate who oil and gas guy who is going to put probably all in $that -- 25 million in the race, and that means, i'm told, another $5 million coming down the stretch in addition to whatever else he can raise. that's a big number in pennsylvania, and that can move numbers, and one thing senator casey has not done is particularly well define himself in six years. ed's made that comment. i think that's true. when you are not well-defined in this environment and you're an incumbent, that's not a great place to be, and if romney can

do the rope-o-dope, and just slide in making it tight, the tighter it is, lower the turnout in the city, and casey is not from philadelphia. there's really nobody from the city of philadelphia on the state wide ballot to energize turnout in the city so this could be a real sleeper on election night, the whole state. >> well, let's move beyond pennsylvania, senator. what do you think the romney campaign needs to do? two weeks out, middle of the early voting period, may have a little of momentum, but, clearly, struggling in a couple key swing states. how does he conclude the sale? >> i'm not too sure there's much more governor romney can do as a candidate at this point. obviously, take advantage of whatever the news cycle is and try to -- i mean, at this point, it's like the campaign, but more. just try to win the day. every day's a campaign. win the day. have a better day than your

opponent. having stories about you defending, him attacking. i think romney's winning today. that's a good thing. if he wins tomorrow and the next day and go day by day being on the offensive, have obama explaning, have obama, you know, trying to defend off attacks, then whatever momentum there is, and i think there's momentum in the romney direction, that will continue. if this race gets turned around, and he is the one back peddling and defending, that's when momentum stops. the key is to stay on the offensive. it's highly likely they can do that. he's the incumbent president. there's more to attacking an incumbent because he has a record governing, things happen in his own administration. you saw the e-mails today on benghazi. that's a story the president is explaning, and that may stick around for a couple more days. that's not good for the obama campaign, so on the offensive, be aggressive, and drive it

home, and, of course, umentsly, -- ultimately as ed said, it's about turnout and energy jizzing the -- energizing the debate. if you look like you're aggressive, you do two things. you energize the base, and i think the voters swing at the end based on how they feel about things, and coming down the stretch, if it feels like romney's got the moe -- momentum, votes go that way. i think it's hard for the president to get a lot of the, quote, "undecided voters" down the stretch. they may not vote. if romney can show that energy and keep, again, keep it going, i think this could be a romney win. i think it could be bigger than people think. >> you know, when we talk about the uncommitmented voters, there's few. polling shows it's 2% or 3%. when we poll together a few

weeks worth of a sample and look at who the people are, the president's job approval's in the 20s among that group. only 14% think the economy will get better. you would normally say that's bad news for the president, but those people are not convinced mitt romney would be any better. that seems to be the pressure that's fueling the campaign. the way i look at it, governor, mitt romney is saying we don't want four more years like we've just had. president obama is saying we don't want eight years like we had under george bush, and everybody agrees with both of them, but they don't -- where do you go from here? >> well, i think rick's analysis of what governor romney and his campaign have to do is absolutely right. i think the president, his campaign has to work on the ground game because i think one of the likely se scenarios, i'mt saying nosily probable, but possible, is for mitt romney to win the popular vote and barack

obama to win the electoral college. of course, that happened once before 12 years ago with gore getting a half million nor votes than governor bush. kerry got 71,000 more votes in ohio, he would have won the electoral college although losing the pop popular vote by 3 million, 3 million. that's a distinct possibility here. >> because of ohio? >> because of ohio. it's a distinct possibility here that president obama gets somewhere, like, 271 and loses the popular vote, and that goes to, obviously, the broader question of should we have an electoral college at all. is this the way to elect presidents? we can talk about that, but i think that's a possibility. for the obama folks, two things. it's all grown game, number one, and number two, president's got to do what rick correctly said the governor needs to do, deliver a strong message, not so

much for the undecideds as scott said, but more so to get the base voters who are not voting for governor romney under any circumstances. the only decision they're making is it worth going to the polls? he's got to give them a reason to go to the polls, and i think the last two ads that i've seen, morgan freeman ad and the add with the president speaking himself are pretty good at giving someone who was an obama voter before the reason to just sort of take a deep sigh and go out and vote for him again. right now, the ads are all turnout ads. all turnout ads. >> i want to get to the deeper frustration. two out of three voters tell us they trust their own economic judgment than they trust the president's. two out of three trust their judgment over governor romney's. there's a slight edge. people think the economy is better if romney wins than obama.

trust is, people don't think things get better no matter who wins. this cynicism makes it difficult for who wins. can they get it done when they take office in january? >> well, sure, but what they have to do is exercise real leadership. i think if president obama loses the election, and i'm not sure he will -- i'd have to say he's a slight favorite in the electoral college, but if he loses the election, he lost it because when simpson-bowles commission reported he didn't do anything with it initially. when they were close to the big deal, that was along the lines of simpson-bowles, but he didn't grape it by the horns, his commission, and go with it of the the reason he didn't because the political people said, no way you're going to be the first person to tell seniors they have to take a change in the entitlements. interestingly, governor romney and paul ryan came around and

so-called fell into the trap, but isn't it true, scott, that governor romney's carrying the seniors as a demographic? >> absolutely. >> despite that, what i think people vote for for president, for governor, for mayor, county commissioner, they vote for leadership. what the president should have done is what i believe he will do if he's re-elected and what i hope governor romney will do is lead, and leading means bringing people together saying, look, we have a framework here that can fix the debt. nothing's more important in this country than eliminating the deficit and fixing the debt. so many good things flow from that for our economy, for so many aspects of the challenges we face that we've got to do it. the president's got to get both sides together, caucus leaders, the people who took some chances on simpson-bowles, tom coburn who said, yes, i'm for closing expendtures, and grover said,

no, you're vieting your no-tax pledge, and he said pound sand. we got to get tom and the dick durbin who, as rick knows, is a progressive senator who voted for simpson-bowles although it meant difficult entitlement reforms that the left wing democratic party didn't like. we have to get them together and do something that will, along the lines of simpson-bowles, eliminate the deficit, fix the debt, and invest in our infrastructure, invest in building a true american energy independence that's all in, increase the production tax credit for wind and solar, but do things for gas and oil and certainly natural gas, make it easier for nuclear to get permitting because even if we don't build new nuclear reactors, our reactors will be old in 20 years, and we have to build additional ones and new

ones. have an all-in strategy and take that and put something together for training and education and lead and say to the congress on both sides, i'm going to take the weight. we're going to do this, but i'm going to take the weight, and if they are tough decisions, blame them on me. that's what executive leadership is about. i think the president is bound and dempled to do that after the election. if i were him, i'd talk about it, but he's hinted around at it, but i would talk about it, and i think governor romney, who is a problem solver and deal maker, will be inclined to do the same thing. leadership, people will respond to leadership. the paralysis in washington just needs a good idea and fixing the debt is a great idea, and a little tough leadership. if we get both components, we can get things done. i truly believe that. >> a couple data points. the generation gap, very significant, senior turnout likely to be up this year, enthusiasm higher than four years ago, and they are strong

in governor romney's direction, a surge in vote r amongst seniors could be a significant -- have a significant impact on the outcome of the campaign. second, talking about leadership and voters are, one of the common complaints in the town is voter are the problem not accepting cuts. that's just wrong. three years ago when president obama announced he was sending a $250 check to senior us because they didn't get the cost of living adjustment on their social security, a majority of seniors were opposed to that. they were not looking for a special favor. what they are looking for from the leadership comment is to ensure they are not the only ones, but we're in it together. senator, do you see the same issue on leadership going forward? >> i do, and i served in the house for four years and senate

for 12 years, and i can say confidently the vast majority of members of congress are not leaders, they are followers. >> absolutely. >> the most important thing for a president to do is to not work on in congress because that has, as you've seen from this president and any previous presidents, that has limited potential. the reason you get big things done, unless, of course, you have a stack deck like the president did, a super majority in both, no one's going to have that. you have to coerce and have consensus tho the american public. >> right. >> that's why i'm a little concerned for either candidate when they win. very concerned with president obama because i think ed said he's not laid out leadership message on how to solve the problems. he's done everything to hide the ball saying we're taxing rich people, that's great, but he really has not laid out anything

that's a real leadership position romney has, but a lot of it is ten years down the road so he's done the courageous thing, but a lot of it is just in a sense sugar coated to ensure people today are not affectedded by it. the problem is that we have to do something today -- we have to do something now. this -- this situation, the fiscal situation, the economic situation, is at a turning point, i think economists tell you that we cannot wait ten years to deal with these problems. that makes it hard when you have an election like this where it really has not been about big tough choices or big choices in some respect. to have the ability to lead after the election, after you win. he's come forward with plans, and you know what the public's going to say is, wait a minute, we had an election for two

