40 years of experience in business and military rising to level of three-star general, i have experience and i'm accountable. military service taught us that service before self. i have lived a life of service and sacrifice like all of our veterans. marine corps. taught to fight for the marine on our left and right because then we all fighting together. we must keep our country safe and secure. we must provide an environment where the middle-class -- >> expired. >> thank you very much. >> go to mr. johnson -- [inaudible] >> both candidates have claimed strong ties to michigan and for congressional district. the questions have been raised by each campaign about the other. how do you respond to the accusations you're it [inaudibl] >> i'm the fifth generation of my family and come up on weekends. i moved here in 2006. there were two significant periods where i moved away.

once to be with my wife and her job opportunities, and then i once when i was chairman of the michigan democratic party. i would respond by saying it is not about where jack or i lived in the past, but where our grandchildren are going to live and how do we great a better place for them to be in michigan ?aipt >> general, same question. >> my grandparents immigrated in 1980s grandfather a minor and my dad born there, and mid-20s he couldn't find work. i was born and raised in small town in southern minnesota that's where he met my mom. in 1980 i made a conscience decision to come back to my home. found property where i could afford it bought it and design and built a house and became a voting, member and part-time resident because i was deployed in military for next 14 years of water state. michigan, finally moved there in 2010. anybody who claimses that someone in the military is not cats is something i think that

needs to rethink when all of that qualifies for residency we certain at the call of the united states government. and we need to make sure that we understand that difference between living somewhere and serving somewhere. that's the key difference between someone who is a general, u someone who is an operative and i'm one proud. thank you. >> next question come from mark start with the general. >> began roads are some of the worst in the nation. every road commission must make difficult decisions on what does and does not get funded. what should be done at the federal level to address michigan's crumbling infrastructure? >> the federal level by and large is overstepped bounds in areas with a regulation -- underperformance, the area where the federal government opportunity understand that difference between roads and michigan and roads and mississippi.

i believe we need to have the states in control. don't take the gas tax dollars send them to the federal government and turn them back around to send them back to michigan. but the federal government's role should be reduced. we have agencies at the federal government who have overstepped their bounds, had decided to write regulations that masquerade laws, and we don't need that. that's what had bureaucracy and political insiders do. as an outsider, i'm going there to make sure that federal government decreases its role in those types of situations. >> mr. johnson. >> well, you know, somebody who drive north -- [inaudible] considerable amount, i do respect the rule that department of transportation and the federal government plays in bringing dollars back to northern michigan and as your member of congress i will do that. twhead for 18 years with congressman stupeback and proud to have his support and that's

the kind of member of congress i would be. >> next question come from nick, start with mr. johnson. >> and both of you campaign on job creation and first congressional district, tell us how you create jobs in both urban and rural areas of our communities. >> well, we need to invest in ourselves. you know, oftentimes you hear about accepting our tax dollars off to wall street. well last time i checked wall street is doing just fine. we need to do a number of things we need to bring high speed internet and mobile service to every single community. need to explore returning passenger rail service to bring more tourists up to spend money and finally get that new lock belt and work to get that puntedded it's been approved that needs to get funded here and we need to sink five, ten, 15 years heated to make sure our children get education funding they need here within local schools and in our colleges. >> general bourbon same question. >> most of the first district is

not urban or suburban it is rural. bottom line is when you have 32 square miles and 72,000 people you have challenges when you're that spread out. we in michigan are blessed with resources. whether it be on the water, on the land, or forest or in the ground mineral deposits we need to create an environment where we responsibly conserve welcome utilize our resources, so that rebring jobs and creatage environment where young 18-year-old with a good high school education and maybe a couple of years of tech school if they don't want to go to college, can stay here or they can leave for a while. maybe go in the military see what life is about. but when they come back here like i chose to some 30 years ago, they know why they're coming back. we have an opportunity to use what god gave us to create the environment that we want. >> mr. johnson like a rebuttal? >> yeah, in northern michigan we've led the world we led the

world in trade in 17 00 and minoring copper and did that because our forefathers, looked around said what do we have? we've got great land. we've got the great lakes, smart innovative hardworking poem and they invested in those assets and that's the kind of member of congress i would be. >> and i rebut that? >> rebuttal. >> let's talk about the sue lox for a moment. johnson mentioned that. that's law hanging fruit why not during that time i have no idea. point it is -- that it will be done during my time because now it has not only a matter of economic security. for the first district and greater great lakes area but also a matter of if national security. not only do you rebuild the lax, you expand the lox to be ready to take a large one. >> we'll start with general bergman. >> one of the biggest challenges

for local employers is keeping young talent here. many young people tend to leave the area for school and then never return. what should be done to change this? >> well, in the words of a native of newbury who left for 20 years, came back and successful business owner, and he said i think we don't need to create an environment where everybody stays. we need to create an environment where everybody can come back to. some people at 18 will stay. jobs a place to raise a family. but for most folks, at age of 18, they need to see a little more of the world. so i would suggest you rebuild the future of the first congressional district so that people, when they go away those who choose to can't wait to come back there, raise their families, and retire there. that's more long-term in the growth, the individual growth of the young men and women who are citizens, great citizens of our country. we owe them that, to show them

how good we have it up here. >> mr. johnson. >> we need to address first off, housing about when you're paying more than 50% of the income towards housing that's a problem. not only a problem for the effective individual but also problem to our economic growth. help wanted signs everywhere throughout northern michigan but it is tough for people to be able to afford housing. we have to also address our transportation system. you know, people are having to live further and further away from their employment and they're having to pay more for gas and it's -- it's a problem for them to get to work and spend you know when they're making ten or 11 dollars an hour and paying $3 a gas it can be awfully expensive. we also have to address working from home . we have yowrch need top bring high speed internet and cell phone service everywhere. we're massively moving as an economy where people can live and work wherever they choose but too many of our communities we have limit it does or -- very little access to high speed

internet and mobile cell phone service. >> mark you ever the next question and start with mr. johnson. >> in recent years michigan made deep spending cuts in order to balance the budget. what action should be taken in washington to balance the federal budget? >> well, it is a number of things. we have a 19 and a half trillion dollar debt if we don't get our arms around that and start addressing it, it will engulf us. number one we need to institute pay as you go. when you add to the federal budget you need to take something off. second, we need to take a look at our tax code it is 72,000 pages of tax code rigged for the wealthiest and well connected and stop giving tax breaks to korntions shipping jobs overseas. >> general same question. >> the -- spending in washington, d.c. is so upside down that we wouldn't know a budget if we saw it in some cases so we need a balanced budget amendment.

we need to hold accountable to say if you have a balanced budget amendment give us a balanced budget. congress then has to hold the rest of government accountable to ensure that balanced, the balanced budget occurs. we need to make sure that when you start, start this process, you send the signal. we have to cut the bureaucracies in washington, d.c. that are spending money that do not add value to our country. if we don't do that, we are going to be fiscally insolvent sooner than we would like to be. congress has to stand up to ensure that parking the bureaucs who are responsible do what they need to do with less money and less intrusion into our lives. >> mr. johnson rebullets? rebuttal. >> first thing we talk about

stop prioritizing social security. you remember to add that from 1 to 2 trillion to our federal deficit. >> nick your next question. rebullets? >> just a minute. just a minute. you know folks here we have a nice example of how political operatives spend, twist, turn your words or part of your sentences to deseeft deceive the voters but 2032 social security would be broken. 300 used to pay in for one collecting now down to 3-1 what do we co? we have to reform it so that our grandchildren have something to spend. the seniors, your benefits are going to stay exactly where -- >> your time is expiringed. nick your question, you'll start with the general. >> thank you. some calling to scale back air service that subsidize ises commercial air service to rural areas might not otherwise have commercial flights. so this is a two-part question

should the essential air service retain federal funding that is and secondly cutting fends for essential air service harm northern michigan? >> your time -- >> general. >> central air service program needs to be looked at because we have airports here in the first district. some benefit, some suffer. when i get to washington, d.c., we're going to look into that because right now there's a balance. between which share port we support and which we don't, but the key is to bring tourists and business into our airports so that is what they come hered to. business, and tour. though, we have work to do on them. >> i would work with the department of transportation to bring back every nickel we can get. you know about when you talk to people and marquette or in he hn they are important not only for their travel, to you know for their family and so forth. but it's also we're tracking

because we're -- we're becoming more connected world. people have the ability to work from home and they do it from time to time have to travel. we need to make sure we bring back the transportation dollars that we can keep our airports open in time. >> kristin start with mr. johnson. >> do you support resending nafta regulations harmful to the autoindustry? >> look, i would support you know free trade is important for our country, however, we are not getting fair trade. we are getting with this tpf trade agreement that is coming down the pike right now is negotiated in secret and it doesn't address some of the policy it is that ship our jobs overseas. specifically currency manipulation and labor standards. i would be for reopening naff is a opposing tpp as it is in current form. i believe these are shipping our jobs overseas and question of to do everything to keep our manufacturing jobs here in the first district.

we have over 40,000 jobs, 25,000 manufacturing sector and 20,000 in the agricultural sector that are reliant on fair trade and that's not at all what we're getting out of washington. >> general same question. i believe resend may be one word but as we look at trade agreement in general, regulation in general, we need to put some on most of these so we can revisit them when the time is appropriate because if you put something into law, into policy, into program if you don't have a set on it they're going to assume it is there forever. that is wrong with our government. that is one of the major things that is wrong with the frost federal government and bureaucracy president reagan said that closest thing to eternal live is a government program . we need to start putting some is set on so many of those pieces of legislation and regulation. >> mark please direct your question to the general. >> sure.

