we can combat voter fraud and ensure full access to the ballot. those are not mutually exclusive propositions. that is exactly what we are doing. there is a right way and a wrong way to enforce section eight of motor voter and we are preparing guidance so states do it the right way. similarly we are preparing guidance so states enforce section 7 because we have received numerous reports about motor vehicle agencies, social service agencies that are not doing their job of providing those materials. so, we need to be vigilant across the board. >> thank you. i certainly support that. i want to ask one additional question. i want to deal with the umstead case. it was an expansion of the interpretation of title 2 of the a.d.a. act.

it appears that we are making, i think, significant progress on behalf of people with disabiliti disabilities. georgia's department of human resources couldn't segregate two women with mental disabilities in the state psychiatric hospital long after the agency's own treatment. they were recommended to transfer to community care. can you share what the priority is in regard to the expansion of rights of people with disabilities? . >> this is a situation that occurs in almost every state in the united states. the old paradigm of looking at people who are in institutions was, is the institution safe? are the conditions constitutional? that is an important question, but it is the second question that should be asked. the first question that should be asked is, are there people in this institution who should not be there, who can and want to

live in the community with the appropriate support? in every case that we are now doing, we are asking both questions. i get pushed back from time to is too expensive. with all due respect, it is too expensive to warehouse people in institutions. the average cost is $200,000 per the average cost is $200,000 per , when you could live humanely in a community-based setting. in a new york, we got a very rom the court. in georgia, i personally went down and sat with the governor. i did that, because 10 years after the olmsted case, there was scant evidence of progress. we have been negotiating with the state, and we are also doing similar negotiations elsewhere.

i am confident that we can build a new paradigm so that people with disabilities who want to live in community-based settings can do so. just as the segregation of people by race in the schools is unconstitutional and immoral, the segregation of people, the unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities in institutions, is equally illegal and must be stemmed. >> senator franken. >> thank you. mr. perez, part of your job is enforcing the freedom of access to clinic entrances act, which protect americans' access to reproductive service providers. i know that the attorney general and the u.s. marshals

service's help protect reproductive service providers around the country after the murder of a doctor last year. how are you working with the u.s. marshals service to ensure ongoing protection for these providers, and are you and the attorney general still recommending increased protection, or do you believe that the need was temporary? >> we conduct regular threat assessments. we have an active stock get -- an active docket. the last thing i worked on in the clinton administration was the murder of a doctor in new york. the first thing i got briefed on when i returned 11 years later was a murder in kansas. the more things change, the more they stay the same. this is an ongoing threat that we take seriously. we are constantly assessing, not

only working with our partners in the u.s. marshals service, but with other law-enforcement partners. i cannot comment in any detail, but there is an investigation that remains on going. we will continue to fully exercise our civil authority as well. we had a case last year in new mexico involving an arson of a clinic that came to a successful prosecution. these cases are among our highest priority. >> thank you. i know that the department of justice has helped enforce the help america of the act, and has worked with polling places to ensure accessibility for individuals with disabilities, but although most polling places now have accessible voting machines, the gao recently found that half of "accessible voting

machines" may pose problems to many with disabilities, as such as those in wheelchairs. what action has the civil rights division taken to address this problem? >> i am familiar with that report, and we are actively working jurisdiction by jurisdiction. because of the volume of precincts, and i know in my own state of maryland we had a number of precincts that had accessibility issues, so we are feverishly working to make sure, not simply that the facilities are physically accessible, but then workingq on issues involvig people with vision impairment. we have read more about that and heard more about that recently. that is certainly a broad part of our overall agenda of ensuring that everybody who is eligible to vote can do so. >> thank you. that is so important. if i had known i had two rounds,

i would not have come down so hard on the ranking member who had an important armed services committee hearing, and i apologize for that. that was uncalled for. >> if i could, of my staff handed me something that i wanted to make sure it was in at the record related to the fbi report. according to the information i received, the most recent fbi hate crimes report documents the highest level of hate crimes since 2001. the numbers reported in 2008 were 77,083, the highest level since 2001. i will be certain to share that information with senator sessions, but i just wanted to make sure that the record was complete regarding what the data shows. i can tell you from our own experience, as i said at the outset, the phone is ringing off