years, and i didn't hear any of this. where's the fire? you said there was not a fire, and that's the problem is the public is going to be very, very hard to do the kind of scale of change that is necessary in this town to go along after a campaign that didn't talk close to anything to the scale of change we need. that's my concern with after the election. >> i just want to follow-up quickly on that, and rick's right. neither side has done a great job of saying where the fire is and what the solutions putting them out on are. the president has talked about -- talked about in the second debate doing a form of simpson-bowles. he's got his job plan that he took to the congress in october of 2011, and he didn't get anywhere including significant infrastructure spending so he has done components of it. what he has not done is put it together in a package saying, okay, i'll lead, and we'll make tough decisions. what scott said about seniors

and about the american people is exactly right. we don't trust. we elected officials don't trust basic intelligence and fairness of the american people. rick is absolutely right when he says that too. if you got a group of seniors, and you said, hey, guys, social security was passed in the 30s. what was the life expectancy in the 30s? 63 or 64? >> 6 # 1. >> 61. medicare passed in the 60s. what was the life expectancy then? probably 65. today, it's 79.5, and if you live to 65, it's 85. the programs were never meant to last 20 years so, of course, we have to change them, and we're going to change them in a balanced way. remove as governor romney suggested, remove the cap so people, like me, don't have the payroll -- the social security tax stop add $11,000, but we have to change the benefit structure. i think seniors may not be happy

about that, but i think if someone talked to them in a reasonable, adult way, they would accept it. >> i can tell you, during the primary, i went out and talked to at the villages in florida, and anywhere else this issue came up, and i talked about my plan to reduce social security benefits, and i would go through all the different social security benefits and who is receiving them, and groups of seniors, i'd walk through it in detail. go to the videotape and do it, and i'd ask at the end of the conversation how many people oppose what i'm doing, i wouldn't get a single hand. there are a lot of things we can do with the benefit programs that are just common sense, no way we should be paying these benefits in a time where we borrow all the money, and the american public and seniors would say, well, no one's being hurt by the changes you're significanting. now, the more we have to do, but there's low hanging fruit out there to take care of, and one of them is the issue of eligibility. you try to tell any 62 #-year-old in america they are old, and they will punch you in the face.

[laughter] nobody 62 in america thinks they are old, yet, they are eligible for social security. that is a ridiculous situation. >> right. >> by the way, plurality of seniors today say their ideal lifestyle is not to be in full retirement even at age 65. they would like to be working part-time in the dream scenario. people are not old at that point in time. historic note, the first social security recipient, ida mai fuller from vermont paid $22 into the system, lived for more than 40 years after she retired and received $21,000 in benefits. that's a good return no one's going to see in today's world. [laughter] we've been talk about social security, fiscal issues, fiscal cliff coming up, how's that resolved? >> one of the reasons i'm more optimistic than rick is as governor and mayor, i took advantage of crisis. a saying in politics "nothing

belter opportunity for a political leader than a good crisis." you take it and you run with it. there's certain things people accept in a crisis environment they will not necessarily accept when things are going well which goes to your point, rick, and your point, scott, that no one's been yelling "fire," but the fiscal cliff gives us that looming crisis, that looming crisis, and it's an imptous for getting things done. it's an imptous, and i don't know how many of you or ceos were present when my co-chairman and i spoke to the round table in washington, and bob zelleck is a member of our board, and he said that the u.s. is one debt deal away from cementing its place as the world's leading economic power for the next 25 years. he's absolutely right. the opportunity is there. the crisis is there.

if we get the leadership, i think we can do it. you know, rick says no one in the congress are followers, they are leaders. that's true. it would be nice to have rick in the senate because if he was convinced -- now, convincing him is not easy, but if e he were, he'd lead and get things done and lead some of the more california trant senators saying we have to do this. if i could play one thing in the senate and house cloak rooms is the rolling stones song "you can't always get what you want." [laughter] >> this is a discussion about regulatory issues whether it was a day talking about legal reforms. it is fairly easy, at one level to talk about budgets because there's numbers involved. you say there's a crisis coming, the debt is $16 trillion or a hundred trillion if you count the others. when you talk about regulatory

issues, how do you get people to tune in? >> well, regulations are laws. i mean, that's why i think we talk about regulatory environment that somehow or another, you know, just regulations. i mean the problem we see -- i see out in the business community and i hear all the time, is this administration, moving forward with regulations that are inconsistent with the underlying law, and advisory opinions inconsistent and implementation of regulations that are inconsistent with what the congress intended and what the law is and, you know, there's a bunch of them. work requirement for welfare. i was the lead sponsor of the bill and floor manager. there was no waiver capability for the work requirement. immigration, another issue. you have a bunch of issues, and that that does is create uncertainty. if the government can go and do whatever they want to do irrespective of what the law is, and it's, you know, they are

saying -- the government says i'm going to do it, sue me, but i'm going to do this, you have a fundamental problem in america which is an up certainty about the -- uncertainty about the rule of law. that's been as much of the problem as the volume of regulations we've seen, the volume of costly regulations is many of the costly regulations, particularly in the epa area, really are inconsistent with the law that was passedded by congress. it was never contemplated by congress that co2 is a toxic substance. i can't imagine anyone who would

not going to go out there and hammering reason, and they let them get away with it, and it's up to conservatives to go out, make the case to a public that's, you know, for the most part, unaffected directly. they are certainly indirectly, but up affected, it's the business community that has to bear the brunt of this, of the regulatory. it's a tough environment to change around without a new president. this is -- that's why i think, if, if we're stuck for four more years, this president's not going to get better in the regulatory side, but going to get worse. he's going to be much more aggressive. he held back on things he won't anymore. he will do it on his own, and

that's why i believe irrespective of the leadership he may provide with respect to figuring out the fiscal issues, if the economy continues to grow at 11% or 1 -- 1% or 1.4%, this is, you're not going to handle the problem we have, but with any tough fiscal medicine, you may hurt the economy more under this regulatory brace that the president's put us in. whether or not he solves the budget crisis, there's more damage with obamacare implemented, taxes going up, and more regulatory aggressiveness on his part. this economy's going crumble. >> you see the regulatory issues that way? >> well, we don't have enough time -- [laughter]

but let me just take a little different spin. regulations are funny. everyone, to the extent -- rick's right, the public glazes over on regulation, but if you say to the public, the federal government gives us too many regulations, they say absolutely. it's like should the government spend less money? absolutely. then you go in and talk to the components of what you spend money. spend more on defense? absolutely not. less money on education? no, no, that's the kids' future. people are for spending cuts, but against almost, and you polled this, almost every individual spending cut. same on regulations. regulations turned into a bug bug-a-boo in the campaign, but i have to hear either spell out a number of regulations they'd change. during debates and other times,

people asked them, well, give us an idea of regulations you'd change, and they are not specific. why? because most regulations are targeted at an ill. i agree with rick that often regulations seed the power of the underlying act, and often, regulations are targeted, but they don't get at the ill, and they actually wind up doing more harm than good, but having said that, you don't want to be against regulations that protects the quality of the air because there's a soccer mom that's got a 5-year-old cold with as ma, and the last thing shements is bad stuff in the -- she wants is bad stuff in the air exacerbating that asthma. it's a strange political issue. what has to happen, assume president obama wins. i think the business community and the president have to try again, and i think they have to sit down and go over a set of

issues. i make a different prediction than rick does. i don't think the president is going to go hog wild over regulation, but i think if he can get a dialogue going with the business community again, and he still has some phren in - friends in the business community, not a majority by any means, but some friends, if he gets the dialogue going and the business community comes to him with a common sense approach saying here's the four things most vexing to us, do you think you can work with us to fix these? i think the answer they'd hear from the president would be yes, number one, and, number two, some regulations are good for business. i don't know how many of you represent companies or do legal works for companies in the shell gas world, but when i was governor, the shell gas boom started. in 2007, we permitted 72 shell gas wells. in my last year as governor, we permitted 3300. the shell gas boom took off

under me. there were problems at the beginning with some poorly constructed by cowboys that came up from texas that there were literally explosions that lit up the sky pouring burning material on houses, farms, and there were cases where the frack water which gets materials in it that are harmful dumped into pennsylvania waterways without being properly cleaned. well, i ran through, and we rammed # through the legislature, construction, regulation, and it had very strict guidelines for how wells had to be constructed, and there was a regulation that said you have to clean frack water to the level of acceptable under the clean drinking water act before you dump it in the pennsylvania waterway. the company's actually were senator enough to the to push back on these, and since then, except for the far, far left, we've had no real problems with

frack water spoiling waterways or with any construction, any drills blowing up, or any problems in that regard. regulations sometimes can be the friend of business too because if you have a deregulated area, you can kill the golden goose because if deregulation leads to problem, the goose gets killed quickly. >> if you ask about any industry and say do you need regulation, the answer was yes. however, if we say, you give people an alternative, would you rather see the industry held accountable by regulation or competition, they prefer competition getting to the tradeoffs you're talking about. there has to be some explanation. if you're for deregulation and don't education plain how somebody's held accountable, the acing -- the assumption is you are trying to get out from under.