[inaudible] >> you have rebuttal -- >> this is an area where we disagree. my opponent has indicated he supports the tpp trade agreement, in fact, has said that there are some diswhroobs should be done overseas. i don't agree with that. i believe that we should be opposing the tpf trade agreement and that's a major area of difference between jack and i. >> rebut that? >> number two when it comes to the political operatives, spending twisting, answering some words that were maybe said one way to make sure that you don't really understand what it is that i might have or might have not said. i don't support tpp. clear and simple. it was in the middle of the night -- et needs to be redone. whatever comes up. >> mark please direct your question to the general. >> run into the strait been a device eve topic supporters say it provides vital and important link to drive our economy, opponents claim it is an

environmental disaster waiting to happen. what would you like line 5's future to be? >> general. >> i think that you're going to see a couple of different opinions between straight talk marine core general and political operative but number one, our environment is number one. it's critical. we're not going to do anything to harm our environment, environment -- we need safe waters, we need clean waters. we need jobs for tourism. we need to just maximize god's natural beauty that we have here. we need to make sure that pipeline number 5 if it is safe, it's safe. if it's not safe, no problem shut it down. but we also need to understand propane is heat most of our houses. three years ago when propane went to $5 a gallon some couldn't afford it and some -- couldn't even get it because of the fact that it wasn't available.

we need to make sure that we're smart and take care of our citizens. >> mr. johnson same question. >> once again this is a major area where jack and i disagree. he's said that shutting down or the continuation of line five in the great lakes is a business decision. well, protecting our great lakes is not a business decision. when it comes to line 5 we've got a 63-year-old pipeline and straits that hasn't been independently inspected. we need to do three things, shut it down and independent inspection conducted immediately, and third, we need to work with the governor's task force to make sure that it's safe. so that we can discover other ways to move this oil through another pipeline if we can. i'm not opposed to oil. i'm not opposed to pipeline safest way to move oil. haverel, a 63-year-old pipeline is in straits of mackinac is not a good idea. saying protecting our great

lakes is like that got into the flynt disaster. thank you. [applause] >> nick, your next question. [inaudible] rebuttal, please general. >> we agree on the fact that government is not a business. but the bottom line is because it's not a business, we can see what the results have been especially over the last eight years when you don't puns balance power in your government. so i would suggest to you, that in washington, d.c., we need to have some leaflet level of business mentality that allows us as a country to make the tough decisions we need going forward. politicians don't have that background. >> mr. johnson. >> well if jack was in michigan last year he'd know that flynt water disaster was caused by some making a business decision over right was people. we're asked to trust this line five by the very same people who were responsible for large fest inland oil disaster in the history of the united states

right here in the river in 2010. we're being told it is safe by the very same people who told that the flynt water it was safe. when it comes to our fresh water, i will be now turn to vigilance and i do not trust a business with the protection of our fresh water. : i would like to refrain from any outburst, clapping or other noise so you don't take time away from our candidates. nick do you direct your attention to mr. johnson. >> granted permission by an eight street regional exact to draw water from ganl yet the city lice outside of lake michigan's watershed. do you gay -- agree with this decision? >> no, this decision moves our if great lakes water outside pflt great lakes water basin and i believe that sets a dangerous legal precedence for our future we have 20% of the fresh water that means we have to protect it and against invasive species and present it against water -- of fracking which displaces so

much of our water, and we have to also create pibal a fresh water institute. to show the world how to use fresh water. we have 21% of the world fresh water right here. we need to show the world how to use and protect fresh water. when we do that, we can create an entirely new economy, and protect our fresh water. >> general. >> exact great lakes exact created ten years or so agoing and started to deal with issue of what do we do with water in the great lakes. where does it go? does it stay. fact of the matter is, 8% of that water is in lake superior. and lake superior is a border state between candidate of -- canada and the united states. we have to be wise about how we maintain our water in the great lakes and the reality is that is a -- if you will across the aisle bipartisan multicountry decision that has to ensure that our great lakes, our great lakes

remain under our control. but we have to negotiate -- >> rebuttal. >> canada is a member of the great lakes compact and i believe that will question set a dangerous precedence by allowing our great water to move outside of that compact. in 20, 30 years time when california and nevada come looking for our water, they will have more members of congress in the great lakes than members of congress and we have to start protecting now and setting the legal chain in place to protect our fresh quarter. >> rebuttal -- >> i didn't realize i said canada was outside of it. >> next question both candidates you have three rebuttal for the evening. christian your next question directed to bergman. >> michigan is the state rich in natural resources. they're critical for recreation and the economy. what role does the federal

government have in protecting our natural resources keeping in minds any possible impact on businesses and people? >> general. >> we know in the state of michigan how to live our lives, how to use our national resources. how to keep it in such a way that we provide jobs, we conserve our neacial name naturl resources so in michigan work together to make sure that we do the best job of controlling our resources. >> mr. johnson. >> we have an obligation climate change is real. we have an obligation to protect our environment. you know, our best assets here are people are in our great lakes. we have an obligation to protect our great lakes and our land. that means we need to continue the state and logging practices but we must keep an eye on our

fresh water. you know, we have the first congressional district has most fresh water of any district in america which creates an obligation of the next member of congress to show -- to show the world thousand use and protect fresh water. we can strike that balance, you know, we've always struck a balance here in northern michigan between keeping us beautiful and profitable, we can do both. >> mark please start with mr. johnson. >> what do you stand on protection of the wolf had is arguably eliminating much of the deer population in the upper peninsula and impacting the economy. >> i believe we should allow science to dictate our wildlife policies. science, not politics, and not emotion. science. ...

please direct your question to mr. bergman speak the cost of energy is high for some people in northern michigan when compared to customers in lower michigan. what is this and what specific would you do in congress to remedy the issue? bergman: our cost of energy has very because the federal government dictate what source of energy we can use, whether it be sat down of the coal plants with increases, whether hydroelectric plants which change the calls. we've got the federal government in our hair that is made life complicated. we need to make sure that affordable power across our grid

is available to all our consumers, some of the greater ability to pay and others. but it needs to be affordable and back up with an all energy all the kind type of mentality because we utilize what we have here in northern michigan. >> moderator: mr. johnson? johnson: the upper peninsula based the second highest rates in the country. we are in this jam because our leaders have failed to thank five, 10, 15 years ahead. we are left, especially the u.p. we are left with difficult decisions. we need to start thinking ahead and create energy sources here that are reliable and can provide affordable power, especially for our seniors on fixed income. i would like to call to governor snyder, put an agreement in place to put two generators in the western u.p. there were natural gas systems. i'm in support of that but

register think about renewable energy. we can create renewable energy throughout the upper peninsula and give us the energy generation and the liability we need. >> several states are challenging the epa's so-called clean power plan rules. they are gdp overstepped its authority under the clean air act when the agency issued rules to control emissions from coal-fired power plants. where do you stand on this issue? >> regardless of entire middle issue, hooking up to call is not a wise decision. we will be stuck to a market-based rate fluctuation. we have natural gas in michigan. we should be considering building natural gas powered electricity. in addition we need to be start thinking about renewable energy. regardless of where you're at on government overstepping our understaffing, we need to get off goal and move more toward

natural gas and renewable energy. bergman: i would suggest that's much easier said than done. there is a balance. there is a time. we do need to evaluate new technologies. we did need to ensure that our transmission lines and how we're looking forward to our generation in the future. epa is in the middle of it and all of a sudden business can't do what it needs to be which is do the r&d necessary to generate the power, the energy and utilizing of our water resources as best they can. we need to keep the epa in its box or maybe keep its box out of michigan. because they overregulate and we suffer for it. >> moderator: the next question for mark. >> a priority of congressman finish x. was veterans issues especially health care. would you address the needs of veterans at the local and

national levels? bergman: thank you. that's a passionate question, because veterans deserve every benefit that they get because they earned it. our veterans health care system is focused, pure and simple. dr. benishek gave it a good shot. it's a group working together to make sure that the it provides affordable care, accessible care because veterans don't have the opportunity or the desire to travel long distances. the veterans choice program was rolled out. it's a good start but their serious challenges with what the providers provide, and along the better has to wait. the veterans, and i said this in a larger forum, the va doesn't need all the large hospitals that has but what it needs is

