struggling to understand it and we still have a leadership role in the world. we can see the russians have stepped back into the cold war era in their decision-making. the chinese are causing problems in their own region and the superpowers are not acting like adult. not just our foreign policy, but certainly others. >> okay, i can take one more question. >> you make a really good point about these different entities getting into the mac's and coming up with a viable solution is going to make a difference. meanwhile, you have political leaders who are not willing to step out of the way, it seems,

for this to occur. and so the idea sounds great, but how do you get people to relinquish their powers and sampling to give it up to the intellectuals and to the people that have the best experience and can do this kind of thing to make it work. >> i would say that in democracies around the world, you are seeing this. look at qadhafi, look at where assad is now. and people in the streets are now beginning to either vote in the ballot box or vote in this square in some way. >> i'm thinking about iraq and you said that they have to have a purpose. but they are so dysfunctional they are just waiting to survive, that is what their purpose is today. >> we just saw the iraqis get rid of him.

we see the elections, whoever is in offices the people who choose. but that system has so many political parties with the need to form political parties, it's a dysfunctional democratic system. but the more political parties they are, look at how bad it is with us. you have a situation where it's even worse than the palestinians bifurcated and so changing leadership sometimes isn't always the best either. it has to be the right leadership with right motivation to be able to take risks and understand where you are going. finishing just on this point, a couple of this on both sides, israel and palestine, they took this plan and they sort of revamped a little bit. and they have an idea that instead of the leadership arguing about this, take the plan, flush it out, put it for a

referendum on both sides and send it out to the people. can you live with this remark both sides rejected that and the political leadership rejected that. the voice may be in the decision going to the people. that is why i was arguing with it. don't tell me what the borders are unless you show me exactly how this is going to work with the security. >> my suggestion -- my suggestion is that you need these working parties that do the planning, israelis, palestinians, americans, anyone else, because there's some issues like water distributions and others but nobody has ever drill down to that level. as they produce a detailed plan, not just an agreement in principle but very vague. >> thank you. [applause]

>> thank you all for being with us. we have copies of this wonderful book and we invite you to have your book signed. thank you all and goodst

objective of america's craft. this is one hour. [applause] >> well, thank you, john. open to the heritage foundation. peace has ever been mankind's desire and yet throughout history, the war has been a common practice. consider the major conflicts of the 20th century in which america has fought, including world war i and world war ii, the korean war, the vietnam war, the iraqi war and the afghan war and the cold war. in the wake of each one came the question, how can we make and how can we keep the peace with other nations.

or are we doomed as in that 1984 novel to a state of perpetual war? one way is a basic principle of the reagan administration and the principal reason why the cold war ended on the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. another path to peace is to rely on statecraft, grounded in liberty and equality and articulated in the declaration of independence. sometimes the americans early statements approved military intervention overseas. and they took the lead from the adage that if you want peace, prepare for war. but how far have we strayed from these principles a map have we become the policeman of the world? with our laudable desire to extend freedom, has it adopted a

policy of nationbuilding regardless of the nation's wishes to rebuild. in his newest book, to making key piece, angelo codevilla argues that are 20th century and 21st century leaders have confused peace and war, as well as america's interest and the world's wishes. they have forgotten that they ever knew the lessons of the past and affected the wisdom of the founders. the doctor offers no easy answers and insist that peace requires that we make friendship with each other at home and avoid the occasional war abroad. our guest is superbly qualified to explore the many conventions of peace. professor of america's innovations at boston university, the warmer research fellow at the hoover institution and a senior staff member of the u.s. senate select committee on

intelligence and ex-foreign service officer and nabel on officer, the author of 14 books and reading publications here and abroad, professor of one of the sharpest minds in the realm of public policy. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in giving a warm welcome to the author of "to make and keep peace among ourselves and with all nations", doctor angelo codevilla. [applause] >> thank you. i hope to keep you awake. i will move to write this book by a commercial that i heard on fox news for the wounded warrior project and the commercial was a accompanied by a song that asked

us to say a prayer for peace. and that got me a bit angry. suppose, i said, to myself the you have been paying plumbers to fix your houses priced in the pipes still leak and someone said to you, say a prayer for your pipes. and he would say that god has nothing to do with my pipes. and i didn't hire got to fix my pipes. and they didn't do the job and there something wrong with the plumbers. what is wrong with the plumbers? and we hired statesmen to superintend our business of peace and more for the purpose of providing us with peace and instead they have given us or without and, which they have no intention of ending, war in which they have seen to continue

superintending. so what is wrong with that? why we have peace? well, that is the reason. they do not have the intention of creating this. but why don't they? well, because if you look at any of the u.s. governments academic venues, you will see that they preach what one might call the cliffs note portion of this, that warranties are not religious tangible and that international affairs is a seamless genuine with ordinary business and mutual destruction and that is not what the dictionary says. dictionaries are clear about what war is and what peace is a not so in fact much of this

today. hence, it is not surprising that our national discourse on the subject of war and peace is a still confrontation between the conservatives, as president george bush articulated in his 2052nd inaugural, a process by which try to secure the world freedom believing that we will not enjoy freedom ourselves. and many, of course, will never be great. and there's a libertarian illusion that we can somehow avoid the rest of the world. but the commonsense of common

sense of the agency is quite against that. most recently wall street journal and "the new york times" poll showed that a strong majority of the american people believe that the u.s. government should be less active in the world come of it at the same time that the majority of the american people wanted u.s. governments be much more assertive against america's enemies in the world. so the mainstream media but it is a contradiction in the american mind. but of course there is no such thing. the opinions of the american people reflect the wisdom of the ages, namely they went off to seek peace and stay out of trouble but they went to her and that he is by being terribly assertive against her enemies and we had failed to do that.

my book is an attempt to rekindle tension to the basic fact that the basic objectives and the natural objectives of this is the provision of peace. just as plowing fields is not an end to itself but an end to the crop that one wishes to produce. and we lead the life here at home that we wish to lead and the purpose of security and peace abroad to secure peace among ourselves at home. and it just so happens that the

failure to secure peace among foreign nations, it really does talk about the lungs contract loss of peace amongst ourselves. and so it is that sparta and athens destroyed their own domestic peace by failing to fight with the purpose of somehow bringing that fight to an end. in nature tells us that the purpose of women is to come to some sort of rest. some sort of natural purpose of this activity is a product of that activity and so indeed of the most active part of

international affairs, which is of course war and rest in peace. and so my book begins with a clarification but the nature of peace, namely that there is no such thing of this but only instances of it from time to time as any nation is capable of earning for itself. so all institutions of these are some of these pieces against somebody else's version of peace. and they are maintained only insofar as those that established it and there is nothing permanent about this.

and the understanding that it's not natural to mankind. and this includes contradicting the animal kingdom's tendency to regard other members of the species is troubled or natural prey. until only a few civilizations have understood and everyone has understood that the west is preferable to constant movement and that understanding comes from an understanding that mankind is one and that the

differences between, it was considerably smaller than any human being in any other species. but that understanding has christian and classical greek intellectual roots. embodying that understanding, of wars, was and continues to be a struggle. the clear leverage and of the composition is a christian one and you see it, of course, most clearly in the regard of his

kingdom. his kingdom is not of this world and god's kingdom is not of this world. saint augustine collaborated to that point. christians, he said, should be indifferent to the fate of the roman empire because the fate of individual souls is far more important than what happens to any group of people tends the primacy in thought of peace, which is the condition that most is conducive to men pursuing the highest potentiality and the highest purpose of which they are capable, mainly contemplation of service of the guard. in the same way, the thought disposes us to follow a we understand to be man's most

peculiar purpose, namely intellectual, that is also to be pursued most conveniently and naturally in a state of peace. so embodying that inside to practice structures and structures in practice has been the work of ages. and there has always been a contrary tendency even within our own civilization. beginning in the 15th century with the rise of europe's kingdom's that tended to equate

this with the success of monarchs who place their own primacy ahead and they conceived themselves as a natural state of war against one another. the modern political thought beginning with them, imagining nothing but the natural state of conflict and we did not see any goodness and the pursuit of anything other than primacy. whereas, of course, the natural objectives of statecraft on to be the pursuit of peace. why is that? because peace is what allows

human beings to concentrate on that which makes us most peculiar human. and this does not mean that the laws of nature and nature's god involved or include the fact that human freedom and human freedom, of course, implies the fact that some humans will be rapacious towards others and it makes it necessary for people to defend themselves violently more often than not. and so what it does do, to highlight what the christian

thought is and the dog does is to focus on the natural purpose of this. the american revolution was, in fact, a revolution against oath of the absolute powers of government and against the violent priorities of most government. ..