there's a number of stepping cuttings people -- cuts people do support, and if you ask people do we spend too much too little about the right amount. liberals say we spend too much, conservatives too little, and moderates say it's just right. if you ask about removing troops from japan, they say, yes, we should do that. when you talk both big bird or something else, that is not a serious discussion. foreign policy, rick, i know you don't like the idea of taking troops out of western europe -- actually, i don't know that, i'm assuming that, but is foreign policy an issue at all in theçó election? >> i don't think it has been much of an issue in the campaign. i think president obama wants foreign policy to be sort of a slogan. i got bin laden, let's move on. really doesn't want to drill

into the various areas around the world, and i think governor clearly from the other night doesn't want foreign policy to be much of an issue. i don't think he went after -- plenty of opportunities to go after president obama, and he chose not to do so. he chose to sort of rise above it all and just communicate that he can do this, that he has the knowledge and he has the demeanor to be able to be commander in chief. i think governor romney from the beginning of the campaign wants the campaign to be about the economy, and every chance he had at the foreign policy debate, it was brought back to the economy and barack obama's record. that's why they want to be, president obama looking at the mess around the world doesn't want to talk about the mess around the world, but getting bin laden, and as a result, i think foreign policy took a backseat. i think it's unfortunate because as we know, the most important issue the president has to deal with, i mean, can a president impact the economy? yes, but on the margins.

can he impact the fiscal situation? yes, not on the margins, but he's the sole player by and large on national security issues, and we -- i don't think we have a particularly good idea from this campaign of the differences between the two candidates as to their vision for america around the world and what they would do and a lot of these countries, and i think we have a situation in the middle east which is a serious one. mitt myth's right. a nuclear iran is a threat to the stability of the middle east and our security as well. at least from my perspective, there was not a real clear difference between governor romney and president obama on the issue of what to do now other than get a little tougher. my opinion, that's not going to work. they will keep moving forward. they made that clear.

what are you going to do about it? i don't think either candidate laid out what to do, and where there would be a red line, and i think bob schieffer did a bad job not asking that question. you know, would you draw a red line as to if they did this, you would say that's it, crossed the line, and we have to stop you. even benjamin netanyahu asked for it, but neither candidates said what to do. russia, china, so many -- all of these -- russia's a different country than it was four years ago, and their aspirations and what they do to influence the region and change things, one of the reasons i don't think we should pull troops out of japan and western europe. we made a deal with the japanese and germans they demilitarize, we'll be there to ensure the hostile neighbors are not -- won't think expansionists thoughts. we don't want a militarized

germany or japan, and if we leave, that happens. that's not good for the world. should the united states play that role? if we don't, who will? these are kinds of conversations i just don't think we had in the course of the campaign, and that's unfortunate because people -- i think do care about our national security, but it's not been hyleg lighted by -- highlighted by the campaigns. >> one more question for the gentlemen, and then we'll move on to your questions. this is about the poisennous environment in the world today. this is great place to do this. i'm a new york giants football fan. when the redskins play the eagles, i want them both to lose. intellectually, i know it can't happen, but that's what i want. there's an awful lot of people around the country who when the democrats played, eight and ten, people voted against who was in charge, they didn't like

republicans one year on democrats the next, they just wanted hopes something could improve. senator, john wesley said the role of a christian is to vote and take part in the process, but not think ill of those who disagree of you. how do we get back to an environment like that? >> i don't know. ed and i don't agree on a lot, but when ed was governor, i mean, he would contact me a lot asking me to vote for this or help with this, and i ended up saying no, but there were times we could work together, and we do, and do so in a way that benefited the state and hopefully the country. ed was not forme in my races, and i was not for him in his races, be but we worked -- my job was to make sure that ed rendell was the best governor to have in pennsylvania and best mayor of philadelphia when i was a united states senator because

that's my state and city, and so we have to work to the on things. if i disagree with him on policy, you know, i'll step back, but i felt it was really important that we have, you know, whoever it was, to have an open dialogue and be able to disagree without being disagreeable and work together for the benefit of our common enterprise, scene i know i have a reputation of being sort of a hard charger, and a strong conservative and sharp elbows and fighting for things that i belong in, but i have a good record of success in the senate offing a lot of thing -- of getting a lot of things don't. ..

move the ball instead of digging and it thinking the other side arafat people. their misguided. they're not bad. last night >> is what i say about ego stands. >> another disagreement. >> rick is absolutely right. we were so taught together that would work started getting traction in the primaries come he asked me, how is rick santorum as a senator? i said look, we disagreed on a lot of issues, but whenever i

caught ricky with us and allow me to make my case and make his judgment accordingly. but it's an odd on things important to pennsylvania, rick santorum was great at getting dollars and bringing them home. in fact, he was a great port senator. >> thanks, ed. then i realized i probably wasn't helping them too much of the republican primaries, so i stop talking about that. but getting things that could create jobs that he received the endorsement of the philadelphia trade against bob casey, who always had a good labor of it. those extraordinary and it was done solely because the trade snippet on important construction projects yet for pennsylvania, the wasteful spending, he was always there and he would deliver. so i tank it's all going to

stems from how we do on the debt and the deficit because that's the first thing. the fiscal cliff is there. we've got to get it done. the pressure from the business community. the campaign to fix for that. reverse $35 million in the committee already in part for a public relations campaign, almost immediately after the election to get the american people are thinking about it and then apart to save some money to help senators or congressmen who made it tough for in their primary because they made that tough vote. but let's assume for the moment that my scenario is correct in the tom coburn for the saxby chambliss in the dick durbin and john kerry's criticism leadership unfit symbols, but they prevailed a strong presidential leadership from a reelected president obama, president or romney. we pivot off of that and you say to everybody, you bring everyone

and after it's been successfully done a week later and say, you know what? look at what we did. we dealt with the greatest challenge, immediate challenge facing this country we did it by all except than they wanted by all taken a little bit of a hat, they seem never shared sacrifice. now can't we do that on energy? can't we do that on education? can't wait, you know, figure out what each side wants to try to get a little bit of that so we can move forward? i think that spirit can prevail because folks, it's can't run very quickly. i give them a shocking statistic to make this point. intones camellia, and appointment of president reagan was confirmed by the senate 97 to nothing. ruth bader ginsburg, as liberal

as anton scalia is conservative was the appointment of president clinton was confirmed by the senate 94 to three. soap wasn't so long ago that we voted on not partisan grounds, not ideological polarization, we validate that anton scalia and ruth bader ginsburg or scholars who deserve to be on the court because of their scholarship and character. or, how did it get so wrong so fast? the three most important achievement for the bush administration, most important changes work permit the iranian war, to medicate part d and no child left behind all received significant democratic support, significant democratic votes. think of the war, almost every

democrat voted, release two thirds on medicare part d. most of the democrats voted. on no child left behind, ted kennedy was president wishes that she sponsored the bill, ted kennedy. and that was seven, eight years ago. how did it go so bad so quickly? for a lot of reasons. it was so bad quickly that i believe if men and women of goodwill get-together and see something work, i think we can cure it almost as quickly and i hope we can because the clock is running. >> i would make the argument the reason i got so bad if president obama started out in his term where he didn't have to compromise, that he could get whatever he wanted because he had the super majority in house and senate and that's a baby can together and he was never able to change. he was able to get a lot of sector without working with republicans because they had the votes to do it.

it's always easier to work with the folks like you and say good things to get things done than to reach out and get folks on the other side and tick off someone on the far edge of your party. i think president obama got into that mold and has never been able to break out of it. and that's why think we are as divided as we are. >> well, i have to be a little partisan. if that's correct, you can forgive president obama because today he is making his nonzero address, the recent meeting of 15 but if republicans try to figure out how to make him a one term republican. and mr. connell who deserves an a for honesty and asked for policies that publicly are number one priority is to make barack obama a one term president. no senator come your number one priority is to do thanks to fix the challenges facing this country. and if you don't get that come he don't a lot in leadership for the united states senate.