the hook. the cases are more and more brutal, and we have a lot of father-senate deems, one in indiana, one in south carolina. they are -- a lot of father-son teams, one in indiana, one in south carolina. they are handing down their hate from generation to generation. we have a threat against the president. we had a person who, when the pending trial, threatened the pre-trial services officer in his case. he has now been detained. there are a lot of dangerous people out there who want to divide this country along racial, ethnic and other lines. >> that is unfortunately consistent with the information that i think each of us has observed in our own communities. it is clearly a circumstance

that we need to take aggressive action on, and we thank you for the action you are taking in this regard. i would send an open invitation to all of my colleagues on this committee, if we can get more reliable information to the fbi from local officials on these types of activities, i think it would be useful. i did authored legislation to try to get the information so that we can act on what is a significant problem, of violence against people who are homeless. i did that not to initiate new policy, but to find out what the facts are so that we can try to develop the right policy to protect people in our community. it was not received and away it needs to be to be in this committee. çif there is support by republicans to have the fbi received more information in

this area, i am happy to work with my republican colleagues in this area. we do have a rise in hate crime activities. we have local information from local law enforcement. we have the southern poverty law center which has produced a great deal of the information in this regard. all of it confirms that there has been an alarming increase in hate crime type activities in this country. we thank you for moving forward aggressively in this area, and i appreciate very much your te >> the record will stay open for seven days. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this week on "america & the courts" -- a discussion on the media and national security issues. panelists include a judge from the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit, and national security correspondent for a newspaper, and a reporter from "the washington post." that is 7:00 eastern here on c- span. in his weekly address, president obama talks about the state of

u.s. auto companies following the u.s. government's decision to aid the industry. he also talks about the need for financial reform. this week's republican address is given by senator kay bailey hutchison. >> it was little more than one year ago that our country faced a potentially devastating crisis in our auto industry. over the course of 2008, the industry shed 400,000 jobs. in the midst of a financial crisis and deep recession, both general motors and chrysler, two companies that, for generations, were a symbol of america's manufacturing might, were on the brink of collapse. the rapid dissolution of these companies, followed by the certain failure of many auto parts makers and car dealers and other small businesses, to our -- would have dealt a crippling blow to our already suffering economy the best estimates are that more than 1 million american workers could have lost their jobs. the previous administration

extended temporary loans to both companies. even so, when i took office, the situation remained dire. we had to determine whether or not we could justify additional taxpayer assistance. after all, many of the problems in the industry were a a direct result of bad management decisions over decades. it was not an easy decision. while providing additional assistance was our risk, the far greater risk to families across our country was to do nothing. we agreed to additional help, but only if the companies and their stakeholders were willing to break with the past. they have to fundamentally reorganize with new management that would reexamine the decisions that led to this and chart a path toward viability. i knew this was not a popular decision, but it was the right one. these companies went through painful restructurings, that required enormous sacrifices. many believed this was a fool's errand. many feared we would be throwing good money after bad, that taxpayers would lose their

investment, and the companies would soon fail regardless. one year later, the outlook is very different. the industry is recovering at a pace few thought possible. we received some encouraging news this week. since general motors emerged from banking -- from bankruptcy, they have added 45,000 jobs. that is the strongest growth in a decade. chrysler announced operating profit in the first three months of this year. this is the first time they have reported a profit since the beginning of that economic crisis. gm announced that it paid off its loans five years ahead of schedule. soon, treasury will be able to sell their stock, helping to pay back the american people. chrysler has fully repaid, with interest, the loans it received. we are closing the books on the temporary program that helped

parts suppliers weather the storm. we're returning the investment in full. we're bringing to an end many of the emergency programs designed to stabilize the financial system on friday, in fact, the treasury department informed congress that this financial rescue, which was absolutely necessary to prevent an even worse economic disaster, will end up costing taxpayers a fraction of what was originally feared. this was a direct result of the careful management of the investment made by the american people, so that we could recoup as many tax dollars as possible as quickly as possible. these and other steps that we have taken have meant that millions of people are working today who might otherwise have lost their jobs. these steps were not meant to be permanent. i did not run for president to get into the bottle business or the banking business. -- into the auto business or

the banking business. as essential as it was to get in, i am glad to see we are getting out. the industry is more stable today. the economy is on a better footing. people are still hurting. i hear from them every day in letters i read and in the towns and cities that i visit. no matter what the economic statistics say, i will not be satisfied until folks who need work can find good jobs. after a recession that stole 8 million jobs, this is going to take some time. it requires that we continue to tackle the underlying problems that caused this turmoil in the first place. in short, it is essential that we learn the lessons of this crisis. we risk repeating it. part of what led to the crisis in our auto industry and one of the main causes of the economic downturn or problems in our financial sector. in the absence -- were problems in our financial sector. wall street firms took enormous, irresponsible risk not hurt our economic -- risks that