they simply -- to that declaration of independence is very clear that the revolution was to secure the americans' rights which are common to all men in all places, including their right to to

self-government regardless of nature of that government. the americans were also clear that they considered themselves, especially in the thought of john adams, they consider themselves peculiar blessed in having the kind of moral habits was made possible that way of life. they did not expect that those would spread quickly, if at all. in fact, they noticed that even in business efforts to spread that for of government foundered on the fact that the rest of the world was really not attuned to american -- to the kinds of habits that the american people have enjoyed and that these

habits existed precariously among americans. in the american focus on peace went wrong with a thoroughly conventional and, let's say, proper understanding that statecraft requires like everything else in human life requires a clear to a destination of independent means, that what must make sure that thought that one has asked that means to secure what every claims one makes and that one ought to make no claims other than the claims that one is able

to support. this, of course, is no different from the notion that one ought to half in the end the money necessary to pay for was purchases, to presume to have certain goods without the right to pay for them to his at the very least quixotic. so both of these insights, the necessary co assassination, and the priority of peace really was behind the paradigm of international relations of the founding generation most clearly by john quincy adams. in the monroe doctrine and in the explanation.

the monroe doctrine, contrary to contemporary misunderstandings thereof had nothing to do with asserting any kind of sovereignty over the americas, but rather it was a statement of priorities on the part of the americans. a statement of priorities that came not from john quincy adams but which john quincy adams summed up on behalf of the founding generation of which she was the last member. that consisted of the realization that what happened on the other side of the oceans would concern the united states

relative result -- relatively little. of course john quincy adams was perfectly aware that had napoleon been able to consolidate his mastery not only over europe but england as well and had been able to dominate the russians as well as the european continent it would impose a tremendous danger to america, and had europe as a whole, had the whole alliance been able to control all of latin america, that would impose a tremendous danger to the united states. but he believed that there was no danger of that happening and, in fact, that the monroe doctrine was promised -- premised on his confidence that this could not happen and that

there were enough contending interests within europe to keep that from happening. had it been otherwise, the monroe doctrine would have been different, but it was not. it was formulated on the basis of his near certainty that no single power could dominate eurasia and therefore threaten the united states. abraham lincoln, who was -- who follows john quincy adams, would have been a follower of john quincy adams during his one and only term in the house of representatives and his secretary of state william seward literally worshiped john quincy adams knew in his bones

that the -- as he stated in 1838, of the powers of the -- of europe disposing of the world's treasures could not by force make a track on the blue ridge are taking a drink from the ohio in a trial of a thousand years. the problem, as lincoln side, the problem that america would face would be not so much the threat of foreign nations but rather they growing enmity among americans, a tendency of americans to regard each other as enemies. the issue of slavery, of course, being the greatest of the causes, the pretexts for that. but realizing that to my has had

george washington, that there are many, many causes for strife among our own people. of course, george washington had pointed out he had experienced that americans divisions over foreign affairs were a major cause of this loss, this fatal loss, is potentially fatal loss of among the american people. and so abraham lincoln policy, domestic and foreign policy regarding peace and war always was aimed primarily at safeguarding and then somehow restoring this among the

american people. of course, he faced a problem in the worst of circumstances when, in fact, doing so required defeating for one part the american policy which had taken arms against the other. and the it -- and yet we see from -- especially from his second inaugural that abraham lincoln aimed above all at the unity of the country, and restoring their french. unfortunately for america, the people who govern america after lincoln's death engaged in a very different policy, one which can best be described as america's first venture in nation building, remaking the

defeated south. first of all, considering the defeated south as a defeated nation, which lincoln was absolutely blows to do. and then reshaping it according to some thought, some ideal or at least better way of life. that, of course, turned into an occasion for continuing violence , continuing ill feeling among americans, held feeling which lasted a hundred years and which some in our time are attempting to revive for their own purpose, the very same reason why the radical republicans of the 1860's and

70's in belgium for their own political advantage and for their own self-image. nevertheless, the priority of domestic peace returned to america, albeit slowly man until there was put in jeopardy in our own century, the 20th-century by woodrow wilson's adoption of the notion that as he said in his address the february 1917 that the american republic existed for no other purpose, it had no

other reason than to somehow improve the rest of mankind, not only to improve americans', lesser americans, but the rest of our kind. now, this, of course, this notion violated a whole bunch of principles. first of all, there must be a correspondence between ends and means, what possible means could affect the improvement of mankind? how in heaven's name, by what power on earth can any one improve mankind? is it, indeed, possible to change human nature? is it, indeed impossible to change anyone's culture but one's own or much less anyone else is? common sense says no.

american statecraft in the 20th-century says yes. we can and we should try. we must be if we are not we are not an exceptional nation. one might add we are not an exceptionally stupid nation. but, in fact, so much of american statecraft had 20th-century was premised on that. examples of the opposite of theodore roosevelt's common-sense maxim, they are very much a story of the 20th-century. perhaps among many examples to my book explains what secretary of state charles evans hughes did in 21, the famous washington treaties in 1921.

the famous nine power treaty reaffirmed and brought international agreement on the perennial american objective of guaranteeing china's independence and territorial integrity. at the same time the washington naval treaty committed the united states not only to a thorough reducing of its naval power as to give to their make clear superiority in the western pacific but above all it committed the united states to refraining from fortifying gorman the philippines. this, of course, guaranteed that japan not only would have more ships in the area but that those ships could take out american bases very easily.

well, what do you think japan did? do you think that japan refrained from any attack on the independence and territorial integrity? no, of course. quite the contrary. what did the government do? well, nothing. rather actually something far worse. secretary -- franklin roosevelt secretary of state for ten years abraded japan, and sell to japan for what it had done in china. building up the u.s. fleet or from fortifying manila and kuala and so as lincoln would put it,

the war came. we have known very little from that in our time. in fact, what we have been doing ever since much of the cold war has been to redouble our commitments while reducing our forces. you may have noticed that there was some trouble in ukraine to nine. well, that follows from the fact of ukraine has disarmed. why has ukraine disarmed? the united states government under both democratic and republican ministrations prevailed upon ukraine to give up the world's third largest stock of nuclear weapons. how? well, buy a guaranteed from the

united states. well, it was not exactly well worded but it was interpreted by everyone as a guarantee of ukraine's independence and territorial integrity by the united states of america. now, of course, the united states of america watches as ukraine is being gently torn apart by the russian president. and i emphasize gently because he is not actually invading it openly but rather is grabbing enough power within it to manipulate the west and to take over all of ukraine. this is confirming the world's ever growing opinion of it as foolish, week, toothless, and able to be taken. what are we doing with regard to the fact that china is

increasingly extending its power over the western pacific? well, queer sending a few trips to the philippines, not nearly enough to protect them, of course, not nearly enough to protect anything, while making loud noises about renewing our commitment to our allies in the area. precisely the same mistakes as in 1921. which mistakes can be expected to have the same results? starting in the 1980's and 1990's, the united states has been suffering from a tax on various terrorists. several times and most summers

led by george w. bush declared a some kind of talking war against these terrorists. not the u.s. government has failed to identify who is causing the war, preferring to pretend that this war is being waged by a few roads whose identity we really don't know except for ben alarm and a 200 or so people who were with him in this thing called al qaeda, most of own are not quite dead. end neglecting, preferring not to understand that a whole civilization is being marshalled against us.