so president obama responded that way, i'm not sure he did entirely, but if he responded in that way, had good reason to respond that way. >> we have any questions? [inaudible] >> we will repeat it. go ahead, sir. >> speaking of the senate we currently have five senate seats in your tossup category. filing democrats and four than republican seats on either side of that. give us her perspectives on how you think the balance of the senate election will go. >> beginning of the week that republicans were favored to win control of the u.s. senate. then olympia snowe retired. then you had todd akin with his infamous comments in missouri. and right now, the democrats are favored to retain control was very close and i don't think it's a foregone conclusion, two of the racist republicans would have to win to get controlled

the senate are in connecticut and massachusetts. scott brown come as a choice or massachusetts has returned scott brown and elizabeth warren, there's no doubt in my mind they would pick scott brown. it is between democrats controlling senate and republicans controlling the senate, that's a no-brainer in massachusetts and i believe that will win out as likely scott brown will be defeated. in connecticut, linda mcmahon did much better than expected. she was had in our poulsen summer. she's been trailing in the last couple and the problem is the political gravity of the state is going to be working against you. i think that's a very tough race. another great state of indiana may also be going through a shakeup because of comments made. >> the indiana comments. >> if someone gets pregnant during a rape at night because

well. not a comment well received. >> a candidate who beat dick lugar. >> wright, who was ahead five or six points in the polls. >> what he was saying is that god doesn't make mistakes. yes, it was a horrible thing, but you know, god let that happen. that's the theme that christians believe, that it's god's will and is a horrible thing, but sometimes bad things happen. i think to take it for anything other than that i somehow that god wants people to be rape and is a complete mischaracterization of that comment. >> that's a fair clarification. however, it's also political. >> i understand that. estrin foretells the come of this is in the middle of the debate, we don't say exactly how you say which he said, i know it's real, but it seems to be,

in my opinion, all favored on one side or the other. but that's another story. >> virginia, george allen consistently running through your four points behind mitt romney in the polls. right and we shall probably what the slate the and george allen trailing slightly in the state. i don't know where it ends, but that gap is pretty prominent. yes, sir. >> adequate question regarding polarization. how much do you think the so-called campaign finance reform which took power away from the parties and also the cable networks have contributed to the polarization of fragmentation of the public and created some of this difficulty in getting along? >> governor. >> very much so. 24/7 cable tv and talk radio just drive the extremes of both parties, see the extremes of

both parties and the rear their heads in primaries. read a great great congressman of pennsylvania, who rick knows that i think admired. he was a conservative democratic, blue dot democrat, but a great guy. he was wonderful to work with. he lost to it trialed lawyer, i don't mean bolshoi liars are bad, but is a trial lawyer and his much more progressive. and it's not a bad guy, but he should've never lost. he was one of the most viable democrats in the congress. he lasted and conversely, dick lugar would be wiping the floor with her democratic candidate in indiana by 15 points. the republican base is not. they keep electing people. >> the republican base that supported rick santorum. >> they keep smashing certain

defeat -- certain victory and opening it up for it winnable election. it happened in delaware with the witch lady. it happened in nevada. harry reid was in deep trouble with the other candidate. so i think both of those things are huge factors. >> i would agree with that. i think the campaign finance laws, mccain-feingold are an absolute disaster. they neuter political parties with him about the the power to groups that are unaccountable to the american public. the basic concept that we can take politics out of politics is absurd. i can't imagine that anybody who wants to see transparent the -- look, where the situation in pennsylvania. add drained out that million-dollar contributions enabling for governor.

but everybody knew him. he did. he got million-dollar transfigurations. >> 87 people that give me more than a hundred thousand dollars. >> we have a rule of pennsylvania that you can take as much money is run as long as you disclose it publicly. those folks, the 80 people who spend in excess of $2500 to help adrem they'll become governor were going to spend that money. but now you know because you spent given to him and you know therefore instead of admit to some group that has some funny name to show for good after election and have them have the power to elect or unelect the next president or united states senator. that is a horrible system. we need to get rid of all of these ridiculous restrictions on contributions and let the american public givest transparently and openly about the candidates have control of the races again and set about

these outside groups having more influence and spending more money than the candidate committees themselves. >> one other factor that should be included in this is the primary system that we have today. when john kennedy ran for president, and he took part in five primaries. the party leaders to try and seek consensus, find a candidate who can reach out more broadly. from 1920 to 1972, with a landslide presidential election either every year or every other year. but the losing side note they really lost. since we went through a mall primary system for nominating president, we had only once landslide and a blue disk miss a chance to connect to center. >> i'm going to disagree wholeheartedly. i was the only campaign in the country who didn't hire a pollster in my campaign. i think the reason is because the country is changed. the country is changed

fundamentally. when people say the country is divided, i think there was much more consensus in america about what america is in the general direction we should go. 50, 60 years ago than there is today. there's fundamental differences being reflected in the political parties and is being reflected in what both sides call extreme. they're not. they're just different visions for what america should be, what her role should be in the world called the role of government should be in advance, these are fundamental issues that are very different points of view appears to the idea that tip o'neill and ronald reagan to have a, ronald reagan had a common set of values. that is not as much the case today. as a result, you see politics does not lead the country. it is a reflection of the country.

and when we say very different types of people being elected and nominated by the party come is because that's where america is. and i would make the argument that is not going to change unless we see some type of leadership and some type of events that happen and maybe economics, culture, who knows. just try to get people to come together and say wait a minute, winnie to figure out who we are and what were doing and get on the same track because right now i believe we are not. >> the senator made a point about public opinion for the nation leading the change. that is the way change takes place in america. on december 1st on 1855, rosa parks refused to give up route seat in the bus in montgomery, alabama. that did not create the civil rights movement. it was a courageous act, the public opinion change before she did that to enable mart parking to take a leadership role and had to change. the threesome in a public change

hers is because rosa parks did the exact same thing toters earlier and nothing happened. in between come african-american soldiers came back from world war ii. southern woman what to school up north and came back with a different set of views. jackie robinson began to play baseball. the political process but a little later and took a catalyst like rosa parks who sparked a change. right or in 11 of those moments where public opinion is way ahead of our political leadership come opening for the catalyst and a leader. >> and importantly, would rick says about the people walking into thoughts and ideology is true. but on the other hand, every poll shows people want our elected officials to compromise and get things done. overwhelming. so that's the message. >> one more question. >> is to rasmussen, i missed a representative from texas and i respectfully have to let you

know that you and frank luntz and karl rove and morris is single-handedly responsible for turning a mother who 72 years old living in rural georgia into an armchair pollster. everyday she calls and says i've got obama by three. mom, you have obama by three? yeah, but it's within the margin of error. mom, gina with a margin of error is? my question is, where are you in a industry hurdling where people exist in the universe of landmines and hard mail in the p.o. box, migrating to those that exist in the social media universe, iphone, i passed. >> i'm not generally favor of mendes, so one should be required to have a landline for an answer when we call. it would make our life a lot easier. this year has been remarkable. your reporter call from ohio and said people the street are talking about was at d+ three or

d+ seven? you know, the intensity of discussion this year about polls has been just incredible. on the general topic of polling in terms of how to follow all that information out there, what i tell people is to look for the common ground in all polls. you should look at ours every morning to get a good search of the day, but what she sees a lot of can see, not a lot of difference. all the polls show a competitive rate. they all show the same swing state and they'll show the president below the 50% or. so tell your mother that is a good way to analyze her sense of where the race is. the questions about response rates and everything else. fighters are now there will be phone polling. we are in a circumstance, where the industry does not know what is going to look like.

many of you are old enough to remember is i do my my grandmother would say, it's long distance. that's the way we use to communicate. we would talk for a long time on the phone. i have two boys, neither of whom you can talk on a cell phone. they think it's for a taxi and else. they don't talk on the phone. pollsters have to find a way to interact with people where they are. that means on twitter, facebook and other social media applications. will still build a call for 50 more years, but that's got to be about as. that's the last presidential election be dominated by telephone polling. if any of you figure out the correct model, please let me know because we're all looking for it. on a serious note, the way pollsters work is we experiment. so at the end of election night this year, my firm will go back every poll was conducted, what

with my cobalt was wrong and try to understand and create a better model. when the next election comes, we'll take a look at polls entirely to see how they work and will learn from those. in 2013 day of practice years in virginia. i would expect in the next two to three election cycles, you will see more surprises from the polls that you've seen in a very long time. >> thank you very much. if they can for governor rick santorum and governor ed rendell. [applause]

>> congressman joe donnelly and libertarian candidate, interworking.

it is a courtesy of lakes or public tv and new albany, indiana. >> welcome to the campus of indiana university southeast in new albany, indiana. we're here for the second of two debates featuring candidates for the u.s. senate from indiana and the debate sponsored by the indiana debate commission. i'm dennis ryerson, retired editor at the indianapolis star and i'll be moderating the debate. candidates will answer questions presented to the commission may indiana voters. tonight's debate is carried live on television stations throughout indiana and also broadcast live nationwide unseen spirit. judea in a debate commission is a nonprofit, nongovernment organization to expand opportunities for voters to hear candidates is on issues of importance. to learn more, but her website, indiana debate commission.com.