hurt our economy. that is why i went to new york city and addressed an audience that included leaders in both industries. i called for reform to hold wall street accountable and protect consumers. these reforms would put an end to taxpayer bailouts. they would bring greater transparency the complex financial dealings. they will empower ordinary consumers and shareholders in our financial system. people will get a clearer and more concise and permission when they make financial decisions -- concise information when they make financial decisions. that is how we will restore trust and confidence in our markets. that is how we can put an end to the cycle of coom and bust. -- boom and bust. that is how we will work -- that

is how we will revive the economy and build a stronger than ever before. -- build it stronger than ever before. thanks. >> i am kay bailey hutchison. democrats have been working to craft legislation that would prevent another catastrophic, financial crisis, like we saw in the fall, 2008. republicans are working to ensure that the bill would forbid any future bailouts of wall street banks. the idea that a financial institution is too big to fail pervert's free-market capitalism -- perverts free- market capitalism. it suggests that these companies can take their profits in good times, but when things go bad, they turned to the government to bail them out. this must end. the american people should not be forced to pay the risky

gambling debts of the large financial institutions. the democrats pushed a bill through the senate banking committee that does not stop future bailouts. republicans have been attacked for speaking out against this. -- against this and asking for bipartisan negotiations before allowing the bill to be debated on the senate floor. but, to be clear, we will stand firm against a partisan bill that allows future bailouts or favors big companies over community banks across america. the tactics that the democratic leadership used to pass a health care bill must not be repeated. thankfully, negotiations continue. it is time for the name-calling to stop. getting our economy back on track is too important to allow political gains to sidetrack these efforts. both parties agree that any

financial regulation should do one essential thing. no company should be considered too big to fail, and never again should taxpayers be exit -- be expected to bill out those who made risky financial bets with other people's money 0--- bail out those who made risky financial bets with other people's money. americans are troubled by the way the democrats forced their health care bill on the public that overwhelmingly opposed it. there are trying to do it again. they underestimate americans' understanding. a and a number of experts on both sides of the ideological spectrum -- a growing number of experts on both sides of the ideological spectrum say that the financial regulation bill contains serious flaws. we believe this bill can be

fixed with the sincere, bipartisan solutions. we are still working on a bipartisan bill, drawn on the ideas of democrats and republicans. that is a far cry from last week's comments appeared it is time for democrats to put away the political playbook -- that is a far cry from last week's comments. it is time for democrats to put away the political playbook. both parties need to come together to do the work on behalf of the american people. we can prevent future bailouts. we can address the root causes of the economic downturn. but first, we need to put politics aside. thank you for your time. >> meet the top three prize winners of c-span's studentcam competition. that is monday, tuesday, and

wednesday morning during c- span's "washington journal." you can watch all of the videos at studentcam.org. >> people are now using cloud computing. officials from microsoft and google, and house minority leader john boehner, took part in this event in washington. >> josh is at the end. he is a business development manager for google. ravi singh, nick schaper, josh hendler, the director of i.t. with dnc. it is a well-grounded group. we will talk about cloud computing as a model, and what it holds promise for in the political arena, what advantages

people are taking in not taking of it, and what you see coming from either vendors or the political perspectives. i will ask you to give us your perspective on this area and what you think of the trends. i have a couple of questions to ask after that. we will also take questions in the audience give me an indication that you have a question -- in the audience. give me an indication that you have a question. we will bring the microphone around. josh? >> sure. microphones are a little silly here. >> we will not use robert rose of orders. >> i am devastated that we're not. -- we will not use robert's rules of order. >> i am devastated that we're not using those. i cherish this opportunity.