by who? that does not require intelligence. it does require intelligence. and who might that be? well, we know that the palestinian authority school books and that the united states and, of course, the jews naturally for all sorts of terrible things which in a good muslim ought to protest violently. we know that the sect of islam does the same thing and does so with the money of saudi arabia, the emirate's. the money and the support of the

leading personages of these places. common sense might suggest that these authorities withdrew within have some say about these activities. common sense might suggest that were these activities to be curtailed we would stand a far better chance and that curtailing those a activities might be more worthwhile than shooting individual trigger polers. no. the u.s. government prefers to pretend that it really is a matter of the few roads. and so of war has continued. year after year, and now we are in the second decade of the war.

that, of course, has brought the american government to tear the disrepute around the world, but it has done something worse, far worse. it has brought upon this country the homeland security department and the modernization of police in america. this behemoths lives by the proposition that it is impossible to know who the enemy is and therefore it could be anyone. you, i must be assisted until someone decides, we don't know who, the you and i perhaps are not terrorists.

now, we already know that human beings tend to focus their energies and hatreds upon people they like the least. we know that the u.s. government , like any set of human beings, has in fact already taken measures against and treated as terrorists were threatened to people whom it dislikes politically, socially. leno's that it is difficult for u.s. beans resist. and we know that they are -- that has the government's power to enforce its dictates gross those will be ever more

difficult to resist. and so we conclude by realizing that the failure terror current peace has, in fact, brought war home amongst ourselves. and we ask ourselves how can we stop this? we can stop this by realizing what we have been doing and by returning to common sense. i wrote this book so that the people could trace our civilizations primary primacy and peace, how our government was set up, in fact, on the basis of pursuit of the primacy,

how focus on that primacy was lost and how it may be regained and i commend it to your attention. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, questions please from the audience. we have some microphones, if you will please identify yourself and direct a question at speaker . everybody and reflect. >> i want to ask you, since you have made peace the theme of your book, many people believe that peace should be pursued through a project called global governance and through the creation of a supranational institutions in which nations

would surrender sovereignty to this larger though often unaccountable institutions or creations. would you comment on that? >> well, is easy enough to do that. you simply enlarge their jurisdiction and then their quarrels within that jurisdiction are no longer called international wars. they're just all civil wars. that does not affect the reality it simply changes the name of what is happening. unless, of course, one establishes a really powerful, supernatural -- supranational authority in which case you call that violence police action. again, you call things by different names. in the latter case the violence will simply be worse.

>> could you say something about how to the nature and substance of education in the united states has enabled a change of mindset? >> excellent question. my previous book the title of which was advice to of presidents has a chapter entitled you as the dictionary. the problem with american education is that it teaches people that it is not necessary to use a dictionary, to use words in their proper meetings. dictionaries teach you that words should reflect reality.

american education has disabled generations now from contact, from understanding language in a way that allows you to contact reality and as disabled it for reasoning. the dumbing down of american education makes all sorts of good things impossible or at least very difficult. i don't know how many people could have followed the argument i just made. why? because it takes an attention span laundry than a few seconds. the american educational system destroys attention spans, among other things, as well as historical knowledge.

>> my name is mary. i am an independent observer and researcher. we are talking about peace, but i am getting the impression that you are actually promoting are justified war. and i think you have -- you are making an error in making the assumption that the natural state of species is to stay in the natural state of conflict, provincial conflict. as a matter of fact there are studies. i don't remember the name of the psychologist, but it was presented to president lincoln. mike harris said to my don't remember the name, but aid to state specifically that the natural state in a rational society, especially an educated society like america -- and i

think we are and a higher state of education around the world now, that the natural state of the species is actually to protect got to love your offspring into protected. i guess maybe that is an impulse that is more common to women and that the natural state and you are promoting or justifying his based in the fact that there just have not been enough women in positions of power specifically because they were very ignorant. there were raising their children. they were poor, under the control of man who do have a more natural, i guess, propensity, one might say, to fight and to control, to endorse in their pleasures.

and my take on why we are still in this horrible state all over the world -- and you brought of ukraine where i lived, almost uncanny that this should all,. the reason why there is so much conflict right now is probably linked to quebec and to canadian currency and production. you know, i think monetary policy is one of the biggest issues that nobody talks about. and, of course, this linguistic debate with russian and ukraine. the same language, the same people. well, i am not making a question i am making a comment. i don't agree with the premise. >> man.

>> is an addiction. >> i don't think you heard me correctly. i did not say hobbes and machiavelli were correct. i simply stated that that is one of the premises of modern thought. and that the american founders disagreed with that, disagreed with the notion that mankind is naturally a war. the point is that mankind is neither add or norad peace inherently and that such peace as exists and such is the product of specific decisions and specific orientations. it is true that some kind of

governments tend to be more warlike and others. and that is not necessarily meaning that dictatorships are inherently more violent than democracy. that simply is not true. it has never been true. as far as women are concerned, there is a reason why the greek tragedians made the furies female rather than male. as far as ukraine is concerned the reasons for the enmity between russians and ukrainians has something to do with the fact that the russians killed ukrainians by the tens of millions and that there is not a household in ukraine that does not have memories, bitter

memories of the russians. >> thank you. it is in january 2017. their is a new president in the oval office. it is the first day on the job. you are there to advise the next president as to how to deal with the rise of an entire american non normative liberal bloc of superpowers. >> speaks softly and carry a big stick. >> i've wanted to just ask, and

given their really awful situation that we have in dealing with this very murky sort of war against terrorists, addressing what would seem to be your tough criticisms of homeland security and those operations, it is obvious enough that there are domestic threats that need to be dealt with. what does make sense? >> profiling. profiling. that is how the israelis do it. to be perfectly explicit, but the profiles are and how they are to be pursued. explicit profiling is subject, as it should be commented

democratic debate about what the threats are and how they had to be dealt with. what we have now is so necessarily a kind of bill live via a hidden, arbitrary profiling. and you, because of your months sociopolitical standing are as likely to be on the wrong end of that profiling as anyone else. the profiling simply depends on the appetites of those in power at any one time. it ought to be -- profiling really is another way of declaring war check my declaring who the enemies are. declaring who the enemies are and how they ought to be dealt with is the same chance as declaring war. the founders placed that function clearly in the hands of

congress simply because they know that war and peace are the business of the people, not of some set of leaders who are not subject to the regular checks by the people and that it requires deliberation, public deliberation and votes. >> you have made some very interesting points during your presentation, some might agree in some of them not so much. the fundamental principle is that statecraft should be to bring peace. and you said speak softly and carry a big stick. now, let me ask you, whenever the united states negotiates

with another country, a very turbulent issue, for example, let's take a run. it says the military option is on the table. now, within the country if we're negotiating and tough situations and i say here is my position, you better take a position comparable with minor i will kill you, it is almost -- is that -- what part of that? >> well, it depends what it is you are negotiating about. if you are negotiating about something which involves a threat to your life to me it seems to me that you do this or perhaps i will kill you makes a great deal of sense. now, it does not make sense if you say such things and don't mean them. that makes no sense of all.