the debates commission mothers and daughters first, saw the questions that came from voters throughout the state. one of the voters is in attendance tonight. he'll be asking the question on his own. i'll be asking the question on behalf of others. each candidate will have one minute and will try for 32nd rebuttal so long as we have time. midway through the program will take a pitcher in history to sequence borrowed from lincoln douglas debate of 1858. after the candidates take part in that segment, will return to voter questions and will end with the final general question in which each candidate has 90 seconds for a closing statement. we want to maximize time for candidates to present their views, so in that regard, we've asked the audience to avoid disrupting outbursts. closest to me in this stage, richard murdoch of our republican, and your horn harding, libertarians and joe donnellly, democrat. gentlemen, thanks for being with

us tonight. opening statements begin with mr. murdoch. truman good evening. 14 days until an important election. it cannot be outweighed by the fact is important nationally because it may well determine in the united states senate. with 14 days ago, one thing is clear the sisters of years of record behind in, my opponent, mr. donnelly has a clear track record of saying one thing and having a different direction by the time the server in office. he's a fiscal conservative and he says in support of stimulus. he supports expanding. the fact is that for going forward you need to know quite simply on the geologists, unlikely as it may seem. five years ago i was asked to join governor daniels team and i did my part during this test is that the financial downturn to make sure indian observed within its means. we kept the state going.

we've been a part of its combat. but taking commonsense and tools to washington. >> moderator: mr. horning. horning: and won't belabor the point i made last time. i don't need to say too much about the two-party system, but what i do have to say is most people agree with me now than what the other guys. because those likely to vote for her but i hear most of the time is your odds are not good at but i want to talk about his first of all, beyond therapy or in a very special country that has never been happy. it never happened in human history, on nations fall sooner or later. we want to fight the odds. in fact, right now it's an opportunity to do something all of us want to do for a long time. go for something other than the two-party system. that's the option of putting on here. i'll talk more specifically in this race and what that really

means, but what she wanted to know know is there something before we get to ideology. >> mr. donnelly. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the chance to be here with my. the question is who will be a strong independent voice fighting for you? i have always been that way in a service. i voted for 2.4 trillion spending cuts. voted for balanced budget amendment, support the keystone pipeline that we need to do in our country. my opponent, mr. mourdock said the highlight of politics is to inflict his opinion on other people. for me, it's the chance to see a better and come home and get a good job. it is a chance to see our autoworkers, deal with the go to work every day because we stepped up to rescue those come niece. senator luke are an senator bayh have had it right. it's not about the left or right. it's about america.

they say i'd vote for the democrat 70% of the time. i thought what the republicans 60% of the time, but a boat or hoosiers 100% of the time. >> moderator: thank you, mr. donnelly. now we turn to questions from voters. our first with us tonight is andrew redd, a senior at west lafayette high school. he serves on the student council. his voting age, but as for the first time in the may primary. he is a model of youth engagement in civic affairs in keeping with the situation last night, the presidential debate was on foreign policy. andrus question is about foreign policy. welcome, please ask your question. idea mike [inaudible]

>> moderator: okay, thank you. i think with a mic problem, but i'll restate the question. andrus said his current u.s. foreign policy in the middle east undermine our national security. do you agree or disagree? what steps should be taken foreign policy in the middle east? mr. murdoch, one minute. mourdock: foreign policy is of critical concern of course that in the middle east we must first and foremost standby or great friend, israel and we must be making the message that no options can be taken off the table as we look towards a nuclear iran. to the bigger point of our national security, you know what was the former head of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, said the greatest threat to national security is our own national debt. the fact we've now spend ourselves into a $16 trillion debt is inexcusable. the fact we continue to see that that would have raised an

mr. donnelly has received no less than seven tenths without demanding fiscal responsibility, this is a clear and present danger. you know, we continue to the money from people who would borrow money. we have to get our spending under control and then when we do that, will again be out to make sure we fully fund the military to make sure we're going to always have the greatest military defense in the world. >> moderator: okay, thank you. mr. horning. horning: and do not believe arcane sub waccamaw have done good and effective than the opposite. if you look at something like the petrodollar and tie the fact that our monetary scheme is not tied to oil more than anything else, you'll see a good part of our foreign policy notches in the middle east, but elsewhere is tied to out the worst decisions we've made for the central bank and onward. i'm opposed to that. i'm opposed to anything i've seen coming out of washington d.c. for the last 70 years or so. make them more like hundred years. we've not had a declared war

since world war ii. all of that's immoral and it's not working. others say what we had to be doing is peace, commerce, healthy skepticism with all nations and tangling alliances with none. >> moderator: mr. donnelly. donnelly: first and foremost, osama bin laden is dead. in regards to iran, they cannot get a nuclear weapon. it is a nonnegotiable point. what she seems so far with the sanctions as their currency is worth 80% less than it was a few years ago. the oil shipments have completely tried to. he continued to put pressure on iran and we stand with our friend, israel, because an attack on israel is an attack on the united states. we stand together as a team to make sure that iran cannot get a

nuclear weapon and in regards to afghanistan, the bravest young men and women who seen the face of the earth are serving our country there. i've been loving arms of the men and women whose they are. we will stand with them and they will be home by mid-2014. >> moderator: gentlemen, will not do rebuttals. mourdock: you know, as we see now, the obamacare bill will cost us $1.7 trillion going forward. that is an expense we have to realize was a mistake. mr. donnelly would vote for the bill. i think you're also going to weaken our economy because as we have to pay more and more to pay the interest on our debt, it would otherwise be creating jobs back to her. it is time we deal more directly with the idea that we do what

their budget to start to reduce the spending. >> moderator: mr. horning. horning: i often agree that we can have unlimited warfare with only sort of a sky's the limit approach could really stack up by friends as the outcome for the united states citizens. whenever i see democrats to republicans received because they bought them yet to be thinking long and hard about whether we want to keep doing this. we've been doing it forever. nobody ever gave us that role. was supposed to be more like the swiss come armed to the teeth, ready for within our borders but otherwise leave everybody else alone. >> moderator: thank you, mr. trent. 30 seconds. donnelly: told the new albany newspaper that employers if they want to should be able to not have cancer care. that's his only unique contribution. our greatest treasury is our men

and women who are served. they have to make wise decisions and they should be coming home to rebuild the vienna, notches kabul and kandahar. >> moderator: thank you very much. she's an assistant professor at depaul university in greencastle. the trout reexperience the this summer was devastating to hoosier farmers and local economies and pose a threat to public health. whether or not this truck can be attributed to climate change, climate scientists agree we should be more drought in more extreme heat. some more threats to public health and the economy. i'm not asking whether you agree this consensus. i'm asking if you believe the u.s. government has a significant responsibility to help individuals prepared for climate related threats to our well-being and if so, what specific policies that you recommend? if not, adapting to climate

instability is largely responsibility of individuals in the private market. >> moderator: one minute. horning: is more political discussion and science. we don't know what a correct temperature is, but i do believe there is a valid role for the federal government and protect team resources. there is a strong role. without chronic capitalism being what it is, made it awfully difficult for people to seek some kind of compensation when a company built the plant like to farms producing property value. or should have more. unfortunately, the litigation that these guys haven't given us for the last hundred years as they difficult to hold corporations accountable because they are the biggest campaign contributors. we should be following the money on that.