clinics focus on behavioral health, ptsd, tbi, traumatic brain injury, and prosthetics. >> moderator: your time has expired. mr. johnson. johnson: i was in iraq in 2005 as a civilian. i saw firsthand what sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform and i will not be reminded what we owe them. we need to do three things. we need to increase our ptsd funding. we need to increase access and availability. there are serious reforms that need to occur. and third we need to increase funds for women's veterans. jeff bergman and i strongly disagree this i do not believe we should be closing down va facilities. this summer he said he wanted to shut down these va hospitals quote they were a waste of money. he wants to privatize these. even the american legion, the veterans of vietnam veterans of america, every major va federal

organization is against privatization. the va needs to be reformed but it does not need to be privatized. >> moderator: rebuttal. bergman: i know you in iraq and felt comfortable in secure because our marines were protecting you but you also added -- [applause] bergman: you also added as anybody was over there doing a little combat tourism, they were there to prosecute the fight. you ask that is what they want to they don't want big va hospitals along with away. they want health care close to them that they can go with their family, with a veteran oriented mission transit your time has expired. johnson: i risk my life for my country. i did not live in the queens of the i could live in an embassy i did not live in an army base. i was a civilian. i was there to help create a

political system so they'll put our troops could come home sooner. again, jack is trying to confuse you. you said in the past on record he wants to shut down for the hospitals quote they are waste of money. he is in disagreement with every major service organization in this country. privatization is not the answer. [applause] >> moderator: ladies and gentlemen, please don't apply. you have two rebuttals remaining each. nick, please direct your question to mr. johnson. >> would you stand on military spending due to the sequester? >> were energy am, we are in a sequester jam because our politicians cannot get along. our members of congress can't get along. in fact, jack bergman has said he does believe in compromise. that's precisely what has caused the sequestration. we need to members of congress

that will go and work on a bipartisan basis to get things done, not the representing a party. for 18 years we've had that and that's the type of them are i will be. as for sequestration i don't believe in sequestration should apply to our military. we must keep our country and homeland safe. bergman: there should not be a cap on military spending during sequestration. that doesn't mean the department of defense should not be held accountable for its spending practices. we don't need $300 toilet seats or $400 hammers. we need ammunition and weapons and gear that would give our servicemen and women safe in the fight so that they can win. as far as compromise, i don't compromise. i won't negotiate with you until the cows come home to make sure that we come up with a solution that neither one of us going in could have envisioned buddy will be to the greater good of our country because we negotiated in good faith across party lines, and that's what i plan to do

when they get to washington, d.c., is reach across party lines to ensure that we come up with the best solutions for our country. >> moderator: please direct your first question to general bergman. >> where do you stand on refugee settlement and deeply the u.s. is properly vetting refugees from syria? bergman: we have a challenge in this country by not knowing who is on our country. there are entities out there that choose to infiltrate us by using our immigration process, possibly our refugee process. the bottom line is we need to know who is in a country and we need to have a plan. i would suggest most of the people who come from other parts of the world are forced to leave their homes because of a conflict. they really don't want to come to america. there's a better place, a safer place, a closer place for them to go into ready to return to their homeland when the

situation is right in safer than. we need to make sure that we know who's in our country because of the fact that we are america, and we'll fight for what we believe is right but we need to secure our borders. >> moderator: mr. johnson. johnson: i believe we need to reform our immigration policies to keep us safe and give our economy functioning. number one, we need to increase our border patrol funding and give them increased authority. number two, we need to oppose blanket amnesty by encouraging illegal behavior. all we are doing isn't true urging future illegal behavior. and number three we need to address these visa overstays. with hundreds of thousands of people who come into our country and the department of homeland security has not kept an entry and an exit record. after 9/11 dhs was funded to do so and it has not been implemented. thank you.

>> moderator: mark, please start with mr. johnson. >> access to rural health care is a concern across the first congressional district. residents of most travel hours for their care. what steps w should be taken to move health care access across the district? johnson: we need to make sure we fund critical access hospitals. we have over a dozen. no, where that means hospitals that are in rural areas that are important to the community. we need to make sure they continue to get the federal funding for that. that's very important for the funded. we've got to make sure we don't privatize medicare. my opponent on numerous occasions has said he would seek to privatize medicare. medicare works. you pay for it. you earned it, and it's the recession. we should not be privatizing medicare. if we're to do it would drive up the cost of health care for our seniors and make healthier as accessible, more difficult for them. third, i believe we need to

allow you the cost of to go across state lines to receive health care insurance. not just be limited to what's available in michigan. bergman: the affordable health care act has almost decimated rural health care. number one, it's not affordable so that's the first lie. number two, politicians have made it worse by meddling in a. number three, the cost of medicare has increased. we have cut $716 billion from medicare to pay for the affordable health care. think what we can do in rural health care with that kind of money. increased in health care premiums have forced small business to take their employees out onto the market, insurance companies are getting out of the exchanges. small business and middle-class cannot afford the unaffordable health care act. we need to repeal it and replace it with something that works

with a focus in our case on rural health care so that hospitals can provide the level of care in the rural area that the physicians and patients can both say, that is the best step going forward. >> moderator: rebuttal. johnson: once again this is a major area where my opponent and i disagree. jack weinstein of medicare into a voucher program. medicare is extremely efficient. it is a 1% overhead costs versus a 6% in the private insurance arena. it works. we need to strengthen medicare. we need to give medicare the ability to negotiate with drug companies. that would drive down prescription drug costs by about 20-30% are not again hand over what you've earned over a lifetime over to private companies so they can make a profit off what you worked for.

bergman: my opponent has basically said in an interview, he is proud of obamacare and what it has accomplished. very recently former president clinton said it's the craziest thing i've ever seen. it doesn't work. so bill clinton says it. we know it's got to be true. [laughter] >> moderator: next to start with the general bergman. >> gun violence is making a lot of headlines right now and northern michigan has a rich hunting and firearms tradition the how do you propose addressing the issue of gun violence? bergman: number one, as a member of the united states military i swore a note to defend and support the constitution. i do that in an armed status so understand what violence is when it comes to utilizing weapons. the bottom line is we need to make sure that our second amendment maintains its

strength. it is not up for negotiation. unlike some of the folks who conflicts a nancy pelosi or hillary clinton, we need to amend all this or that. and guess what. we need to support the fact that we have the right to keep and bear arms and do it responsibly. that's what our country is about. johnson: whether you carry a weapon in war or for sport or for protection, you carry with it a sense of responsibility. we have that sense of responsibility northern michigan and that's why i've worked to protect the second amendment. in fact i received an a rating from the nra. i was endorsed by "the detroit news" in part because they felt comfortable that i would protect our second amendment rights inside congress. that being said, we have to i would go after some of the epidemics of gun violence that we've seen. we need to increase our mental health funding and increase our prosecutions of those who break

the law with guns. we have seen a 40% decrease in prosecutions of gun violence. >> moderator: rebuttal. bergman: might oppose is one thing to the nra but he also said another thing in an interview doubt in the detroit area couple years ago about agreeing with all of president obama's plans for gun control. so i would suggest to you we have a little bit of the contrast going here in the message. >> moderator: please start with mr. johnson. >> university of michigan football players recently made headlines by raising the this during the national anthem. where do you stand on this issue? johnson: there are plenty of ways to protest without disrespecting our flag and the sacrifices made by our members of the armed services. bergman: its leadership and its

respect. we live in a country where there is a responsibility of citizenship, and it needs to be shared with all. so mike white autosync not understand what it means. so it's up to us as a society to educate the folks who live within our borders what it means and how positive it is to be an american citizen. for someone, and i just couldn't assume they just did now in a better, they are leaders whether it be coaches, teachers, parents, mentors, needs to make sure that they understand that that is probably one of the disrespectful things that you could do in this country. shame on them. >> moderator: please start with the general bergman. >> northern michigan has a growing opioid and heroin problem. it is a problem for big cities and small communities but many of the smokey mary's do not have the resources to combat the issue. what are your proposals? bergman: number one, good family

environment, good decision-making leads to young men and women who know the difference between a good decision and a bad decision. it's the family basis, it's a faith basis, it's the community basis helps these youngsters understand this is not the right way to go. we need to provide services to the extent where they can understand that they need to live a clean her life because they will not live a long life if they continue that way. i believe this is an area that should be handled at the state and local levels. the federal government really doesn't necessarily understand the differences between usage in one area, state, as opposed to another area of the country. i think coordination between state and local agencies goes a long way towards helping the shelters it straight in life. it's a challenge and it's a problem. johnson: if you talk to ensure for prosecutors are these people coming from now from all walks

of life. these are people who are from church families, good family. opioid addiction is a massive problem in the u.p. and lower. rep to address that with to give it everything we have, federal, state and local need to work together. in part we have a drug problem because people have worked their entire lives, our jobs, construction, military, physical jobs and their blow out a knee or shoulder. they've gone to the doctor and they've had these drug companies push opioids on them. all of a sudden they're addicted. we need is to working with our drug companies to get them to find a treatment programs needed. we have a massive opiate problem to talk to any judge, prosecutor, sheriff and it will take all hands on deck including especially the federal government to go after this. >> moderator: please start with mr. johnson.