as we -- are supposed you are referring to the threat to bomb the nuclear-weapons facilities. that, to me, makes no sense of all because that is not war. that is simply a discrete act of violence. war is a set of tax that are reasonably and to bring about peace. it merely bombing the iranian nuclear side would do no such thing, no one has ever suggested that it would. there is an argument to be made for war with iran. an argument in falls doing whatever it takes to get rid of

the current regime, supposing it would bring about one that is friendlier. there is an argument to be made for such work. there is also an argument to be made for saying, okay. what is it that you really want from us? what are you willing to give in return. there is an argument for that. we are doing neither of those things. it may be possible to resolve whatever differences we have on the basis of a of course number two. that has not been tried. it may remain not be possible. and it is certainly possible fifth base for peace with the indian people on the basis of support against this regime. but that thought process has not

been entered into the debris that is the kind of thing that i'm talking about. >> extraordinarily thoughtful exploration of some very difficult to find some of the basic questions of our time by a very thoughtful expert analyst. this is his book. it is available outside for $20. we encourage all of you to buy at least one copy and then that ends of would be happy. but think we will be doing in outside. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking him. [applause] >> c-span's to 2015 student cam

competition is underway. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create t a 5-7 minute documentary on the topic, "three branches and you." videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view and must be submitted by january 20, 2015. go to studentcam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the connecticut governor's race is currently listed as a

toss-up by both the cook and rothenberg political reports. the race features democratic incumbent dan malloy and republican challenger tom foley. the two candidates recently debated at the university of connecticut. topics included taxes, education and the economy. this is an hour. >> live from the jorgensen center for the performing arts at the university of connecticut, fox connecticut, the hartford courant, the connecticut daily association and u-conn bring you the gubernatorial debate. ♪ ♪ >> moderator: good evening and welcome to your again seven center at the university of connecticut. tonight the party-endorsed candidates for governor are joining us for a one-on-one debate just weeks ahead of election day. here tonight is fairfield county businessman and republican candidate tom foley and our current governor and democratic

candidate dan malloy. gentlemen, welcome and good luck tonight. we will cover several major topics in the next hour after which the candidates will deliver their closing statements. here is the format. once a question is asked, each of the candidates will have 90 seconds to answer. after the questions are answered, each candidate will have up to three .s in rebuttal time, but -- and this is important -- can only 13 minutes of rebuttal time for the entire debate, so that will require discretion. joining me at the desk is jen bernstein and the hartford courant's capital bure toe chief -- bureau chief, chris keating. the audience here in the hall has promised to remain quiet, no cheering, no applause, no outbursts of any kind, and we thank you. our first topic tonight, our first set of questions dealing with something very important to all of us here in connecticut, the economy. and chris keating will ask the first question. >> mr. malloy, connecticut's economy has grown by only 1%

total during the past three years. what specific steps should state government take to kick start the economy, and how big of a role should financial incentives play? malloy: first of all, let me say it's great to be with you. i want to recognize my wife, my son and, of course, our great lieutenant governor, and i want to thank courant and fox for putting this on. the economy is an important issue. i'm proud, for instance, we have seen the creation of 60,000 private sector jobs, but that's not enough. i won't rest until every person in connecticut who wants to have a job has a job. and we are making progress in that regard. you've asked are there incentives that should be applied. of course there are. one of the things i'm proudest about is the small business express program. before nancy and i were sworn into office, there was no tool set the help grow small businesses in connecticut even though most job creation takes place in small businesses.

so what we've done is create a tool that is allowing us to stand alongside of small businesses -- many of them owned by minority group members and women -- and actually seeing 1200 of those companies making very rapid progress in employing people and building confidence and investing in our economy. that tool set is extremely important, and it's part of an overall tool set to make sure that we're adding to our economy. there are other incentives that we've applied, and we're very proud of those as well. but what i think is really important is that for the first time in a long time we're making the kinds of investment that is will produce jobs well into the future. in this university where we're standing right now, we're seeing massive new investments in technology as well as bioscience and other areas. >> moderator: all right, mr. malloy, thank you very much. mr. foley. foley: i'm also very pleased to be here tonight. i'd also like to recognize my wife, leslie, and my running

mate, heather summers. i'd like to thank you for hosting this debate. listen, you're going to hear a lot of figures and numbers tonight from governor malloy. i call it malloy math, some are true, but most aren't. but i'd like you to be, listen particularly carefully because when the governor says let me be perfectly clear, then you should listen very closely because what he's about to say probably isn't clear or true. let's talk about the economy. 1% growth, that's one of the worst growth rates of any state in this wonderful nation. and i believe at least part of the reason why our growth rate has been so slow is governor malloy slapped the largest tax increase in connecticut history on its citizens. he's put a lot of pressure on families, he's done other things that have been policy driven. he's driven up electricity rates, putting the big squeeze on families. families don't have as much

money as they used to have. he's also let spending go out of control, so public spending is now crowding out the public sector. if you look at public sector growth, it's actually. shrunk. and if the governor's correct and he's created these jobs, private sector wages must have shrank too. we simply have to do something to repair it, and later in the discussion tonight we'll talk about the policies that are going to get the economy going. >> moderator: all right, mr. foley, thank you. time for both of you to have rebuttals. remember, you are pulling time out of your 13-minute rebuttal bank. mr. malloy, the first turn yours. malloy: before nancy and i came into office, connecticut had failed to create net jobs in 22 years. michigan and connecticut did not, shared in the creation of 23 million jobs. what we've done since then is see the creation of 60,000 private sector jobs. but i'd like to point something

out to you all. in the last two quarters of 2013 after we made historic investments in the future in connecticut, we grew faster than other states in new england, 3.1% and 2.8%, the fastest growth in new england. we are growing faster than new jersey, a place where mr. foley brings in the governor on a regular basis. and we're also making sure that we're paying our long-term obligations, something that connecticut had not done for a very long time. listen, i'm not happy that we had to raise revenue and cut services and go back to the negotiating table, but that's what a leader does. when you inherit a state with the largest per capita deficit in the nation, somebody has to lead. and it fell upon us to do that. and so what have we done? we're investing in transportation, in education. we're going to make sure every child has an opportunity for a pre-kindergarten learning experience, be the first state

in the nation to do that. what else have we done? we've made sure that people have health insurance. we were the most successful state in the nation when it came to implementing health care, in large part thanks to the work of the great lieutenant governor. we've done many other things including that tool box i was talking about to make sure we're creating jobs for the future in connecticut. this last may class that graduated from u-conn found it easier to find employment than any class in the prior six years. we're seeing job growth that is consistent with the job growth around the nation. we're seeing economic growth that is consistent with other states in the nation. some are higher, some are lower, but we're making real progress, and what we're doing for the first time is investing in our future. >> moderator: mr. foley? foley: well, a couple of examples of malloy math there. governor, you claim that 60,000 jobs were created since you and

your lieutenant governor came to office. that's actually not true. of the 60,000 that you claim, 25,000 of those jobs were created under the previous governor, and you said no jobs had been created under the prior administration. you only created f your numbers are right, 35,000 jobs. are you aware that we lost 3600 jobs alone in august here this connecticut? and you're not right about growth rates in neighboring states. we have lagged massachusetts. massachusetts' economy has grown 1% since the can be 11% since the bottom of the relegs. you're -- recession. there are a couple of other things you've forgotten to tell people here, and that is you're anti-business, and your policies have driven jobs out of this state. and in the meantime, you're giving away billions in taxpayer dollars to large, wealthy corporations in a job program that's failed. it simply hasn't created any jobs. and in many cases you've tied

these incentives that have no relation to jobs. the incentive you provided to utc, $400 million, not one job was connected to that. that's ridiculous. when i'm governor, we'll have policies that actually create jobs in this wonderful state. we'll stop having anti-business policies that discourage employers from investing and wanting to grow here in the future of connecticut. we'll get the economy going, we'll get things back on the right track but not with governor and not with his policies. thank you. >> moderator: mr. malloy, do you wish to respond? malloy: no thanks. >> moderator: question two. >> mr. foley, the taxes it takes to support it, should the size of state government be reduced x if so, please tell us specifically which areas or functions you would cut. foley: spending under governor malloy has gone up by over to $3 billion to roughly 4.5% a year