they have millions and now billions of shillings of dollars going into campaigns. to rethink that does not come without strings? that serious. donnelly: the first thing we should have done is pass a farm bill. i thought on the floor night and day to pass the farm bill to stand up for indiana's farmers. my friend with the indiana court reverse alliance. mike and i were shoulder to shoulder trying to get as stun. the tea party folks wouldn't put the farm bill for that though. we need to stand with our farmers. when a certainty, reliability and i thought to try and get that done. i would rather be voting on the farm bill right now the curate the debate as much as with my fellow hoosiers, we need to get the farm bill done. in regards to the energy peace, we need all an american energy. clean coal is a big part of this, whether it's called

gasification. when we do the things that have american energy, we can also help bring up our environment. mourdock: there's an interesting book called kool-aid. he made the point for all the global change, in fact the dollars could be much better spent providing basic water, and basic sanitation the world to increase standard of living spirit that drove was devastating and i am encouraged that we will see a farm bill eventually that has more of a risk-based insurance program so that farmers can be better protected for such drugs. but the bigger ratio here again is what can we really afford in the long run? if we continue to have a government that spends itself out of control, running up to $16 trillion debt by trying to finance another 1.7 trillion through health care, obamacare to conceal his programs, we're

not going to provide even essential services, let alone deal with the merchant visa, way. >> moderator: given the length of that convoy me to move on to another question. the debate commission received several questions involving social security. how do you propose to make the system financially sound for our children and their grandchildren? the voters want to know your position on the various proposals related to changing the programs such as increasing or removing the social security payroll tax cap, reducing or raising the retirement age, these kind names. if you can be specific and address your solutions to the social security issue, that's the voters want. we'll start with a minute for mr. donnelly. donnelly: they will be part of the deficit reduction talks that will move forward after this election. social security will be discussed, medicare and reducing

the debt by up to $5 trillion. there will also be a big part of it. we would do with republicans and democrats together. the one thing that won't be talked about, i believe this privatization because we don't want social security to be put at risk. we saw the stock market go down to 6500. his comeback up to 13,000. we don't want to take a chance with the earnings of the people who have contributed over the years. so we have the opportunity as we move forward to be able to get this done in those discussions as part of the grand bargain. mr. murdoch favors privatization. >> the fact is the obamacare bill that congressman donnelly said he read before he voted on it. i get a credit because not many did that. they take a nice word and i'm sure cured insomnia. but the fact is that bill took

$716 billion away from medicare. we need to deal with the social security and medicare answer this fundamental principle. today the decision is made before the reform comes, nothing changes for you. they agree largely on that point. i also believe we start immediately telling those between the ages of 50 and 55, 40, 45 and so on, younger workers have a different in place for you. they should save for themselves or select a government to go down that road. if you buy something with somebody else's money, then it really is in yours. forward doing forward doing right now is mortgaging her children's future defendant to future, trillions and trillions of dollars.

with unfunded liabilities going up to $220 billion. if you think about what we've been doing the social security for the last -- since it started in 1936 on the tram edge is calculated at the lifespan of most people. they died back in 1936. it was a very cynical monkey trap. they tax the benefits. they don't run with this forever. it's time to have a serious discussion about whether we want to amend the constitution to make that or find some better way when i think there are plenty to take care of our elderly. >> moderator: part of the frustration of voters is they really want specifics. what do you think should be done? be specific as possible. let's start with mr. donnelly. train for specific separate together in a bipartisan talk. the points are part of

everything that takes place. you also take that out in your budget. but the difference is that what mr. murdoch does is takes away tax breaks. we put it into care for senior center villa to get prescriptions at 50% off. i think that's a better use of the fund. -- that's totally incorrect. the $716 billion will come out of medicare. the medicare actuary has said abu sold in the 15% reduction in the delivery of services to seniors. that's not richard mourdock. that's the actuary for the united states congress. >> moderator: give to parties bickering like this you need to have a marriage counselor command. a third party to come in and introduce sensible discussion. i'm afraid we haven't done that for a very long time.

this is a serious subject and nobody's talking about taking the benefits. but we are talking about is something we can't pay for. i've been specific in the past about offering fair taxes to get rid of the demographic problems we have with the way we fund medicare and social security a ponzi schemes right now. >> moderator: pour out of time. now we'll move to the lincoln douglas segment of our debate tonight. i'll begin by asking each candidate to make a one minute statement about his police on a particular issue. then the other two candidates would be two minutes each to rebut that are common on that statement and then return to the first candidate to make a one minute responsible go for three rounds through this process. mr. mourdock, let's begin with you one minute statement, please. mourdock: let's talk about the obamacare issue. congressman donnelly would have the choice was asked if he would support a national health care plan running for election and he said no. he asked if he would support a

massachusetts tub on the plan. he said no. he was against obamacare, but in the end he decided to go forward. when the partisanship was put on in, this person unfortunate that his principles melts away like july ice cream. he just caved. that's what we need. congressman donnelly knows we've added 1.7 lamina taxes. it's going obsolete devastate the hoosier life science industry. we've got 21 attacks is coming through health care and it's all because they cast the deciding vote for the bill. i'd like to know again why you go for it and if do it again. donnelly: there's a site out there. as i was reading about the extreme stance of richard murdoch, thinking hey, there's hope for this guy. a lot of the stuff he said was correct. i think he's right on, so there

is hope for you if you want to come to the libertarian party. but what is frustrating is that he just accused mr. donnelly is backpedaling the stances. he has repudiated a lot of statements. some of it about the unconstitutionality, right on. i was 50 with that. you've got to stick with it. you need someone to stick with principles. i've always been that. anyone who looks at things i've never done nose and not going to budge. i've read the constitution, state and federal and i'm the only guy up here. i can prove it. i'm the one guy who will defend and support the united states constitution and the constitution of indiana against all enemies, both foreign and domestic and i think that's what we need right now. we need someone to stand for something other than the two-party system. why we keep voting for it is

something that requires explanation. by we keep doing this over and over again would we know the bickering is not helping us. the guys on in their campaigns expect something in return for their investment. we know they're going to get it. we know all this money comes for some kind of reason. we should be finding out with every log written someone's getting a benefit out of it. who is getting the benefits? i can tell you it's not me. i'm the one guy who lives on a farm and i can tell you all the people around me who live on a farm, where, find another kind of stuff we do is not for farmers. let's get real. we should be looking to see what the money is coming for, what they expect in return and vote against that. >> moderator: mr. donnelly, two minutes. donnelly: as i said before mr. mourdock's innate contradiction to help her husband hussein jeffersonville to the new albany paper, where we are now, that employers should have the right to not cover cancer care.

i don't think that's the way to get health care coverage. as we look at this finance in the forward, mr. murdoch also said he questioned whether medicare was constitutional. he thinks medicare should be turned into a voucher system, we'd get a $6200 coupon, or where you can have to pay up to $6200. it puts you in an extraordinarily dangerous financial situation. in this regards to the health care bill, 716 billion you talk about as i said before, instead of being put into senior care, tawana scared, to the chance for seniors to get prescriptions at 50% off, which he did was to give it away tax breaks. what the health care bill does for people who have cancer or diabetes, they can get coverage for the first time. if you're a young person between

the ages of 21 and 26 come you can stay in your parents programs for health care. if you are a senior, you can get prescriptions at 50% off. these are good games. either fix this? yes, but i'm the only one appear who will fix it. mr. mourdock wants to repeal it, but then he wants to put the good parts back in. we had the good parts in place. we've all had people in our families have been touched by cancer. do you want to take away that coverage that they now have? i think the way to go with this is to fix health care, not to blow it up all over again. >> moderator: is not a minute too rapid. mourdock: first your point about the newspaper. i also said if the company did that, they would undoubtedly not have any employees because no one would choose to work day. to the second point coming is

said to the person standing here. you're the only person standing here who voted to take $716 billion away from medicare. the problem with obamacare isn't just that it's putting the government eurocrat in front of the hoosier thunder.dirt. the fact is showing more and more what it is, which is the greatest tax increase in the greatest intrusion on individual american liberty in american history. a few weeks ago i stood up and sat then come the south of the notre dame campus to make the argument that it is obamacare an extension of obamacare to the health and human services department to tell the catholic church what they can and can't do what they must provide them with health care coverage. i was proud as a kid and it was unfortunate to defend notre dame. >> moderator: it's your turn to adopt the discussion. horning: last time nobody answered my question commending me sad. the variation of that to make

this time is you think about what most people know about our political system in that we have hopes for. with until it about equality under law, how the rich and powerful guys have to obey the same laws as the rest. you can read the annotated version of indiana and u.s. constitutions are at horning.com. the kinds of things this country can't afford to get where they didn't have anywhere else in the world. people used to pore through borders to get the stuff coming up we been doing so much to screw that up for the last 100 years. we all know it. my question to you, gentlemen is why should we give you another chance of authority giving you 100 years of chances to get this right and you screwed it up. >> moderator: mr. donnelly, your two minute. donnelly: was greeted the problems in washington is the attitude of partisanship, of hickory, of constant fighting.

they are to inflict the opinion another people,, that bipartisanship is democrats doing what republicans want him to do. i can't think of more sub team off target or off base. to move this country forward, to solve these problems, we have to have people of goodwill of both parties and independents in the senate working together to reduce the debt, to create more opportunities for jobs, to make sure men and women come home from afghanistan in mid-2014 is scheduled if that's what this is about. but my way or the highway means, it means they'd medicare is unconstitutional. it means questioning the constitutionality of social security. it means going after our auto comp me and putting over 100,000 indiana jobs at risk. and if you have been successful,

indiana would've gone into a depression. i have fought nonstop not only because his jobs are important to our economy, but because those are real families. those are people who didn't know if they lost their jobs whether they could even make their own payment a month. whether their kids could even stay in school, whether they would even have to be able to be forced to move and not be able to listen in vienna near their other family. that's what this is about. so when we work together, good things happen. sure i want all rights, mr. mourdock tinier two-minute response. mourdock: congressman donnelly brought up an excellent point. unfortunately, partisanship in washington d.c. does cause people to do the wrong thing. you know, it was congressman donnelly who took a stand early on to say he was against earmarks until they got to washington and the partisanship to do.