>> the typical college student graduates with nearly $30,000 in student loan debt. how do we change this? johnson: first off, we have to start funding of universities. state and federal funds towards our universities has been continuously reduced which is pushing the cost of further on the students. number two, we have to allow our students to refinance or debt. they're graduating with an enormous amount of debt and then not be able to produce a full in our economy, not by house, not get married, nepotism in our economy. that's a real problem in terms of our local economy. third, we have to attack this problem same way we did with the g.i. bill. you were there for my opponent that the federal government has no role in education. he was also paid to work for a for profit education outfit that later went belly up. the federal government plays a role in making sure that college is affordable and that we increase our funding for

students in college. bergman: folks, we do have a problem with college debt. i would suggest to you the student loan program as it exists today is the next subprime mortgage crisis waiting to blow up. the fact of the matter is college tuition has risen at a rate that is because the government has been a source of easy money. why not? government prints the money, colleges raise tuition, students end up with a debt. what happens? it collapses under its own weight. the reality of it is that we need an education system in this country that is affordable, that gives the government out of printing the free money to inflate the prices because of the student into shouldering the majority. when they can't shoulder it, you shoulder the load because they default. johnson: speaking of default, jack bergman worked when he was living in louisiana, shuffle

between we sent to d.c. work for a company that is now penniless. they produced a for-profit university system. look, we have an obligation to invest in people, not to send our dollars off to corporate wall street and see it wasted there. we have $174 million going to college students in the first congressional district. this notion the federal government can't invest in our college kids and into our students is wrong. it was good enough for the g.i. bill and we need to do it again. >> moderator: people to use of all of your rebuttals. please start with the general bergman. >> michigan is number two in the nation in terms of human trafficking. what should be done to combat human trafficking? bergman: i know i don't have any rebuttals left, but the bottom line is he had his information on the first and with my roll

but that's okay. that's what political operatives do. they twist, turn, d.c. the point is human trafficking is related and co-joined with how we handle our immigration policies, how we handle our law enforcement policies, how we handle all of those issues that allow us to understand who is in a country and for what reason. if you don't have law enforcement or immigration agencies talking across the board understand what the people are coming from, how they're overstaying, are the year legally or illegally, then you don't have a program to ensure that human trafficking is minimized. it is day on state on. it will be here as long as we allow it to be your. but we have to step up. johnson: we need to work with the department of justice can department of homeland security, immigration services to go after this in a coordinated fashion. we've got individuals bringing

young women into this country under false pretenses. essentially enslaving them. it is a massive problem that's going across this country and i believe it takes a federal response to bring the dollars back to the county sheriffs and local police forces to combat this. and recognize it when they see. and some is arrested and understand oftentimes local police forces do not understand that young woman of the mail that was arrested is a part of a ring. we have to give our local law enforcement the training and the funds to address this. >> moderator: please direct your question to mr. johnson. >> you have mentioned this topic. the first congressional district has a rising number of retirees. more will be relying on social security and many of them are uncertain about its future. what should be done about social security for this and future generations? johnson: social security is a promise, promise that was made

to you. you deserve a number of congress that's going to make sure that promise is kept. social security has been there through wars, recessions, stock market crashes. we have to make sure that promise is kept. the and is not moving social security off to wall street. the answer is not privatizing it. my opponent said straight to camera when asked, reformed or privatized, gave his answer of privatized. i do not believe that. that is wrong. we do need to make sure that it is kept small but and make sure every person pays into social security who receives it. we can lift the cap off 118,000, when you pay into social security you no longer ou are td after 118,500. if we can but that we can make sure social security remains solvent for the next 50 years. bergman: seniors are out there in the audience tonight and were

out there in television land, your benefits will not be changed. you have paid in your entire working career your you deserve it. you earned it. you wilyou would get it. when you think about the long-term of how we're going to shape this on world for our kids and our grandkids, how d do we ensure that salsa star he is there for them? we don't have the opportunity to continue the program as it exists today because under the current rules it will be dead, unfunded, the bank will be empty in 2032. we need to make sure that whatever the social security is at the future, needs to look like some cases defined contribution plans today were you as the individual control the risk of your investments so that you get a return on your money that you want. >> moderator: please direct your question to the general bergman. >> on process and low outlook approval rating. why is this?

bergman: thank you. you are sending the wrong kind of person to be a congressman. bottom line is if all you've ever done in life is be a political insider and have worked through the syste assisto whichever system, does it matter which party, the bottom line is if that's all you know, why should you have a high approval rating because you are not doing anything? we need members of congress have experience in fairies forms of leadership roles so they can learn to work together like good business leaders do. they are held accountable and responsible for the actions. folks, when you cast your vote you need to make sure that the person you're electing is not going there just to get another promotion under cover political ladder, but for someone who really wants to go there and do the job for you, the constituents. that's what will make the ratings go up.

johnson: we need to bring compromise and civility back to that takes lead by example. we had that for 18 years. he rolled up his sleeves and went to washington and work on a bipartisan basis to get things done. you can work with other members of congress without questioning their motives. we've got to work with both sides to get things done for the country. i have an experience of doing that. i have fought my own part on tpp. i disagree with many of my own party on the second amendment. in iraq i worked with both sunni and shia giunta only candidate who was the united mine workers and this year club endorsement. i have endorsement of market in traverse city. it's about working together. setting aside our partisan differences and rolling up her sleeves and getting the job done for the american people. transom that concludes the question porscha burke g-chats 60 seconds for concluding remarks. general, your first.

bergman: thank you apple for being here tonight. i'm a proud united states marine and i love our country deeply. that's what i decided to step up. november 8, you have a choice the good news is the choice is clear. do you want leaders with outsider experience, or do you want more political operatives to represent you? you want a straight talking marine corps general or do you want a partisan political speech we will be this now as you can find the rest of this debate and many others on the website c-span.org. now live we are talk show host from around the nation debate the candidates and issues in the 2016 presidential campaign at this panel discussion. thom hartmann computer with an joe madison are some of the holes at today's event. >> the first college to prohibit discrimination by race, sex, and wasn't advocates very much involved in the abolition of

slavery. reverend douglas spoke there several times. most of his pictures were taken at our college. also the second college to grant liberal arts degrees to women. we continue this mission at hillsdale college our speech digest, charter schools and this, the kirby center on the campus in washington, d.c. which is extent that teaching mission to the nation's capital. aristotle, the college after all, aristotle says that what is most distinctive about men is his speech and visible to think out loud about the good and the beckham the just and the unjust. speech, dialogue, discussion, debate is the key to education. which is why radio is important. especially talk radio.

in the modern commission chandra the most conducive to teaching. we've built a program at hillsdale college about regular thanks to among other a great friend who will hear from later. we have a boiled radio studio to promote broadcast you for visiting radio hosts and personalities. please visit it on the fourth floor. on our main campus where the radio station, brand-new radio station dedicated to the mission of helping hillsdale students learn about radio in the skills that will make them valid will contribute especially to the news, talk, spoken word show networks. wrfh radio free helzer, 20 '07 is doug ridder syndicated show student program and the general manager of the station is here with us today, scott, and if you students will probably try to give you some of you later today. we have about 30 students right now working on this come in this area, looking for internships

this coming summer. so again welcome to let me turn the program over today's moderate, today's leading authority on radio to education and public opinion as expressed in immediate, a graduate of hofstra university waitresses on its department of medications advisory board, michael harrison, my old friend has served on on air program director in long island, san diego, los angeles and boston. he was the owner operator of the the spr in springfield and has been on their personnel in numerous major stations such as the new york, washington, d.c. and other places and has hosted and produced national programs syndicated. i could go on. is currently the editor and publisher of two of you talk reduce leading trade publications, radio info and "talkers" which has been publishing since 1990. michael, the floor is yours.