while he's been governor. that is simply taos, so we -- too fast, so we must do something to reduce the growth in spending. i'll hold spending flat for two years. that will allow revenues to catch up, and we'll be able to balance budgets, and we'll get our spending back in line with what we can afford. but that doesn't require reducing the size of the state employees. in fact, in many areas we may actually be understaffed. if anybody's gone recently to dmv, we have some of the longest wait times, i think, second longest wait times of any state in the nation. now, that's partly a management problem. the governor has no management experience, so i'll bring 35 years of management experience. i can help with some of that. but in some cases we're understaffed. so i don't think the way we're going to get control over spending is by reducing the size of the state work force. there are plenty of other areas where we can make savings. i want to save money in the

delivery of health care services not just to state employees and teachers and retirees, but to everyone in connecticut. it'll be a huge boost to the economy. we'd see real growth and rapid growth if we could bring down the cost of delivering health care services. i'm not talking about changing benefits, i'm just talking about if a heart attack costs $90,000 to treat today, let's make it cost $80,000. i can do that with my business experience in making lean organizations. >> moderator: all right, mr. malloy. malloy: mr. foley talks about his business experience. i ran a city for 14 years, had a aaa bond rating, saw it grow mightily during the time i was mayor, added housing, added educational institutions, made real progress. but we also understood that we had to build a city for the long run. we had to invest in infrastructure, and we had to improve education. guess what we're doing in connecticut? just that. we're not laying people off, we're not driving the state into bankruptcy, something that mr. foley has a record of having

done in the past. what we're doing is making sure that we're making steady progress and that we're setting up the infrastructure that will allow us to compete with the likes of massachusetts who are doing some of the things long before we were. that's why i do point to the last two quarters of 2013 when we outglue every state in new england -- outgrew every state in new england. tom's made some statements, things like we didn't create as many jobs as we've said. he's wrong. in fact, total private sector job growth over the period that covers both governor rell and my administration is much more than 60,000. at the same time, and this answers your question, government's gotten smaller. and goth has got -- government has gotten smaller while i've been governor of the state of connecticut. sure, we should be more efficient, sure, wished be investing in technologies -- we should be invest anything technologies we didn't have. when i inherited the state, our large department spending 18% of

our money was operating on a i.t. platform that had an effective age of 1989 -- >> moderator: mr. malloy, i'm sorry to cut you off. your 90 seconds are at an end. mr. foley, first rebuttal is yours. foley: well, i'm glad the governor brought up his experience in stanford because he raised taxes seven times, i understand the debt was significantly higher when he left, and the thing that bothers me most about governor malloy's term as mayor in stanford is that stanford was the city in connecticut with the largest achievement gap, and he did nothing about it. so he may talk about being interest inside improving schools and education, but while he had the opportunity in one of connecticut's largest cities with the bigst educational challenge, he wasn't up to the task. he also was investigated for corruption while he was mayor of stanford, and he leaves that out. listen, we, we have a great state work force in connecticut. i've led large organizations. i know what it takes to run an

organization that has a mission and a direction and is supposed to do a good job. in this case, government is there to serve the citizens. we need a state work force that is the right size for the job. i believe it's the right size for the job right now. but they also have to have confidence in their leadership. they have to have confidence in the direction that that leader's taking them. and they have to feel secure in their jobs. they need to be well paid, they need to be secure in their jobs, they need to know they can take care of their families both while they're working and in retirement. that's the kind of leadership i want to lead for the state work force and to get this government working for the citizens, get the economy going and get this state turned around. >> moderator: all right, mr. malloy, your rebuttal. malloy: to everyone watching at home, i want to have a sidebar discussion. every republican who runs against every democrat says democrats will only raise your taxes. so let me tell you about a candidate that tom foley supported for golf many year --

for governor can many years ago. his name was john rowland, and before he went to prison, he raised taxes numerous times, $1.8 billion -- 1 is.8 billion between 2002 and 2009. but here's the difference between what they did and what we did. we changed how we're doing business. tom says we're spending more money, but we're spending money at a lower rate than either of my predecessors were doing. in fact, in the period going up to the great recession, they were increasing spending at 7.4% per year. our average isless than 2.8%. and, quite frankly, some of that money is being used to make sure we honor our commitments to the very work force that tom is talking about. because when we inherited this state, we had pension plans that were 42% funded. this last year we had a 15.5% return. we're making real progress on reducing our long-term debt. in fact, we have reduced it by

$12 billion. these things will pay dividends in the future. but when a republican says a democrat will do something, then let's, let's look at the reality of what's happened many this state. in this state. i did not drive this state into the ditch that we found it in when nancy and i took office. but we're doing our best to work with you, the people of connecticut, to turn it around. do you really want your teachers to be laid off? do you really want police officers and firefighters to be laid off in your community? because that was the choice. and when tom ran for governor four years ago, he had a plan to solve a $3.6 billion deficit by cutting expenses by $2 billion. now, of course, that leaves $1.6 billion unresolved, but it would have led to the losing 36,000 jobs in this state. and you don't have to take my word for it. that was a study that u-conn did in 2010. we're working hard, folks. you are, i know. and i'm doing everything i can to help us get through this.

and i have appreciated the relationship that we have together as we pull together this state. >> moderator: all right, mr. malloy, thanks very much. mr. foley, do you have more rebuttal, or would you like to move on to the next question? foley: there the governor goes again, blaming his predecessor. governor, when i'm governor, i'm not going to blame you for my record. malloy: well, you're doing enough of it tonight. [laughter] foley: well, there's a lot to complain about. >> moderator: question, agreed? question number three. from chris. >> mr. malloy, a viewer named christine abramson says that she knows people who are moving out of connecticut due to the high tax rate. are there other taxes that you would look to reduce in the future? malloy: well, you know, we are reducing taxes. we've already reduced taxes since 2011. tom has made some statements about energy costs. for most of the time that i was

governor, energy costs were 12% less than they were the day i was sworn in. and last month our electric costs went down by 14%. we have policies going forward that will, in fact, make sure that that happens. but with respect to taxes, we have already backed things out of that package in 2011 and, of course, you're not going to hear about that. but one of hose things was a tax -- those things was a tax on energy. in fact, it was not only a tax on energy when we -- a plan when we came in, but they were going to borrow against the energy bills, hiking up energy bills each further. i canceled that, and i'm happy that we did so that we could make some progress on that. we're restoring the deductibility of $50 clothing. we've restored the deductibility of over-the-counter drugs. you look at those things and some of the other things that we've done with respect to how we tax pensions, for instance. then we're making some real progress. every chance we get to lower taxes, we should take it. that's what my administration has demonstrated a willingness to do, and we have done it each

year since 2011 when we had to really wrestle with the issue that i was talking to the viewers about, and that was the largest per capita deficit in the nation. >> moderator: mr. malloy, thank you. mr. foley? foley: yeah. i find it pretty extraordinary the governor thinks he's lowered taxes. governor, you put the largest tax increase in connecticut history on the connecticut citizens, $1.8 billion. and now you've let spending grow by $3 billion. so you've band anderred that -- squandered that tax increase. you've squandered it. and where has the money gone? you talk about electricity rates. listen, you put on the, an expanded generation charge, conservation load charge on people's electricity bills. it's driven bills up by quite a bit, and you -- are you talking about the generation tax that you took away? because you actually put that on the generators while you were governor. so that's sort of like the $55 rebate that you gave us and then

you took back. so i don't know. i think, as i have said before, maybe we're living in different states, but i don't think there are many people in connecticut that i'm talking to that believe you reduced taxes. they remember your tax increase, and i think a lot of people suspect that if you're reelected governor, you have no plan to reduce spending. you're going to have no choice but to raise taxes again, and i believe them. >> moderator: mr. malloy, rebuttal. malloy: so let me say this, we will not raise taxes. i never took a promise not to raise taxes because i knew how bad a job had been done before i got into office. the tough things i'm getting blamed for doing now hadn't been done. we went back to the table with our employees, we cut projected spending increases, and we had to raise revenue. when i became governor, the shortfall was 18%. if we had done the things that my opponent suggested then -- and apparently is suggesting now -- in your home, in your hometown you would have lost

teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators in your school system, you would have lost police police officers in places like new haven, hartford and bridgeport where we're cut the -- we've cut the crime rate by 32%. and if you had a fire in your home, you would have been less safe. the reality is we have cut taxesment but the biggest reality is we inherited a gigantic problem, and i asked for shared sacrifice, and people responded. it didn't make anyone happy, but it was required. someone had to take charge and make decisions. i'm taking a pledge not to raise taxes, but also to make sure that we continue to have an efficient state government. that's why you should know that increases in spending are far below the rates of prior administrations during my administration, and that's the way it's going to stay. glsm mr. foley. foley: governor, why should anyone believe you? you've made so many promises that you haven't delivered on. you said you wouldn't raise taxes last time, largest tax

increase in state history. you said you would reduce spending. spending has gone up by 16%, $3 billion. you said you would bring down electricity bills, and you've loaded all these extra charges. whose electricity bill is lower today than three and a half years ago when you were elected? nobody's. so why should the citizens of connecticut believe anything you say and particularly with all the math, malloy math we have been hearing tonight? you have said six or seven things that simply aren't true, and i hope when this debate's over the media will look into them and will vet these things. there's no reason, sir, why anybody should believe what you're saying here tonight, particularly with respect to raising taxes. you did it seven or more times when you were mayor of stanford, you did it right after you were elected governor, and you're going to do it again if you get elected governor in november. >> moderator: mr. malloy? malloy: as i pointed out, the republican governors have raised taxes substantially in excess of what we raised taxes.

that's the reality. every republican says every democrat's a bad guy because they're going to raise taxes. i suppose what i should point out, tom, is that if you were going to keep the promises that you've already made, you're going of to balance your budget on the backs of local property tax taxpayers. that's the only way you can keep the promises you've done. and what we didn't do in the state of connecticut, unlike republican-led states like new jersey and others, wisconsin, we did not shift our burden to local taxpayers. whey? because of all the taxes that are -- why? because of all the taxes that are paid in connecticut, the local property tax is the most damaging. >> moderator: all right. mr. malloy. thank you, mr. foley, any more to say on this questionsome. foley: no. >> moderator: we are going to pause before we move on to our next set of questions. you're watching the 2014 gubernatorial debate here at the your jorgensen center here at u-conn.

stay with us, we'll be right back. ♪ >> moderator: welcome back. our next question deals with quality of life here in connecticut, and it comes from jen bernstein. >> thank you. mr. foley, both of you are from lower fairfield county and have endured major traffic tie-ups on i-95 and the merit parkway. what should be done to fix the transportation problems not only in fairfield county but at the bottle necks in places like water bury and new haven, and what role should public transportation play? foley: very good question, thank you for that one. i think one of the biggest annoyances other than the governor's tax increases are traffic congestion. listen, i drive all around the state, and as traffic congestion has gotten much, much worse in the last three and a half years, and i think it's partly because

we've underinvested in our roads and bridges, and we have underinvested also in mass transit. we have problems with our mass transit which has the potential for providing transportation services to people who don't need to use our roads and bridges. but the governor, instead of using the gas tax which is dedicated for maintenance of our roads and bridges, has raided the special transportation fund. that fund was set aside by some wise policy people who knew that if those taxes -- which is a user tax -- were put into the general fund, they wouldn't be recommitted to maintaining and improving our roads and bridges. and so they created this special fund. and that fund was supposed to be to protect that money that's taken from taxpayers and use it to maintain the roads and bridges. and this governor went in and raided that fund and took that money to pay for pet projects. i'm not sure where all the

money's gone, as i said, but it hasn't gone into our roads and bridges, and it hasn't gone into mass transit. we've had some major problems on metro north that have held commuters up for, in one case, several days. >> moderator: mr. foley, sorry to cut you off. your 90 seconds are up. mr. malloy. malloy: the allegations mr. foley just suggested were found to be untruthful. that happened over the summer. tom, you read the article. you should change your talking point. what we're doing in connecticut is investing in transportation at unprecedented levels, $500 million per year more than my pred set sor administration -- predecessor administration, $700 million more than the previous administration. what we're doing is investing in highways and bridges. and, yes, bus systems and railroads. we're making a real difference. just today i was down in norwalk

where we were celebrating the plan to replace the walk bridge where we just received $160 million from the federal government to help us in that cost. something that i lobbied for, met on multiple occasions with the secretary of transportation. what i like to see is that money come in, so that's going to allow us, actually, not just to fix the walk bridge, but three other bridges. i am proud of the commuter council has now endorsed my candidacy and has indicated to poem that they would be foolish, foolish to vote for tom foley. what we're doing in transportation is very, very important, and we will continue to make unprecedented investments. >> moderator: mr. malloy, thank you. mr. foley, your rebuttal. foley: in fact, governor, the courant article said you did raid the transportation fund, you just didn't raid it for $189 million, which is what was claimed, but you raided it for $40 million. that's a lot of money to most people in connecticut. listen, you say you've invest a

a -- invested a lot of money in our transportation infrastructure. you're all driving around connecticut. you see our bridges and roads. you're riding metro north. do you think a lot of money's been spent on our transportation infrastructure? governor, where has all the money gone? please, explain it to us. we simply don't believe you. i have some ideas for how we can reduce traffic congestion in one instance, in other states in some instances have been able to use tolls for traffic management, there are other good ideas out there. governor, you're not pursuing any of those ideas, you're just sticking with a plan that's not working. >> moderator: mr. malloy, your rebuttal. malloy: no thank you. >> moderator: moving on to question five from chris keating. >> the issue of gun control continues to divide the state. should the post-sandy hook changes such as banning certain assault weapons among them, be with extended or rolled back, or should they be left as they are

now? malloy: as someone who takes the safety of our citizens seriously, i am proud that the changes we made with respect to gun laws are making people safer. i'm proud that we're going to have background and have background, universal background checks, and we limit the size of the capacity of a weapon to get 94 shots off in just a few minutes. that's what happened at sandy hook school. we've also said that we don't want in the future additional of these weapons of mass destruction to be sold in our state. i believe in all of that. and i believe that we need to invest in mental health, and that's why we're doing it as well. my opponent, tom foley, is telling you that he would repeal that law. that law that allowed us to lower homicides in connecticut by 32% in 2013. that law that's making children safer in schools and on the

streets of bridgeport, hartford and new haven. that law which we came together on a bipartisan basis, the majority leader -- excuse me, the minority leader of the state senate, mr. mckenney, championed that legislation. and larry -- [inaudible] from norwalk coming from an urban environment, he championed it as well. tom foley will repeal it. i will never, ever do that. >> moderator: mr. foley. foley: listen, governor malloy is, again, not telling the truth. i never said i would repeal the gun law. and i won't. the gun law he passed, though, has not made people in connecticut any safer. we had a terrible tragedy in newtown, there were an awful lot of things -- and i said at the time the governor through the media, not personally -- but. , please, let's fix the problem. let's figure out what the cause of the problem was, and let's

address that and not do an overreaching gun bill which is what he did. the source of the problem at newtown was a mental health problem. and the governor had an opportunity to address mental health issues here in connecticut which i would like to address as governor. it's a serious problem. we don't have enough care for certain people with certain mental health problems. and i would like to solve that problem. he had an opportunity to take a good policy direction as a result of newtown, and instead he went off in a direction that was unnecessary, and when he did it, he took away rights of people who consider those rights important. and you recognize in our debate on tuesday night that those rights exist and are important. so why did you take them away with no beneficial effect? we're not any safer. this is a bill that's inconveniencing a lot of people. i haven't said i'll appeal it. i want to move on and address things that are more important going down the road and the future like jobs and the economy and getting control of spending