i think that -- one of the things i realized as a director of technology at the dnc, is that technology is radically changing. every day, we cannot rest on the laurels of what happened a year ago or what was done during the campaign, or anything like that. even between election day, 2008, and today, technology is very, very different. we need to recognize that. cloud computing is obviously at the forefront of a lot of these changes. taking a big-picture view of where we are, if you look at a given campaign and say, how much traffic are we going to get over the course of the campaign, you would probably find it -- i am sure this would change from campaign to campaign -- that 90 percent or 80% or 7% happens with the last two -- 90% 0

arkansas 8or 80% or 70% happense last two or three weeks. you're building up capacity for a big spike at the end of the campaign. this is where cloud computing comes into play and where it is incredibly relevant for campaigns and political organizations. it allows you to build up infrastructure in seconds, rather than weeks. this is a really big deal for campaigns. number two is that campaigns are the most transient of organizations. one day they do not exist, the next day they do exist. trundled servers for file- sharing or e-mail infrastructure -- trying to build servers or file-sharing or e-mail member structurinfrastructure -- this n

area where, computer and -- where cloud computing is especially relevant. >> technology changes quickly. we run into this problem in our jobs. i spend most of my days trying to help boehner and house republicans use social media to help communicate with the american people. we are trying to stay the forefront of technology. cloud computing is a direction that we're going to go in. in every step, we are dragging i.t. bureaucrats kicking and screaming along with us. we have seen this one we got into twitter and youtube they want to keep this -- youtube. they want to keep this in house. giving up that control has a lot of issues with -- a lot of parallel issues with cloud computing.

the most important thing we talk about in cloud computing is the cost to the american taxpayer. americans are making hard decisions about how to pay their money. this solution will be more scalable and show more value for us. if so, we have to put it in perspective. americans expect the same thing from congress. not being an expert in cloud computing, i am anxious to hear more about it and how we can use it in congress. >> you are caught in the middle. >> i am caught in the middle. good afternoon. my name is ravi singh. i provide an interesting perspective from one standpoint. we have billion dollar companies to my left, and two major problems and democrats stocsittg next to each other. -- two major republicans and

democrats sitting next to each other. when we look at what is happening in the space of online politics and the breakdown from a e-democracy standpoint, we are seeing three release strong pillars in that development. government, the campaign, in the election standpoint. cloud computing is effected a lot of the government applications -- cloud computing is affecting a lot of the government applications. the campaign from is unknown or untapped. about 69% of us are already using cloud computing in some capacity. we do not even realize it. this is a new term. it is all about the campaign cloud. how do we convert this into getting more money and more votes? how'd we generate more awareness for our campaign? -- how do we generate more awareness for our campaign?

one solution is infrastructure. it is a fundamental cost. the ability to scale or peak in a life cycle of a campaign can happen at any stage. we know that any issue or opposition could actually affect the growth of the campaign. the second is the ability -- the ability for us to see how we can add more photos or more data, without necessarily increasing our costs. stability, ensuring that information among multiple users -- that is something we are starting to see. if you look at behavior's of everyday americans and internet users, we have about 56.8% voter turnout in the last election that was quite increase from 204002008. -- we have about of 56.8% voter turnout in the last election. that was quite an increase from 2004 to 2008.

we can change the way we do things and increase political participation. google and microsoft have done a phenomenal job of giving us the tools that we need. who will access that? if you have a cloud here and here and they are merging together -- using that analogy, the former a bigger cloud -- they form a bigger cloud. they could break apart easily without any damage. how do you access those? that is where we hope we will come in from our perspective. >> i'm going to echo what everybody said. i thought it was interesting that they chose the google and microsoft guys to share the microphone. [laughter] there is so much love. a lot of trust in our professionalism. at google, we really think that cloud computing is the next revolution in i.t. it provides many businesses for

-- it provides many benefits for businesses, educational institutions, and government. there is a lot of opportunity to dig a vintage of stability in flexibility. you can -- to take advantage of stability and flexibility. we view ourselves as generic providers of tools that enable people to do new and different things. we think the cloud is a new way to think about enacting and collaborating. i am interested to hear what people have to say. a lot has been said about where the cloud is going and why it is important. let's let stan ask some questions. >> i will have to control myself and not answer all of the questions myself. if you have questions in the audience, put your hand up, and we look at the microphone to you. i will intersperse them with my

questions. -- we will get the microphone to you. we want to be interactive. the title of the session -- "cloud computing -- how it can lower your costs and increase your risks." but we did not make up that title. i am curious about your views on that and how you respond to it? what is accurate or inaccurate about that? i disagree -- >> i disagree with the title, because it assumes there is a trade-off between lowering costs and increasing risks. i think cloud computing -- i have to be closer -- is a microphone on? this one is good? >> do you want to take this one? >> it is not working? >> this would be an interesting panel if we are all doing a