[applause] >> thank you, dr. spalding. thank you very much. thank you to our very distinguished panel for coming here today and engaging in what should be a very meaningful viewing and listening experience. that's our goal, to make this meaningful as possible. this election cannot come at a better time for this debate which has been planned for years. isn't lucky they decided to have an election. the truth is i have been in discussion with hillsdale about this particular moment for the last two years and we had no idea that the arena, the territory, the ground that we will be dealing with will be so groundbreaking in terms of issues, in terms of the scenario, a paradigm at hand. this is going to be fun but i do approach it with in trepidation.

i believe a lot of folks will be watching and listening to what was edited. it's an honor to be involved with the allan p. kirby junior center for constitutional studies and citizenship. and with hillsdale college, a wonderful organization and as i said i'm proud to be a part of this. we have a host, a panel of hosts that represent not just the old left versus right paradigm that is dominate conversation in this type of arena for so many years but people who have dealt now with the fractures in the nuances and bustl the cell got wrenching decisions that the each have to make in terms of being true to the core values and true as broadcasters to their core constituencies. this has been indeed challengi challenging. it used to be checkers and now it's become just. those of you who know star trek, it's become three-dimensional chess, and beyond even that.

as we speak something might be going on that's going to change the nature of the discussion. let's get right to it. in alphabetical order, last names being the alphabetical order we have chosen, to my left is thom hartmann who is a syndicated host with wyd media. he's one of the leading progressive voices in media today. both on radio and television and in literature. to his left is hugh hewitt, have played a major role in this election, a longtime highly regarded conservative talk show host, syndicated nationally with salem radio network. next to him is a dynamo, a quintessential local talk radio broadcaster who has served her community in south florida for over 20 years, a recent recipient of the "talkers" magazine humanitarian of the year award, definitely a controversial, deadly opinionated and brave, kaufman.

next to joyce is a cultural leader in our kaufman, a man whose history is the stuff of movies get made about, recipient of our freedom of speech award in the past. actually so as thom hartmann been a recipient of that, and the humanity of the award as well. he's heard every word on sirius/xm urban view channel. his name is joe madison. thank you for being you. next to joe is a colorful individual who i met in washington, d.c. several years ago when it's working with breitbart news, and -- spin the older breitbart. >> i'm going to ask you about that. >> owned by andrew breitbart. >> okay, let. and that concludes your time. [laughter] >> larry o'connor is now close to one of the heritage rita stations in the top genre wmal in washington, d.c. and is the only a bright guy but he is a

very funny guy with theatrical background. into his left is a guy i've been saying for a number of years is a rising young star. is already not rising to music there, one of the most successful morning host in america at 50,000-watt flamethrower as we call it the business, debbie ph.d in philadelphia, chris stigall. there is our panel. [applause] >> larry, you start us off. you opened the door but what is the difference between right part today and breitbart back when you were there speak with i was make a bit of a joke but i think breitbart news now, well, the past ceo of breitbart news, steven and income and when those left the website to become the ceo of the trump campaign. i have been outspoken about the fact that during the primary process it's now been revealed that mr. bannon was a much in contact with the trump campaign, advising them, supporting them

clearly on the site. you could see a lot of support there. the reason i bring the distinction is that everyone has an interpretation of what andrew breitbart stood for and what he hope to achieve with his website. when i was looking for an which is pretty early on. i was to working in his basement with him when he started everything. i felt like he always had a great concerns about what he perceived to be what was called the democratic media complex which was a bit of the revolving door between the mainstream media and operatives within the democratic party and on campaigns. you can look at many of the people of you see in your living rooms right now on network and cable news and they'll have a history working for democrats. he didn't like that and he wanted to put an end to it or at least exposed. he didn't want to build his own conservative version of the. i wanted to draw the distinction and i wish the site now filled with of course i know many of the proceeds from the site go to andrews window into which is

important to me personally i left the site a couple of years ago. >> thank you for the answer. want to my concerns about this election is whichever candidate wins, i think the one issue i do get very, very political about is my support of the first amendment. whitesell to a police without the first amendment we don't have this thing called america. free speech is not always clean, not always tidy, not always pleasant and it's not always right. but it's why far the best thing that we have. i'm concerned about the future of the first amendment if hillary clinton wins or if donald trump wins, and i want to ask each person, i usually don't do one flesh of everybody but i think this is the core of this election campaign from the media perspective. let's start with thom. are you concerned about the future the first and then as it stands right now this election because of which way it goes? >> i am. specifically because donald trump has praised the model of

the uk, where it's perfectly legal to sue the press here there is no first amendment in the united kingdom. and have suggested, well, he is suing the "new york times" are now or at least says he is, i understand libel and slander and all that. there should be, their historical has been in the united states, first amendment protection and she's outspokenly said he would do away with that. i've not heard that kind of life which will hillary clinton although the clinton campaign has done a very good job of manipulating is almost too strong of a phrase. >> are you concerned that we doesn't do a lot of press conferences? >> i am. >> let's go to hugh. how do you feel about the first amendment as it stands right now for the results in the process of this campaign speak with very concerned. thanks to you, hillsdale, vince for doing this.

we could put you invents and the program director and a place, all five of us, talk radio. >> very kind. >> i think it's wonderful you would include someone like larry. [laughter] first amendment begins to accomplish some become astonishment of religion, it has not begun with press freedom. it is begun with religious freedom. it is my concern secretary clinton's appointment will be then quickly a bridge either the federal courts for exercise of religion and the united states so yes, i am deeply concerned. i do not worry so much about her appointments in the first amendment or donald trump in the first amendment with regard to press. i believe by executive order she will -- local content rules that will impact our industry and it will be upheld by a rubberstamp supreme court that she has been mostly i'm applied -- afraid of the first minute of the dire

threat you pose is spin joyce kaufman, what are your thoughts? >> they are similar to hugh's but i would add we have a campaign and the nominee with hillary clinton who has been given veto power over what the press is allowed to cover according to the e-mails that were revealed by the wikileaks. i think the press has done to itself more to damage their credibility that either of these candidates will ever do. i think as a member of the media i'm more concerned about where we are going and what they're going to do to us. >> do you think there is a cleansing process that could come out of this, that the meeting might come up better as a result of the discussion is getting? >> i hope so. it can't be any more degraded. >> joe madison, what do you think speak with i'm not afraid at all. wakeup. young people are so far ahead of us.

you've got social media. you've got snapchat your you've got wikipedia. you've got, you have everything person in this room, and all of you are nodding your head on that one, every person in this room that housed the iphone that can right now tweet anything you want. you can communicate anything you want before we even leave year. you can express yourself to the entire globe by using your thumb. i'm not afraid of this at all. at all. this is the era we live in which communications right now is that everybody's fingertips, and no one can walk in here and say or can't say, might disagree with each other but by the time we get out on the street, millions of people will have already

heard whatever you've had to say. so first amendment, i'm that worried about it at all. >> i will get back to that when it comes to the state of the media in the fractured lives paradigm of social media. let's go back to larry. your thoughts on the first amendment. >> i agree that social media allows for wide open free expression. however, the question is about the first amendment which covers much more than free expression as my colleague mr. hewitt -- may still call you mr. hewitt? >> are faster aspects that i am so honored to be on the panel with you, mr. you to ever since i was a very, very, very young child. [laughter] i've been listening to your program and it is an inspiration. your stamina and your endurance. [laughter] spin that's why i'm not afraid of the first amendment. [laughter] spinning but freedom religion is part of the first amendment as this freedom of the press.

mr. hartman, you afraid donald trump if he were to be president would do away with libel laws to there was a time when we the people did not fear and executive action to do a way with the law. that's not how it goes. he can't do that unless he behaves like our current chief executive. however, as professor points out, what hillary clinton could do with regard to local controll to the fcc can that can be done through the executive branch and are represented in congress was in her nothing to to say about and that is a fear. >> and chris? >> i find it generally stunning outraged and offended it seems so many people are about free speech these days. in a lot of ways in a lot of corners of the country would almost seem to be regressing in terms of what we are willing to tolerate the that bothered me. people talk about colin kaepernick needed for the national anthem and call that his first amendment right wing in fact that really is u is note first intimate is about at all.

as hugh said it's about an establishment between a government establishment. it has nothing to do with private enterprise. it's a selective outrage i would say that's a growing toward certain kinds of speech. that bothers me. i would rather see a more consistent across the board application of the outrage. >> joyce kaufman, you and i had an interesting conversation which is published on "talkers" in the up close and for a podcast. you are talking about a political class and how it is, we should not worry about the fact that it's taken a tone that some people consider degrading, that it's exposing people for what they are on all sides which we will elaborate on that. >> i'm trying to remember where we were going with that line of thinking, but i'm convinced that the politicians have gotten altogether too comfortable and that the press has stopped

holding their feet to the fire. so i think what ended up happening was that people took back radio and took back through social media, as joe points out, took back a lot of their voice from us. they are demanding more answers and they are tired of being told what to do and how to think, whether it's on the left or on the right. so i think that truly it's been good for the political process. isn't that supposed to be a lifetime appointment outside of the supreme court, and i know congressman who have been sitting in their chairs for 40 years, longer than that, and it's become very untouchable, very approachable. i think it's a good thing that we are all yelling at him right now. >> and did it exactly the way i had hoped you would and you're right on target with where i was coming from. forgive me if i was vague. one of the things that marks this election, again i view it

from the media lens and the media lens is that it is a commercial enterprise. people want to get ratings. they want revenue. they want to keep their listeners happy and there's a lot of preaching to the choir that has gone on in talk radio but this year it's been difficult because there have been civil wars among the choir. many hosts have found themselves faced with a decision of whether not to speak their minds and go with their hearts and their core values, or to cater to it seems to be maybe a majority of what used to be a unilateral spectrum of positions. hugh, i'm going to go to you with this. before do i want to mention, notice i have helped anyone here as either being a hillary or trump supporter yet. there's been a reason for that because there is a degree of nuance, ambiguity involved in getting behind these candidates. both parties have seen him of a civil war we haven't seen in the modern era.