in the state. >> moderator: mr. malloy, your rebuttal. malloy: mr. foley, i've had a lot of respect for you over the years, but tonight you just told somebody, everybody in the state something that's not true. you have said repeatedly that you would sign a repeal of the gun law. you have said it month after month after month. and now that you understand people are catching on to what you would do to their children, to their urban streets and environments, now you want to fishtail around and flop back and forth and have it both ways. so be very clear, ladies and gentlemen, there's only one candidate out of three running for governor who will never sign a repeal, never advocate for repeal and never has. my opponent has done those things. if you believe as i do that these laws are making us safer, that they're connected with a declining homicide rate in our cities, then you should vote for me. and if you believe convenience

is more important than those laws, then i guess you're going to vote for someone else. but let me say this: that hunters still can hunt, gun owners still own their guns, those people who had high capacity magazine still have them. but we are building a safer connecticut. mothers, take care of your children. dads, teach them responsibility. but let's not go back to where we were on december 11th. >> moderator: mr. foley? foley: governor, when you started the rebuttal there, you said let me be perfectly clear, and then you said something that wasn't true. so let me tell you what i said. the governor doesn't make the laws in connecticut, the legislature makes the laws. so when i was asked if the legislature passed a bill to repeal parts of the gun law or repeal the gun law in its entirety, i said i wouldn't veto it. that's not saying i would seek

repeal of the law. i've never said that, and i won't. so let's be truthful with the audience and the citizens. [laughter] >> moderator: audience, please. moving on to question six then unless you have more rebuttal for this question, mr. malloy? thank you. jen bern seen, question six. >> mr. foley, this comes from the u-conn undergraduate student government. how does common core play into your vision for connecticut? foley: well, the governor had an education reform bill that i call education reform light. it really didn't include things that have a high impact on educational outcomes in other states, and it applied and mandated a number of things on all schools in connecticut including schools that are doing very well. we have some of the best schools in connecticut in addition to some schools that simply don't

perform very well. i'm a problem solver, and one of the things you learn is don't go fix things that aren't broken, so this governor imposed common core assessments on schools that are performing different assessments that they're satisfied with and they're doing a good job with educational outcomes. i don't know why he would do that. he imposed evaluations on teachers statewide, these were mandated in school districts and in schools even where local control was working well. and they had their own teacher evaluation methods. so i think this governor made a tremendous mistake in both the way his education reform bill was conceived and that it was never really implemented properly. it was not funded. he didn't go and fight for the funding in the legislature, and most of initiatives were never implemented. so i don't believe we should mandate common core across the state. i believe that was a mistake, and i won't do it when i'm

governor. >> moderator: mr. malloy. malloy: common core was instituted by a republican governor of connecticut and, yes, we're in the process of implementing it. i, working with, i am working with school districts all across the state to make that as easy as possible. that's why we've made millions and millions of dollars in technical grants, technology grants to school systems, and that's why we're reaching out even as we speak to the federal government to make sure that we can lessen the amount of tests that 3 -- 11th graders would take. tom talks about teachers, so let me share something with you. two teach or unions have endorsed my candidacy. and they did that after they saw what tom wants to do. he wants to take money away from schools that are poor performing and give it to other schools in that district. he wants to play a game with language and pretend that high performing schools aren't already busting at the door. and so he talks about allowing

people to go to those schools when i don't know of a single high performing school in the state of connecticut that isn't already filled. tom's plan would be a disaster if you live in an urban environment. tom's plan would be a disaster if you live here in the second district with some of the poorer districts that aren't urban. what i've done is send more money to your towns, and i'm going to continue to do that if i'm governor. that's a promise i've already kept and will continue to keep in the next four years. >> moderator: mr. foley, rebuttal? foley: yeah. listen, the two things i've proposed, and i've proposed this in my urban plan which most of our underperforming schools are in cities. i've proposed an a-f grading system so that teachers -- excuse me, parents understand how well the school that their child is in is doing. and so they can then make a decision about whether or not they want to move them to another school. governor malloy says i want to

give schools -- governor, you've already given a bunch of schools f, an f grade in your commissioner's network. and by the way, an a-f grading system was implemented by massachusetts and florida, two states that used to be behind us in their educational outcomes and have since passed us. massachusetts, in fact, is number one. so this is something that's been proven to work. and so has money follows the job. governor, you're talking about money follows the child taking money away from schools. listen, money follows the child both in florida and massachusetts worked. the marketplace works. we don't want to be spending taxpayer money supporting schools that aren't doing a good job. educating our young people. there's no point in rewarding failure. so those schools don't necessarily get shut down. you're reconstituting schools under your commissioner's network. that's exactly what this would do too. if an underperforming school is

not getting the funds it needs, it gets reconstituted and gets set up so it can perform better. >> moderator: mr. malloy? malloy: if you want poor schools to lose money and get worse as a result, then you should vote for tom foley. if you believe what he's saying about a-f and that i've somehow given schools that have competed, competed to be in the commissioner's network an f, he simply doesn't understand what we're already doing. and i don't think he does understand what we're doing. because we are proving turn around models here in connecticut. and some cases they replicate models in massachusetts and elsewhere, and in some cases they're home grown by teachers sitting around the table and coming up with a plan for higher student achievement. we're working together for the first time in a long time and, yes, the battle was tough. but we're there now. that's why graduation rates are going up rapidly in connecticut, particularly in our urban environments like bridgeport, new haven and hartford that have seen an increase in average graduation of over 10% in just

the last few years. the things tom's proposing are danger, and i urge you -- dangerous, and i urge you knot to accept his application. >> moderator: mr. foley? [laughter] foley: listen, i understand very well what you're doing, governor. you're not giving a decent education to 100,000 young people in connecticut. it's shameful. it is absolutely shameful. and you should be doing much more. and to be claiming credit for what you've done is absurd. listen, you have done exactly what i'm talking about doing, but you don't want to grade anybody, and you want to keep giving taxpayer money -- it's not your money, sir, it's taxpayers' money -- to schools that are underperforming. this is not solving the problem. and you talk about all the to have work -- tough work you've done. you refer only to two tests by

fourth graders who have gotten worse while you've been governor. two beats one, if you understand math, and that means we're doing worse. the achievement gap in connecticut is worse since you became governor than it was three and a half years ago. and guess what? connecticut has the worst achievement gap in the country. so, governor, i think a little more humility on the progress you've made. you can talk about things you've done and you said you were going to do, but you have made zero progress on education. >> moderator: mr. malloy? malloy: i'll stand by the teachers' union who have looked at your plan, who have looked at your plan, tom -- hey, tom, explain to people how taking money away from a poor school is going to make it better. try that with teachers in the room. try to explain how taking resources from districts that are already fairly stretched is going to do that. so i think this is a very important issue. tom talked about where we are? all of the decline that he talked about occurred under republican administrations. we were number one when we had a

democratic governor, and we will be number one again with a democratic governor. >> moderator: mr. foley? foley: governor malloy receives very large contributions from unions, over $900,000 contributed by one of public sector unions to his independent expenditures supporting his campaign -- >> moderator: mr. foley, i have to cut you off. your three minutes are up for this question. mr. malloy, any more to say on this question? malloy: no. >> moderator: we're going to take another break. when we come back, more questions and closing statements from the candidates. stay with us. ♪ >> moderator: welcome back. our final question has to do with personality and character,

and chris keating has the next question. >> mr. malloy, who has been the greatest influence on your decision to go into politics and why? malloy: well, my mother was. you know, i grew up with very serious learning disabilities and physical disabilities that took years to overcome. some people in those days, i use the term, referred to me as mentally retarded. my mother knew that that wasn't true. she stood by me. but she also had a different message. she said, dan, you have an obligation to leave the world a better place for having lived in it. even when i had to go to all my textbooks and listen on recording. even when i made a decision about applying for law school knowing there was a test one day i might not pass if i didn't make that progress. i graduated magna cum laude from boston college, and i went to law school, and when i took the bar exam in three different states, i was the first person

to take the bar exam orally in each one of them who wasn't blind. you see, i've been a fighter. i've done my best to fight for you. this state was in a lot of trouble when i got elected; 18% deficit in a situation i had nothing to do with. i hadn't been part of tate government. but we worked together. and those words that my mother said to me almost every day that we share this earth together, and she died 30 years ago. dan, you have an obligation to leave the world a better place because you were in it. every morning i can look myself in the mirror and say i'm doing my best, mom. >> moderator: mr. foley in. foley: well, i finally found something we agree on. it was my mother, also, who got me interested in politics because her family had been very involved in politics in wisconsin, and so we talked a lot about public service and making our communities and the world a better place and doing it by backing candidates, getting involved in the political process.