the partisanship that caused them to say he was against a national health care system come against obamacare. when the chips are down in the pressure was on, the partisanship one and joe donnelly cast his vote for it. you know come he talks about partisanship and ferguson that line about my way or the highway, let's go back to the presidential debate because mitt romney got it right when elected president of and said my way or the highway was what obamacare was, congressman. not one single republican vote for it. if you want to see partisanship, why did she react in a bipartisan way to cross the aisle to try and get good ideas for republicans and you can say without any there was at least one good idea that could've been made in step four, quarter democratic caucus and say let's bring these fellows in. without partisan discussions. but congressman donnelly went the partisan route and voted a straight partisan line. and that's unfortunate.

we need to fix much in washington. every now and then he suggested richard mourdock doesn't know how it works. it's not working on is because of the partisanship like mr. donnelly that will say one thing back in the state and then go back and consistently, unfortunately caved in to harry reid, keep in to give the blue sea. he said he wasn't going to support nancy pelosi for speaker, but he got there. guess what, he did twice. that's a pattern unfortunate that was going to fix washington. it's going to continue to make it worse, congressman. >> moderator: mr. horning, one minute. no horning: no one answered my question again. people say i'm a dreamer, but i'm not the only one. let me be pragmatic reducers have which you've chosen. you don't have to choose for us. we can do better than this. every time i run for office and

it's been funny, but every time i've done this, i've written on specific plans what we need to do. my good friend wrote on a budget is signed on to call the virtual reality. i've got constitutions on my website. if you have an android will come out with an apple version soon. a specific release over the constitution says and what were supposed to do in response. if you want specifics, we'll give you plenty. our founders were right when they warned us about the influence of bankers and military industrialists. passover sale of the place in a two-party system right now. they've bicker back and forth and people tell me i'm the one who's streaming. this can't work. >> moderator: thank you very much. mr. donnelly come in for your statement appeared donnelly: thank you very much. i have a record worth work with my colleagues to make sure indiana gets better highway funding to keep our air base in fort wayne, to make sure veterans center in south and was able to expand and grow without

spending one additional dollar. as democrats and republicans working together, a bipartisan view. mr. murdoch has said that bipartisanship to him as democrats doing what republicans want them to do. here's what that means. it means saying that i do care, you question this constitutionality. it means i'm at a care that she might have to pay $6200 out of your own pocket. it means on social security question the constitutionality of it. and on the budget, what it means is instead of money going to veterans care, veterans care is reduced and there's more tax breaks for businesses that send jobs offshore. >> moderator: mr. mourdock, two minutes. mourdock: a lot said they are. again, what it's going to take to repair washington as people from the outside who understand how to make the system work. we have a system today this terribly broken. i believe they go there as well

many people appeared out of office have been in the water and the potomac or what, but people get the looser direction. i think congressman donnelly has done that. he says one thing when he's back here and that's another way when he guess they are. there's something critical in agriculture, is removing the inheritance tax. we are far too many hoosier farmers who would know what to pass the family farm, see the taxes are so expensive and so heavy the kids to inherit the farm have to sell the farm to keep half of that and they sustain themselves. on that issue come a critical one, mr. donnelly said he wanted to reduce the inheritance tax. on the first time he had a chance to vote for, it was going to terminate any voted to extend it. issue after richey receive the the same pattern. you know, we're not going to get washington fixed at the same people keep going and doing the same things. i guess i'm not perhaps we

agree. for people who want to sell out for partisanship and will stand up for principle. i find it ironic that so often i see things taken out of context. thursday's attacks that take things out of context. you say this about constitutionality of social security and medicare. you heard me make my statement on social security and he's still concerned about. he said i like to inflict my opinion others. i do. other what i'm doing right now. i love people to think about these issues. it's important stuff. it's the future of our country. and they said let's keep going he lifted the status quo. i'm sorry, it won't. not if we promote mr. donnelly. >> moderator: mr. horning, your two minutes, please. horning: this a lot in the exit of the other guys party is absolutely right. i can't does agree with the word of that. for we don't need this more bipartisanship. don't you see this as an

opportunity for tri-partisanship? you have a shot here. i'm not so dangerous. i'm only one voice is 101 half of the legislation assembly. not to turn your world upside down. let me take that back. but if you vote for me and i went, what do you suppose will happen in washington d.c.? can you imagine the shutters to go through when a guy with no money gets elected? just think of that will work. i'll give you something, they were good republicans. i've not lost, i think you're one of them. but i don't and you can fix your party. you can fix your system. i know lots of people who did not get changed by washington d.c. [inaudible conversations]..mac

.. >> for me the highlight of

politics is to see a young man or woman getting into the service academy. to get the g.i. bill. to go over to the afghanistan and iraq. we care about you. we love you. >> we are done with the link in at -- lincoln douglas debate. the next question is about term limits. would you propose a bill for both houses of congress like to terms for seven and six terms for the house a total of 12 years? mr. mourdock. mourdock: absolutely. i have signed on to that plan. i think they keep turning over idea is. there is of myth in washington we need the seniority to have been idea

is. one of the best ideas that has come along is a balanced budget amendment by senator the. that bill that would force congress to raise taxes puts a cap on spending. the senator was zero made there six weeks when he authored that idea. not only what i have a constitutional amendment i would impose those on myself. i believe in term limits even if it did not have been i would serve two terms of four years. i was stunned -- done. >> recognition that voters are not doing their job. i have to would mid to we do need term limits. maybe severe two terms in the senate may be three terms in the house.

people have said that for a long time when the republican revolution came through they had the voluntary pledge. i am against that so the liars will still be there after the good ones have gone home. we have to be serious. we're not voting for people who will broke -- propose a and maintained term limits. i think that means kick out the guys who are already there. isn't that this is what it is about? >> moderator: mr. donnelly. donnelly: i have served three terms in the house. i said i have done work to save the auto industry industry, stand up for the vets, work for the state of indiana and hope to have the privilege to serve in the senate. if i do i would think about was four to enough to

win, to terms would be plenty. then it is time to come home to indiana. it is a program that can work. even more for the legislative term limits, it is the people who make that decision. by going to vote, listening, by calling your legislators. that is how you can be the most engaged. weird just a hired help. >> this is a hot-button issue. mourdock: this is a hot-button issue. people go back time and time again. talk about being a county commissioners serving two terms then voluntarily stepping aside. realized halfway through the second term i would see

things differently and becoming part of the system not to fix the system. if you bring in more people you have the edge on the system that needs to be well sharp bend. >> baidu believe we should bring in new people. [laughter] once again the solution is pretty much me. so many times, up with the partisanship and people have been around 100 years, we is boaters have to understand we are powerful enough to fix it an accountable for the result. we own this country and cannot delegate our responsibility. we have no excuse. donnelly: the greatest wisdom we get is from you. the backyards of indiana. at the supermarket.

we are the hired help. we work for you. we have the wisdom to tell us what to do there is wisdom what to do on the left and all the bright -- underwrite it is common sense. >> the issue of abortion and contraception divide the country. for example, one voter wanted to know your position on a woman's right but also contraception and reproductive health services and if government should provide those services. another asks if life begins at conception. what would do do to protect the babies during your term in the senate? where do stand? horning: this will be tough. all of us say that we are pro-life.

with the federal legislature there is not authority granted to the federal government even with matters of murder. that is the state level crime. in fact, i have said constitutionally i would have to oppose roe v wade. and the laws are written and subsequent have ben wrong. but we have been doing badly for so long we forgot how many of their rights are trampled on. men don't have rates. you cannot say just say no to child support. we are so lopsided with only a woman's issue we forget there are ways around this to make it easier for people to adopt. there are things we could do better. as a federal legislator there is not that much that i can do. >> moderator: thank you mr. donnelly.