there are parts of american history where they have actually shot each other in duels, but this is a contentious time. it's been fascinating watching you as a conservative dealing with the donald trump. we have seen it on television. we've seen you go up and back within. what is the status of the and how do you do at this point in supporting or endorsing or neither of this candidate? >> first thing, i wake up on events until a note of fear that the kirby center is maintained the framing. this is the constitutional deliberations in philadelphia in 1787 lead at the ratification in 1789. there was a lot of suspense about the outcome both at the convention which conclude in september and the ratification a year and a subsequent. they waited upon events. so i'm waiting up on events. i will say i find it remarkable

that despite the amount of big give-and-take on the republican side, the conservative side of the aisle, it is not been that way on the left side of the aisle, of the dial when, in fact, there is proof positive. i think reince priebus rent if eric and i was part of it and a note the rooms were fair and the approach was there and it went out the same questions and everyone was dealt fairly and the votes were counted. mr. trump won the nomination. people can deal with it on the democratic side there's a big game from the beginning. they were, i don't know if thom was with burning or not. i don't know if anyone, but if i were with burning i would realize i had been played for the fool and he never had a chance. while there's been quite a lot of vigorous disagreement on the center-right about the candidate and where we're going and some of us are reserving judgment and others all then, i just don't understand how on the left the bernie people can abide this

would have been played for fools. >> let's go to thom hartmann. wonderful segue. how have you been dealing with all this speak with not only was i a bernie supportive but bernie had been on the program every friday for a four under a full hour taking questions for a full year my audience was very familiar with bernie as well. i was very disappointed by these revelations. frankly, a larger concern is what happened in our media. this is what i was astonished to hear two of you say you are concerned local control of medium i become down the road which is called competition. right now hear the majority of the large reader stations in this country owned by two companies who could have an ideological bias. it's, if you look back at coverage in the media, i think it was abc was the most egregious for something like in 2015 which was the kickoff, except the whole thing, trump got and you probably know these

numbers better, six, eight hours. bernie got 18 seconds or 20 seconds, less than a minute or a couple of minutes. i would say that to the extent the democratic party, the inside from the friends of the clintons were trying to grab these things, i don't disagree. but i would say the media was even worse, frankly, in a way that they treated that candidates. it was a series came to see. i think if you got and equal treatment he may well be the democratic nominee for president. that issue and one of things i think local control of media is a good thing because it encourages diversity of opinion and encourages competition. so anyhow. >> have had the opportunity to speak with in recent times hillary clinton? >> now. >> is there a reason for that? >> she is not generally available to the press. we discussed this earlier. >> keep in mind that this man is

one of the leading spokespeople for the progressive point of view on radio. and you're supporting or speak with yes. i said when i endorsed bernie at the beginning i said i'm endorsing bernie but i will support the candidate. >> joe madison -- >> i have already interviewed hillary clinton. she has been accessible to my show. so i don't, i totally disagree that she's not accessible. look, it's interesting come and go to speak from a different perspective. i'm looking at the same -- great, iconic constitutional picture you're looking at. but i am saying something entirely different. there's something missing. black people and women. they are not up there.

they don't represent me. i don't represent my interests. so as i listen to what happens inside the democratic party over what happened, i think many of us who are old to remember, republicans played a lot of games in the past, too, when it comes time to decide who's going to get the nomination and who's not going to get the nomination. i'm of the opinion, the only recent donald trump, not the only reason, one of the reasons donald trump got his nomination is billions and billions of dollars worth of publicity, of attention, that he got. he even had the candidates from the pulpit the say to. he would mention bush's name are the candidate's name, as much

attention as you mention donald trump, who knows who you would want? and when it comes to civil war within political parties, be very careful, everybody. the democrats have had a lot of civil wars. the kennedys and the carter's, 1968 in chicago. this is the nature of political parties. and i think part of the problem we have in the media today is too many, and it's not the people on this panel. this is a very distinguished group of thoughtful individuals. but too many young journalists, too many people in the media have no institutional history. i swear to god, i have said this in journalism school, i would never major in journalism.

i would major in politics. i would major in economics. i would major in history. because of journalism has come to be nothing now but pretty faces and fear, fear that it might ask the wrong question to a candidate that may be popular, or to a personality that may be popular, once again, the social media will start tweeting and i will lose my million dollar job. it is absolutely embarrassing to listen to journalists who don't know the basic questions, the basics, position, basic lesson to learn in journalism, at the next question is always based on the last answer. instead of having a freaking list of questions that you've got to go -- >> the art of the follow-up is deadly -- speak i've got to get

to those questions. >> i am going to jump to crest. >> and that's the other, and i will close with this. we have to learn how to appreciate each other's different perspective which, by the way, perspective is based on what? experience. my perspective is -- >> may i add one thing? in 178 1787 thank you with were digging figures and ireland at my wife's family were -- >> the idea the -- >> in 1787 my ancestors want a slave ship that they didn't ask to come there. spew the ideas represent all of us. liberty. while you were true that slavery is, in fact, part of the legacy of half of those men, it is the ideas they debated. >> their ideals it didn't apply to me. it didn't apply.

>> the 14th amendment -- >> we have a civil war. let's quit this. i mean, wait a minute or i'm sitting here and i'm listening to someone tell me of course what was happening -- whatever your interest i'm trying ancestors were doing, they were free. they did not shackles spewing let's set aside the answers for a moment. they are creating a sense of government in the picture and isn't that exact same system of government that allowed barack obama to be the president? >> wait a minute. 250 years later after civil war, 100 years of jim crow, i will give you your argument. >> but doesn't that actually prove the system of government they created -- >> yes, it does. >> that would be on all the other things that have to happen for us to reach this point? the system of government is of the same speed and it never should have happened this way.

>> let me jump in at this point. joe, please. you said you were finishing up. >> they kicked my ancestors freedom down the road. .. in your microcosm of the world, where do you stand and

what are the issues that are being debated about this election among blackpeople ? >> answering that question means politicizing it. if you listen, if you listen, you would know and we get this question all the time. what do you talk about, urban youth . everything that from our perspective which is based on ourexperience, we literally talk about everything . today we talked about diane feinstein's comments, today we talked about citizens and women, we debate. i have people who listen to me who are down at the dod

and i have the secretary of the navy but my question, it would be rude for me to say i was here and please,please, give me a break . let me do my job. let me do my job joe. it would be rude of me to come up here and say i listen to him and here's what he does. i'm giving you the opportunity to express what you do and that's fine but i ask you the question, where do you stand on the conflict that exists among african-americans. what is your position and what are those key issues you had to take a position on. then we will move on to somebody else, chris i don't speak for all african-americans and there's no black person in america that speaks for all african-americans. >> i indicated that. >> you did say that. >> i said there's an opinion among african-americans, how do you as a talkshow host you

with it and where do you stand on that spectrum. >> you speak for african-americans and women i said you were speaking on behalf of americans and women, this panel and that which you answered and you said that, irepresent it. don't messwith me, i'm going to be able to hold it so to toe. i don't want to debate you, i want to give you a chance to say what you have to say so why don't you do that? >> i'm glad you're i have your permission. >> i'm the moderator, of course you have my permission. >> tech and thing is , and i answered the question directly . we talk about everything. everything, not too long ago, i'm not going to pigeonhole anybody up here, do not pigeonhole me because i'm an african-american. we talk about every thing that white folks talk about, everything it should be pointed out that we all do morning shows and it's now 11:30 and we've all been up

since 3:00 in the morning and watching the national game but i don't know about you and it's usually my naptime. >> i have to chime in here because i'm hispanic, i'm a woman, i'm married to an african-american. i have biracial children and grandchildren and they don't have a home in talk radio. so i think that's important. who is being served by urban radio is not all black people. some of them actually listen to the other conservative hosts because that's where theirideological home is and they actually feel very ostracized when they listen to for instance a steve harvey orsomeone like that who is so completely one-sided in terms of the politics that they don't have a home there . >> .

[laughter] we have armstrong williams and the candidate that question. we have everybody. my god, you could say that a lot of about a lot of the talkshow host. >> our radio station, i was at a radio station in philadelphia, literally ww dd. i was fired because. [inaudible] and i was the only black person on the air. this was 5:30 in the morning by the way. >> the problem with dealing with you, joe ... [applause] is that when i address you as somebody who can talk about african-american issues, you always say why me? and if i ignore the fact you

are african-american, you say were not bringing african-americans in the discussion, why do you demand on having it both ways? >> i don't demand on having it both ways. >> i will don't want to bore anybody, i want to go to chris siegel. >> what i'm trying to say is, i think part of the problem we have with media is that we still realize in 2016 we all are extremely diverse. i'm not doing the radio host this morning where there were race riots and. >> but race is a major component of this year's election and race is a major issue. >> i want to know why you think you are with hillary clinton for instance than any other host i know. >> would you like to respond to that? >> joe is a damn good talk radio host.