little dance to the microphone. when i saw the title of the panel, i looked at it and said there is a false premise here that there is a trade-off between costs and risks. we think the cloud provides lower risks for almost all organizations, especially true for political campaigns, for many of the reasons we have talked about. there are short life cycles. there is not a lot of capital expenditure. not a lot of i.t. infrastructure. the ability to mitigate i.t. risks is somewhat mitigated. for government agencies who are looking at clouds and the ability of cloud providers at larger-scale to reduce risk while lowering costs and increasing productivity, i do not think there is a trade off at all. this is really a win-win. >> thanks. >> i am going to jump around. what is your perspective? >> i think the title is greatly

oversimplifying the matter. it depends on your cloud in your organization -- your cloud and your organization. you should probably just cancel your facebook and e-mail and -- we are all part of a cloud structure right now. one of the most attractive things could be the cost and stability, and the agility that the cloud is going to be able to provide. may not be up there title -- it may not be at their tit fair ti. >> and everyone here me -- can everyone hear me? ok. one of the constant struggles with the campaign is that when

e-commerce can now, everyone was very scared. we have state reps, mayors, local aldermen, all raising money online. being in the industry for 10 years, seeing the evolution happen, it is just a matter of educating and sharing with people that they are doing that. one thing about google's application -- and there are three things.

>> what would you like to add? >> i do not mean to be a downer. on the cost issue, i think when people are migrating toward the cloud, you are actually achieving lower costs. this is not always the case. a healthy dose of skepticism that, just because it is in the cloud means it is going to be cheaper, is definitely worthwhile. i work with campaigns across the country. i advise them that it is just like everything else. you should have a healthy skepticism and make sure that, just because it's as it is in the cloud, does not necessarily mean it is better -- just

because it says it is in the cloud, does not necessarily mean it is better. on a risk -- there are certainly cases where in may increased risk. there are many cases where it decreases. a great example of that is hosted e-mail. i've seen campaigns that decided to host their e-mail themselves. this is the most awful idea i have ever heard in my life. having all of your e-mail on the cloud significantly decreases risk. it is a far better idea. the likelihood that google will lose your e-mail is lot -- is a lot less than the server in your campaign office will die and not have been backed up. it is complicated. it does decreased risk and cost. >> i thought you would say the chance of google losing it was less than the chance of microsoft. [laughter]

i will say one more thing. you have the first question. i actually think -- people say it this way often. i meet with customers often. i meet with customers from many sectors from a variety of different places. ask about this. it really boils down to the trade-off between lowering your cost and losing control -- a sense of control. that is the trade-off people need to make. what are you willing to let go and get the benefits all of this model? -- benefits of this model? let me bring the mic down. >> it's all you. [unintelligible] >> nope. >> there you go.

>> to the piont of -- point of risk. "your" is in the title. it is one thing to talk about out campaigning in the -- about cloud computing in the campaign appeared in open source software, one issue is -- about cloud computing in the campaign. in the open source software, one issue is people can -- we are running into questions of what you're doing as far as preparing the things within the cloud, does not release the -- what you are doing as far as proprietary things within the cloud, does that released -- there are similar requirements for government about where you can put your mail, what you can do with it, who you have to share it with, who you have to keep it

away from. i do not know we have any intellectual property lawyers in the room. i am curious about that risk side of it. are there some arcane legal requirements that might get triggered? >> i will make a comment. then anyone who wants it can answer. i think we will see if i did -- quite a few of these were the law is not keeping up with technology, quite frankly. -- i think we will see quite a few of these where the law is not keeping up with technology, quite frankly. >> when i heard "arcane law," my ears perked up. the concerns are more than valid. i sympathize with the people responsible for security. at this -- we keep coming back to the same point. it has to be made on the part of

either your voters or the taxpayers. we will be using it quite a bit here in a few weeks. people are going to have to think about things differently. our apis office sent a letter to policy and the chief administrator asking wine skype has been --been -- asking why skype has been walled off. there are multi-thousand dollars solutions that are being given out, and they work really well, but a lot of people are using skype. what can we not take advantage of this? there arkansas -- there are security concerns. what are they? we can talk to people about those and get this figured out. it is a new, bad issue that we run into a lot with folks that have been really embedded in bureaucratic rules for a long time.