>> i believe life begins at conception. the only exception is rape, incest, and life of the mother. in regard to contraception, i believe women can access quality health care. >> believe religious institutions have our right not to go against their belief. how do we make sure that a woman has a right to quality health care what the same time protecting the right of religious institutions and not violate their own believe? many groups in the catholic church have filed suit. they have every right to file the suit. i am working on a legislative solution. there is work being done on the judicial side.

we try to get the executive solution as well. >> moderator: thank you mr. mourdock. >> every candidate faces this. i know some disagree and respect there point* to view and i believe life begins at conception. the only exception to have an abortion is the life of the mother. i struggle with it myself but i realize life as a gift from god even in the world situation of rape it is something god intended to have been. mr. donnelly comments it is good to reform it but it should not be in the first place. to file a lawsuit to get the basic fried am i that was guaranteed under the constitution the practice of your religion now has to be put forward if the law was

never passed the lawsuit would not be in place and religious freedom would not be in question embargo. >> moderator: we began with rebuttals. horning: drying up sides pro and con there is no winning the issue. it is one that it is the outcome of something terrible happening sometimes. dealing with mistakes, rape, life situations, in a minute we cannot do justice. as a federal legislator i would not be able to do justice. i would fail for what i would try to achieve. >> moderator: thank you mr. donnelly. donnelly: my catholic faith has guided me. and also have guided my friends who is here as well. we have a program in my home town, the women's care

center. to provide the positive alternative for women who are pregnant to have an opportunity for a place to live, the cared for, to know you have people who care about you, love you and help you during your pregnancy. >> moderator: 30 seconds. mourdock: obamacare has caused the issue of religious freedom ordering the catholic church, at institutions that find it morally objectionable to provide contraceptive care goes against the basic faith and it is wrong. mr. donnelly respectfully it was obamacare for which he cast the deciding votes that caused this to surface in the first place. >> moderator: thank you. the next question is a retired teacher from indianapolis. are you hoping to serve as a

senator like to hear your stance on gun-control and same-sex marriage. the quick. 302nd. [laughter] donnelly: i will just make the quick reflection that is quite a combination. [laughter] with gun-control i believe in the second amendment. it is in our constitution. people have a right to bear arms. in regards to same-sex marriage, i believe on marriage is between a man and woman. mourdock: i have the letter a rating with the nra and i believe one man and one woman. horning: i am a constitutional list that goes for all of our rights not just the second amendment. i am in favor to keep and

bear arms but in answer what this is all about do we really have any rights at all? it is divided into the second amendment but against the first i like certain parts of it. >> moderator: you are out of time. >> i needed vice. do remove to the last question? the final question. behalf 90 seconds. after two debates this is the last time to speak to a statewide broadcast audience. 1d1 voters to remember about you as a candidate and as a person? mourdock: i am a person who does down by principles, works with others to get things done pre-election is to have consequences. 60% of whose shares oppose the reelection of obama but

mr. donnelly supports him. we have two-thirds of whose shares that say we're on the wrong track. the congress ban once status quo another four years. we have overwhelming numbers showing hoosiers disagree with obamacare even after he said he would not support it he caved and he did. that is not good. i have been attacked because they do stand up former principals. specifically the rule of law, my oath of office retired teachers and cops. i stand for my principles. sadly it mr. donnelly stood for his we would not have obamneycare today. he said he is like dick lugar. the senator and i were rivals to have the honor but we stand united that harry

reid cannot continue as majority leader in the united states senate. still mr. donnelly cannot tell us if he will vote to or not. just like nancy pelosi. in 14 days out you do not know who you will vote for and maybe you should not run the senate. i a.m. richard murdock i approve this message we need to get this country back on track and make washington work like indiana. >> i am glad i can finish the last one. game marriages another example where we misplace our faith. when do we give marriage to government? there is the alternative to the in god we trust there is a corollary with politics we do not. we're not supposed to give everything we delegate charity unto caesar we give

our money over unconstitutionally to a central bank that is mostly private bankers all over the world. we have screwed up everything in our founders warned us about. one dozen presidents, the rule of law as written in both u.s. constitution and indiana and the senator should protect the indiana constitution from federal intrusion. we have done a terrible job. please look at mr. horning website both indiana and federal you will find we have been badly misled. of course, obamacare is unconstitutional. most of what our government does whether democrats or republicans has been a constitutional the last 100 years. i say go back to what has proven to work better than it what anything has been done ever. we have something special

and i want it back. >> thank you for being here with me. i think it is sad murdoch talks about party. this is after one year of the trailing indiana hitting the kneecaps of lugar every chance you got. you would not have done that. wisdom does not come from washington backyards, a factory floors, and diners in rochester. there is a lot more wisdom there in washington d.c.. i get my wisdom from the people of our state and when i pray on my knees before god every night. i am a humble servant and i do the best i can. it is not always perfect but he says do your best. 2.4 trillion dollars of

spending cuts. with my good republican friend that is what richard lugar stood four. he has worked hard and done his duty and stood up for country. that is allied try to serve as well. this is about our children and grandchildren future reducing debt having women and men can hope for mcginnis and to build a better country for our children and grandchildren to continue this incredible tradition. i asked for your boat vote. god bless you, indiana and the united states of america. >> thank you for watching the indiana senate debate sponsored by the indiana debate commission and also to the candidates. and the voters who participated along to give a special thanks to the

university se for providing the venue. join us next week for the final five debate sponsored for the gubernatorial candidate thursday at 7:00 p.m.. on behalf of the indiana debate commission good night from albany. thank you. you may applied. [applause]

>> of breath of fresh air to hear different perspective than one of the other. the red or the blue. as far as wasting boats boats, anybody who thinks it is a wasted vote, it is not true. that is someone who lied you are not voting at all. vote your conscience, the candidate who speaks the truth. >> the last time in 2008 i voted for the libertarian candidate because i could not stomach obama's at collor mccain.

and obama got elected. this time i am not taking chances i am voting for mitt romney. i am sorry i can relate to the third party supporters but but third-party vote to most are conservative. it is a vote for obama. you better vote for mitt romney. >> start of voting for obama and was going to but after watching the debate i feel there was more common sense in the first 30 minutes than the entire main street obama's/ravee fiasco. i will vote for gary johnson >> i and between the two. if i had to choose rocky i like his standpoint. i did not know him until after this debate. >> people better voting for the third party candidates

just take away a vote from democrat or republican. they're wasting their time. it will be one of the two and office. >> guy have had more questions answered with the third party that obama and romney. what is sad with the powerhouse of the two parties they have the money in the third party does not have a chance to voice their opinion. i would like to have answers to the questions i just heard.

>> moderator: ien behalf of delaware media and university of delaware we welcome you to the debate 2012 made possible by the financial support of aarp and the american cancer society. toomey is university of delaware professor of international relations and this is the candidates for the race of u.s. and including the democrats tom

carper also independent candidate and republican kevin wade. thank you for your joining me here to moderate. this is divided into two sections following an opening statement from each candidate's we will pose questions and responses are limited to one minute 30 seconds and a three minute follow-up discussion the second part is from questions from students at the state university's. each candidate has one minute the audience understands there will be no pause during the debate and we held a coin toss and we begin with the first opening statement turning to tom carper. carper: good evening.

i build bridges to bring democrats and republicans together to get things done like in delaware we realize we are all in this together. it is not my way or the highway. they are the values and learn from my parents, my church that in the navy. figure out the right thing to do and do it. treat other people that went to be treated. number three. focus on excellence. number four. know your rights and don't give up. these are the values that guide me if i am privileged to serve another term in the senate. wade: my name is kevin wade. it is short and easy to read member. i am proud to be the

republican candidate so i am not here for the republican party research and not the leadership of the democratic party today. i am here because i know that washington is broken. damage has reached into our homes threatening the future of our children and crude -- grandchildren. career politicians have done more to secure their own political prospects. i know that all of us need to go to washington because washington will not change until we change the people. >> moderator: your opening statement? pires: why am i hear? i am tired of the corruption. it is the most corrupt state in the unit and -- union. i can prove that. i don't need this. i am a successful businessman, lawyer, a bigger, i do this because i

want to bring an end to it. my parents did not even go to high-school. i am self-made. i have been successful with everything i have done i can easily turn the senate around as an independent. bernie sanders and mr. pires and the reign of mr. darfur will come to an end. >> moderator: this stage is set. we will move into the question portion. mr. carper with the issues facing congress the most critical is the ticking clock pushing to the fiscal cliff that some economists say will plunge the economy into a deep recession. regardless of the outcome of any 11th hour compromises what culpability this is congress have to put the u.s. economy and the state of uncertainty?

pires: let me say angus and i have served as governors together. he was recently interviewed in "the washington post" which caucus will you join? he declined and they said who are the senators the you want to me? he said i will meet with tom carper. but with respect to the fiscal cliff we have a responsibility to make sure redoubt go over it. the reduction plan put forward by the simpson bowles commission. between four or $5 trillion. $3 on the spending side and $1 on revenue. that lowers the tax brackets and broaden the base that is taxable perk everything is on the table. the entitlement programs, make sacrifices and reform and republicans have to agree to make