>> chris siegel, who i was trying to get to earlier with a follow-up question. >> i like to go on record as saying i am comfortable speaking on behalf of all the fat, bald, white middle-aged men in the country. >> i forone speak on all their bass .>> do you see yourself as speaking on behalf of a certain segment of the public and who are they and how do you deal with it when sometimes you find yourself not in agreement with them? >> while this has been a frustrating primary, no doubt about it as a conservative to this, i have always complimented conservative talk radio audiences as the smartest i know because they are so diversified, more than ever before, this republican party is about as deep a bench and is diversified in thought as it's ever been, maybe to its peril. is it ugly and are we

watching other sausages be made, you bet. but to hughes point who is overseeing this, i don't know how it could have been, the wound was dating and all of a sudden we have what we have and i'm awfully proud to be part of this movement and ideology an audience or whatever. as the freedom of thought to not marginalize and i think it's going to help with that. maybe that's pollyanna. maybe you don't want to listen but i don't know, the idea of unifying lockstep behind the nominee, i don't agree with. >> i think democrats would reverse that issue. what do you think? just in general, are democrats in a target to talk to and acquire and assume they all have a similar point of view?the things people ask me, how are they more conservative than liberals and it's a complicated question, folks, one of the many answers is that the card-carrying conservative over the last 25 years is much more of a unified of a

cultural mind then necessarily those that would vote democratic. that's just my observation, you may disagree but one of the problems that conservative hosts face today is something that liberal hosts have faced for years, that may not necessarily are talking to an easily targetable audience at this point. tom, you have an expression of bewilderment on your face. any response to that? >> the party, what's the old saying? you can't say yes, sir and the democrats, in the democratic party is like herding cats. >> i don't belong to an organized political party. >> some variation on that, yes. what i think is fascinating, i'm more fascinated with the republican party right now because you have andrew baer of the republican party,

donald trump standing up during the primaries and say george bush was president of the united states so the invasion of iraq was done for political purposes and with terrible things at stake, that the so-calledfree trade deals, every single one of which , 100 percent in our trade relations with china which is not a trade deal, every single one of these has been passed with sort of a majority of republicans in both the house and senate, opposed by amajority of democrats so again, these are all , and he says he wants to do a capital gains tax and carriedinterest . >> is tom endorsing trump, this is a challenge on the aerial radio because i'm going on the air saying oh my god, the talking points out of my shore out of one of my books.i've been saying this for years and what i find fascinating is that he sees

the entire field of republican ideologues and candidates, he uses democratic talking points. i get that he's shifting back to the republican corporate talking points, maybe we don't need to do away with the capital gains tax, things like that. we will renegotiate trade deals rather than blowing them off and going to an open trade system but it's just fascinating and i think that he's blown a hole in the side of the republican party. people are trying to figure out what, is there any ideological coherence to it was just donald trump. >> couldn't you say bernie did that to the democrats? >> you could argue that but if you go back to, to the franklin roosevelt administration and go through this list of things, in particular his second bill of rights which he rolled out before he died and made ,

never made legislation , that there was not a single position that was not a classic fdr position, arguably to a larger extent the lbj administration. so no, i don't think bernie was normalized, he was a classic blue state democrat. over the last 20 or 30 years the democratic party has gone further to the right then the middle which in my opinion is good thing, you reinforce the point here which is if you buy into the idea that the majority of conservative talk radio are right leaning conservatives, then i don't buy that point, then this season certainly illustrates the diversity of opinion amongst that audience as chris pointed out and buy donald trump utilizing some populist protectionist and isolationist rhetoric, he was able to win the nomination and you can look at the pro-voters and the buchanan

voters and the ron paul libertarian voters over the last 20 years and there's a little bit of their message in what you just described. >> i don't disagree with that. my take on it is in particular when you look at things like trade that basically the republican party sold out to large corporations, billionaires of the reagan administration and it's been basically the ardea billionaires and corporations ever since, serving one percent. the democratic party is the largestinfrastructure serving the interest of the bottom 90 percent and . >> didn't both democratic party president put those trade programs through like nafta? >> nafta was negotiated during the bill clinton administration, you are absolutely right. but it was opposed by the majority of democrats in the senate. my point is republican party has been running this scam on their own voters for 25 years , reaching out and saying abortion, abortion, gays, gays, guns and god and

getting people to vote against their own economic self-interest and it's all about the money for the vast majority in my opinion of the electorate. >> it appears to be what you're saying is once a democrat becomes president they then change their positions. >> no, what i'm saying is quite like when george did when he was president. >> what genre trump did as he pulled back the curtain and exposed the scam and the voting base, you are saying the base is quote, conservative. i'm saying they're not. >>. >> i'm saying we have a diverse body. >> i think most republicans want white eisenhower back. my dad was a dwight eisenhower republican and dwight eisenhower and hillary clinton are not that far apart on most issues. >> what will happen after the election is there will be a continuing sentiment in the party, everyone's going to be back on the position side

against the government because of the party, we believe we have to rule the government and democrats are for the people and i wanted to say the reason talk radio can't survive is quite simply when i get up in the morning and i'mwatching it six or nine in the morning i'm competing . where do leftists go to live? is run by leftists, it has a populist coastal elite leftism shock to it, i worked at pbs for 10 years. that's why they can't get going. all the left is like this. once the government inspires leftism on the radio it's all for me. >> playing devils advocate for with you, at what point does a president do something to a conservative, where is that line? >> when you believe that 50 percent of the government gdp is okay, tom just agreed with me about white left-wing radio ...

>> it's not the only reason. >> a large piece of it is who is going to advertise on a program where the host spends the dominant time talking down to businessmen, claiming that businesses are what is ruling this country. >> i don't know any leftist hosts that say that. i've boosted seven is mrs. in my life, i'm pro-business. one i'm opposed to is monopoly. there are monopolistic companies out there that don't want advertising on my show because i'm opposed and i'm in favor of competition, i'm in favor of the american way area so be it but we have no problem getting advertisers, i think you made a good point and also as i said earlier, in the radio most of theconstituents there are owned by two companies that have in my opinion ideological bias .>> are you concerned. >> i work for one of those companies by the way. >> is there any ideological

bias from the top of the companyto their own program director, it doesn't happen . >> what are your programs? >> but that means its successful programming that appeals to an audience. >> our share in miami, they took us off the air when somebody lost an election and this was, i believe this was after and they flipped, it's never been have to share. i was beating rush limbaugh. >> there were worse off in sports, it's never pulled the same kind of ratings but it's at least ideologically to the right to jump in on that as an observer of this for so many years. i do not believe there is an ideological basis to any of these companies in terms of broadcasting but rather their belief in ratings and revenue. >> they belong to the green party. >> i remember when rush limbaugh was far more onerous on radio than it was today, many of them looked to me, i don't agree with a this guy says but he's making the

ratings go up, he's creating a buzz and as long as he's good for my business, i'm for this guy. i do believe and i'm troubled by the fact that spoken word radio is not completely fair all the way across the spectrum, i would love it if businesses were to support that thing. i do believe that most of the captains of industry in the radio business are not theologically driven. rather, their concern about ratings and revenue. some of them, not naming names, but some of them have proven to be incompetent at executing that and what happened in miami might have been in confidence as opposed to ideologically driven but a lot of what happens in corporate america and we are seeing it in the extreme corporatization of the radio industry is that corporate america finds something they think works and that's the only thing that works and they duplicated and they build it up and they stick with it and for them to talk

about certain types of talk radio because they already have a predetermined decision thatit won't work . not because, they would put anything on and we're seeing that, it's one of the problems with the discussion in the media today about this election and how low it's gone in terms of highest and lowest common denominator, the networks and the big-time media are thrilled they are getting such attention and such ratings, they sold out the whole of the country for the buck. i don't believe that these radio companies, have some type of political motive. >> michael, i would add not only do they not have an incentive, it has been my experience butguys like rush limbaugh and the lineup on my car , it's extraordinarily difficult in a lot of markets to sell that guy. there are what we call no buy, no rush meetings.

most companies are familiar with doorknocking to make a pitch and no, we're not spending money on rush limbaugh. what's real, you want to talk about a kill to free speech, people that are terrified to spend a dollar on rush limbaugh's show, no matter what you think of his politics, they could reach a lot of people if they didn't but the jews do not because they are terrified of the backlash they receive if they did it and i think that's a terrible place to be. >> i absolutely agree. >> the ideologically, thank you for the departure, television and radio, rush as an anchor store, that's an anchor store and unfortunately i like being fortunate. i'm not naming any of this richard but all the broadcasters have one rendition, always full because the country is one, next year is going to be the real challenge. next year is going to represent a great deal of

buyers remorse and a great deal of disgust no matter who wins and keeping the media afloat will be a challenge that will require a great deal i think of ideological pairing. >> i've always thought of you as a ross dress men. >> i want to do something and you, i want to modify something i said. when i talked about radio, obviously different companies have different levels of virtue and commitment. your company salem, i do believe havingobserved this long has an ideological bent . >> i do get that feeling. it's only fair to mention that. >> i'm going to jump in on this and say that first, i miss the fairness doctrine. i miss. >> again, i'll tell you why.