but nobody in her family had ever run for office, and so as i got involved in politics and got to understand how much power it has to shape the future and shape people's lives, i took the step over and decided to run for office. now, i have a lot of people i admire who have served in public office. teddy roosevelt, i think, was an extraordinary person. and, of course, ronald reagan was an extraordinary person x. going back to our founders and, of course, president lincoln. and the things that i most admired about them was their character. they were honest people, they were truthful with the citizens, they were ethically above rah poach, and they were guided by principles, and they supported the constitution of the united d states, they supported the principles that have made this country so great. so that's what motivated me. those are the people i would loo

to for guidance as governor and serving in elected public office. >> moderator: hard to imagine you would want to rebut each other on this particular question, but you do have time left on the rebuttal clock, so if there's more you'd like to say, you can feel free. malloy: i'd like to say something. tom has attacked my integrity several times tonight, and i've kept quiet about it. tom, that's not the way we treat one another. and, certainly, someone in a glass house probably shouldn't be throwing stones. i'm not the person who was fined by the elections commission this year $16,000. i'm not the person who failed to disclose to the fbi that he'd been arrested. i'm not the person who didn't tell the full truth about the incidences involving women in a car that you struck five different times at rates of speed going fast as 50 miles an hour. i'm not the person who denied the ability to get that police report when you could have gotten it. yes, tom, you've said a lot of things about me, but this is

what i want people to understand: i was a prosecutor. i tried 23 felony cases over a period of about 18 months. i had convictions in 23 of those cases -- 22 of those cases. before that i did investigations work, a lot of that having to do with sexual assaults and making people understand the law so that we could build a case against perpetrators. i'm proud of that record and what i did in those years that i was in the brooklyn district attorney's office. it's one of the reasons i took community policing to stanford and have brought it to other communities in the state. i have inspiration. yes, it starts with my mother, but i can look at what's going on in other places and understand that people don't always do what you do, tom, they don't bankrupt companies, they don't lay off workers, they don't treat people the way you've treated them in the past. you've questioned me and questioned my integrity, tom. i would not have done that to you. nor would i have raised these subjects but for the fact that

you've gone a little over the top. >> moderator: mr. foley, your response. foley: yeah. have you seen any of your attack ads? [laughter] yeah, you were a prosecutor. you're a better prosecutor than you are a governor, sir. listen, you repeatedly have not been truthful about things you've said about me including tonight. i think that leadership, an important aspect of leadership is being truthful. and you refer to a fine, i was never fined. by the sec but you, sir, were invested for corruption in stanford. you were investigated for corruption. i'm not sure what all these things you're talking about, most of which aren't true, but even if they were true happened 25, 30 years and do not have to do with connecticut's future. and yet you tying people up on television talking about these things when i'm sure they'd much rather hear about your plan for getting this state back on track and getting the economy going so we can create jobs and get people's lives moving forward.

malloy: be you believe in telling the truth, tom, why don't you tell us how you lost $2.8 million in two years and why you didn't pay any income taxes in '11 or '12? why don't you disclose that information to the public so they can put in context what you say is a great business career in and, tom, this is the we could time you brought up that investigation. you should tell the people out there that i was cleared, and i was thanked by the prosecutor for my frankness and giving them documents they could not have otherwise received. what you are doing, tom, is trying to imply that somehow i'm corrupt. i'm not. people who work with me know that's the case. they may have disagreements with me, they may not agree with the policies that i've implemented, but they understand that i work really, really hard sometimes perhaps too hard. and sometimes perhaps i take the work too seriously. that's a charge i'll plead guilty to. but i never have been charged with hitting another car five

times that had two women in it, tom, and then lying to the fbi about it. you did that. you got a job as a result of not disclosing that information. and then you told us that it was a minor traffic offense. nobody in this room thinks hitting a car at 50 miles an hour five times is a minor traffic offense. [laughter] >> moderator: mr. foley, you have two minutes and 55 seconds of rebuttal time left if you care to use it. foley: it's very interesting that the governor is talking about something that happened 30 years ago where there were never any charges filed, it was dismissed, and you're saying to bring up the fact that you were investigated for corruption and it was dismissed means i shouldn't brick it up? -- bring it up? listen, you're a prosecutor, you know that people don't get investigated where there isn't a lot of suspicion or reason suspect that something went wrong. and a lot of people are not charged with things when bad things actually happen. they just couldn't get the proof or there wasn't enough evidence. so, listen, we can either call a

truce on this stuff, which i think would serve the connecticut citizens well, or we can keep it going, governor. but i think what the citizens would really like to hear ises what is your plan going forward? you haven't talked about how your going to reduce spending. you say you're not going to increase taxes, but without reducing spending, you're going to have to increase taxes. your corporate welfare program isn't working, it isn't creating jobs. we lost 3600 jobs in august. why don't you tell us how you're going to solve that problem. we're not hearing any new ideas, and we're not hearing literally any plans that you have for the state of connecticut if you're reelected. >> moderator: all right, mr. foley, thanks very much. we're needing to move on to closing statements now, and i have to inform you we have enough time left for each of you to take 60 seconds rather than 90. 60 seconds. mr. malloy first. malloy: thank you for tuning in. we're making progress in

connecticut. tom might try to deny that time after time after time, but if you look at the cranes up in stanford, you'll understand things are being built. if you see the cranes in new haven, you'll understand that a company that left years ago is coming back and bioscience is growing rapidly not only in new haven, but in farmington. if you visit new london, you'll understand we're making massive new investments in that community as well alongside of the taxpayers. if you're from tourington, you're going to understand we're investing in your community. if you're in hartford, you're celebrating 1500 units of housing. and if you work for united technologies or any one of their 75,000 folks who supply them, you'll understand that striking that deal saved jobs in our state. >> moderator: mr. foley. foley: in four and a half weeks you're going to make a very important decision. do you agree with governor

malloy that everything's okay in connecticut, things are going well, that we're making progress? or do you agree with me that under governor malloy we've lost a lot of ground here in connecticut, and we're on the wrong track? governor malloy slapped the largest tax increase on you and your families in connecticut history. it slowed down the economy. he's failed to get spending under control. he's wasting billions of your taxpayer dollars giving it to large corporations on a job program that simply isn't working. and as you've heard tonight, he's not talking about any plans he has to fix your problems. i've talked tonight about lowering taxes, getting control over spending, reducing regulations and red tape to get job growth back, and with new leadership and smarter policies, we can get this state going again. and working together we can restore pride and prosperity here in connecticut. thank you for listening tonight. >> moderator: all right, mr. foley and mr. malloy, thank you very much. that includes the 2014

gubernatorial debate thanks to the candidates for participating, thanks to jen bernstein and chris keating, the connecticut daily newspaper association, the league of women voters for timekeeping and u-conn for letting us use this facility. have a good night. [applause] >> you're watching booktv on c-span2. with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, booktv, television for serious readers. >> here some programs to watch out for on booktv this weekend. on sunday we'll be live with joan biskupic talking about the supreme court and she'll take your questions from noon to three p.m. eastern. on "after words," heather cox richardson looks at the beginnings of the republican party. booktv visits boulder, colorado, to tour its literary sites, and books about the camp david accords, nazi-occupied paris, the war of 1812 and henry kissinger on