when i first started in talk radio, 30 years ago, i had a responsibility, i had to assess the size of the issue. if i interviewed a republican, i had to give equal time to a democrat. and i had as broad an issue, i had to be able to borrow argue both these issues from the position and i think that fairness doctrine, when it went away it signifies, here's what we do. we get two thirds of the vote over here and the liberals, progressives but i miss the days when the 10 couples and the walter cronkite's and individuals in the barbara walters, whatever you want to call them or the bernard shaw, these are men and women who by the way argued both sides of the issue.

i miss the old tv show that they used to have point, counterpoint. >> i really do miss that. >> i have a question. my debating justice prior to this was in my studio that you are interviewing to smart lawyers. >> i would interview to dump lawyers let alone smart lawyers. >> i would want to interview you and justice prior. that's what i would do. >> i believe were asking him on the opposing viewpoint. >> but again, justice breyer and tomlinson used to tell andthen that means that you and i or whoever , we've got to create to address both

sides, i'm just saying that's one of the things that i miss and i would add one other thing and that is after the election, if you listen to donald trump, he says what's going to happen if he doesn't win is a conspiracy. and he's already sold and wanted and the folks earlier, he's already condensed all the views. what if you are part of the corporate media and he said yesterday, you guys are conspiring to bring him down. so i don't understand you how you sit here and talk about what's going to happen after the campaign . >> how do you feel about that? >> i don't have any problem with fairness. i think that's an individual broadcast responsibility, not the government telling me i have to be fair and if i interview the republican

candidate for congress, i interview the democratic candidate for congress. they seldom show. therefore, they're not addressing their voters so why waste their time? the same is true as to why hillary clinton would go on radio stations that it's a particular demographic that she is looking to get to vote for her. you are a great radio or a great conservative radio host, you'd have a lot of trouble getting hillary clinton onyour show because they're opposed to having an ideological debate. i think it's because they would lose.>> it won't be a great aggressive radio host . >> i want, and maybe this is the corporate end of me, i want everybody's money. i want everybody to listen to me and to the a critical thinker. now, i know what currently

exists. this is where we are now and there's not much that i can do about it. there's very few middle-of-the-road outs where you've got to get hired because you aren't archconservative or you can't hire because you are. >> that's part of the pre-existing bias that exists in corporate media . that you have to have a situation, don't stop . >> would you invite thomas on your show because i love that interview. >> again, for the very reason you say hillary will come on your show, you won't come on my show . >> really? >> i'm telling the truth. >> i might give you a fly in, my hyperbolic expression of incredulity was not that you were not beingforthcoming of the truth . >> donald trump won't come on. and the last time that i had,

let me say what happened. the last time that i had a candidate that walked outof the studio, glenn beck . glenn beck didn't want to come on. he walked into the studio because he wanted to see what our studio looked like. he came in, glenn got back, i said comeon, we are on the air . i asked him, what did you call president obama a racist? he said no, i never did. >> i said yes you did. he said to me, oh, i was confused about his position on liberation theology. i said okay, he goes back outside and then says don't tell anybody we were on the jewel madison show. we were already broadcasting. but this is what's going on

and i'm telling you, it's crazy but it's selling and let's be quite honest. donald trump, he's absolutely right. corporate america has bought into some of this and it will change all of usagain and we'll either adjust or we will be out of work . >> would you support trump on your show? >> i think there's a point not to, i have a strange opinion about my role and we were talking about this. we had this conversation last night. >> you raise on better. >> i get very uncomfortable with radio hosts putting themselves in a position where they are telling their listeners their function and putting themselves in a position where if you don't listen to me and agree with me or follow me, our country will be destroyed, that makes me very uncomfortable.

but i openly wear my politics on my sleeve, unlike the liars in the mainstream media and my listeners know that i'm a republican and during the primary process i did not support any of the candidates because i didn't think that serves our audience and i specifically said however, i'm republican. i'm just a republican nominee which isby the way, what the publicans who are running for president do . >> you made a lot of news yesterday, there's a first time for everything. >> . [laughter] tell people about thatbecause that was actually an extraordinary point . >> the coverage? i made news twice yesterday actually. okay, we had two separate arms on cnn and we asked him about wikileaks revelations out of brazil, his former colleague had delivered one of the questions for a town hall. to the clinton campaign. she originally, in the

primaries, she originally, miss brazil originally said that was not a question from the debate and the next day the question pen by roland martin was verbatim word for word and j catherine was unequivocally outraged that this happened. >> i still can't believe. >> you done debates with cnn and you know. >> it's funny, before the second email came out i gave them the benefit of the doubt and said we've both been on television before, i have to give you some questions and topics in advance. is this a possibility this was a question and answer? we saw quite the opposite and i don't see what the alternative explanation is and let's not forget, we're talking about the media aspect of this and the fact that she was a member of the media and she was giving the clinton campaign information

with thom hartmann and bernie sanders supporters, she had contributors and was on the board of cnc. her predecessor got her out of the job she now holds because it was proven that she was inviting the clintons over for dinner. why are they not dropping donna brazil out right now? it stuck with me. earlier you said you were much more disappointed with the media and networks not having a clear playing field during the democrats primary. why do you hold the media to different standards than the democratic party? >> i prefaced my remarks about the media by saying the democratic party was not playing fair. >> know, but then you said what bothers me more. >> it does area. >> the democratic party has very little control. they're supposed to. >> i think they've proven that quite a bit. >> they have more control than they should have but in terms of national dialogue getting out there, that's not the debate. >> their job is to run a fair primary. >> exactly which they didn't do.

>> larry winthrop, the media plays an extraordinary amount of influence, has amazing influence. >> they do. >> i'm so glad to meet you because i have been a fan, not as long as i've been a fan of hughes. >> you are not as old as you, exactly. >> one thing that rubbed me the wrong way, you said rhetorically and no one disputed that the reason donald trump has the nomination is because both the media and publicity that he got . >> i don't believe that and i know that maybe this is controversial but i think that by saying that you also said by the way that we need to do our best to appreciate different perspectives. i think it's important we appreciate the different perspective of the republican voters. these he's the nominee because the voters voted for him and i think it's insulting to the voters to

suggest they only voted for him because they saw him on tv a lot. he met had a message, you may not like the message or the way he delivered it but i implore you to read the book hillbilly elegy by a liberal who very clearly identifies the support that double trump got and he did get the nomination not because of publicity but because he was delivering a message in a way that has not been delivered before and much in the same way we hear often when we are on talk radio, people were hearing it saying finally someone is saying what i've been thinking and putting it in words, you can argue with the message but the publicity . >> let me correct myself, i'm not saying just that. there's no one thing that he said, i agree withyou, you're absolutely right . i'm listening to him a rail against this and i'm looking down at tom and saying you've got to vote for this guy. he's on your side. >> it does seem closer to you than hillary does. >> so it's never one thing.

but again, i was just sharing candidly what the other side saw, there were 18 and 16. >> i believe the final count was 38. >> what the other ones were saying , >> the rest of them wereall repeating the same message they heard from republican party candidates .>> go ahead. >> here's the question, what do you guys and ladies, what do you want to do now that your candidate has surpassed you? he's surpassed every person up here. he said it yesterday. it is clear as i'm sitting up here that all of you work for corporate media, i work for

corporate media and we are innocent. what do you do? >> i'm going to get back to this, talk radio joe loves to play the role of being part of the mainstream media area. >> the media treats us like on. >> i don't know if there is such a thing as the mainstream media anymore. those institutions that are under the umbrella of mainstream media seem to be the ones suffering the most right now in terms of disintegrating in the terms of post media and the digital era. >> it's now corporate media. >> it's actually media, it just says media. >> will get to joyce.it may have been a different sound like you heard that i heard and there's a lot of soundbites, you can't listen to everything. but i've also found that talk radio loves to be attacked by politicians. >> it makes it special if all

the politicians were suddenly saying how wonderful talk radio was, what's left for this medium? and the whole role it plays, joyce? >> i used to talk about, i find it fascinating and i know a lot of you, he shows up to events and a lot of conservatives all the time is the only person broadcaster on but the fact that you support hillary clinton to me is stunning. >> our junior senator was one of the most highly favored candidates in the republican primary. and he is to my audience, we can't stand this. he lied on my radio program. i will never support barack obama. i don't care what he does, i'm not a republican supporter but that's enough to be an independent, it's enough for anybody else and this panel is but i have to tell you, i could no more support marco rubio that i could support bill clinton and i don't understand how

she could have pulled off what she did against your die and that's the lockstep that weare talking about. conservatives like you, we don't fall in lockstep. look at you, one-day infidelity. >> he is all over the place . >> but there's something liberating about not having to be in lockstep. >> i'm very happy that hillary clinton has adopted somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of bernie sanders and , you say until the election, that's going to be up to us and that's up to my audience and your audience frankly. are we going to, one of the things she has demonstrated, which some have characterized as negative, i think is a positive is the ability to figure out which way a country is going and change position based on that with gay marriage, remember she did that with the pipeline and she's done that with freight. you can call that flip-flopping.