-- roles for a long time. >> i agree. i am not an intellectual property lawyer, so i'm not going to tackle open source in the cloud. it is a good distinction between campaigns, government, who can use the clouds and where. we need to seriously look at the security concerns. many government agencies, city governments, state governments -- when you look at an apples to apples comparison of the risk, there is also -- it is true that there are risks to the clout, but you also have to look at the risks that you have in the way you operate today. when people look honestly at that and see the risks they run today, versus the risks in the cloud, my risk profile might be slightly different. 0 risk today versus if i handed over -- that is not an accurate

or realistic way to make an assessment. you can go to different agencies and it will be very different than when you go to a small city government. people need to make an honest assessment of risk. >> this comes up regularly in my conversations with customers. i know it does for you, and i have not talk to you about it. i am sure it comes up in your organizations as well. i tell people that you have to realize that -- take security and privacy, there is a limited set of world-class resources. i am referring to the people involved who are able to do that kind of work. you have to do the trade off of, am i willing to give up the control and take a vintage of a company like google or microsoft, who are out there -- and take advantage of a company

like google or microsoft, who are out there recruiting the best of the best for this? the answer from all of our experts would have not been no. the answer is, well, i have looked at and i know the people doing this for me. i've looked at the people you have doing it for you. it is worth having the conversation now. there are restrictions that are real, in terms of things you legally can and cannot do. that is important to pay attention to. [unintelligible] i cannot read you chapter and verse predict are very different for every organization that we talked to -- i cannot read you chapter and verse. they are very different for every organization that we talk to. that is just how it is today. people are not thinking hard about it. ok, you cannot move that data.

you got to get down to the reality versus the perceived reality. ravi? >> working with campaigns -- the biggest thing is, who owns that data? that is the big question. will you sell my data? will you share that? we monetize that with online advertising? when we look at privacy issues, that is more important and intellectual property issues -- ban the intellectual property issues. in the campaign -- when we look at privacy issues, that is more important than intellectual property issues pared campaign operates -- campaigns operate under different -- property issues. campaigns operate under different priorities. voter information and information about who and how

they voted across as a lot of different state lines -- crosses a lot of different state lines. there is a paradigm shift. there are rules and laws that have not yet been written. this conversation is groundbreaking, because in the world of campaign, there are more focused -- debate are more focused about making sure their opponent does not get that -- they are more focused about making sure their opponent does not get that data. 90% of people do not like to see that data be monetized. >> the key to cloud providers is going to be making sure we can see what is going on with our data. they have to give us a window into what is going on. just like in congress. it will help ease a lot of folks

into that sphere. >> another question here. >> one thing you're saying about the gpl requirements. you can visit any -- base any search off of that as you want. >> we found our ip attorney. >> i am not a lawyer, but i know that once positively. -- one specifically. do not count on any one thing to say the appeared to not count on authentication appeared -- do not count on any one thing to save you. do not count on authentication. one of the problems that i have encountered in actually

embracing the cloud is that i have found it nearly impossible to take on any given cloud solution while also exercising a defense and that strategy. -- a defense and depth strategy. i cannot see when people logged in. i cannot see the ip they logged in from. very basic stuff. in the case of some others, i have no ability to exercise control over the network. i cannot do anything that normally go into my security and-management staff -- security-management stuff. i cannot even monitor traffic on the same machine. what type of things do you think

need to happen in the cloud computing space so that people coming from a security perspective like me will be able to exercise -- basically, the past 20 years of aircraft? -- of our craft? >> where do you work? >> the center for american progress. >> we had this conversation wells fargo -- with wells fargo. how do we audit? how do we audit your logs? frankly, you don't. do you have defense and depth from the provider or not? there are some restrictions.

will those improve over time? very possibly. i cannot tell you about our plans for brutalization. i am not privy to every product plan that we have -- for virtualannihiization. i'm not privy to every product plan that we have. >> let me just ask one thing. how can i trust your defense and depth when i know that four out of five people have dealt with advanced-persistent threats? >> how can i trust it because i know we have dealt with? >> i know you have been compromised recently. google has been compromised. microsoft has been compromised. the house has been compromised. i do not know about the dnc.

>> it is fine. perhaps your organization has not been compromised at any time. i am not sure what distinction you are drawing. are there going to be challenges? absolutely, there are. do you want to recruit those resources into your organization to handle that ortega vintage of the investment being made -- -- or take advantage of the investment being made? i do not have a pat answer. >> i am somewhat neutral. one of the things that we all have to understand is that our behaviors are completely changing. i do not think anyone is saying this is 100% or etc.. a lot of people do not know they are using cloud computing.

69% of internet users are doing this. we of stop a label on appeared everybody is saying, -- we have a sstuck a label on it. what are our standards of acceptability? if you look at content over of period of time, it has become more believable over the internet. there is no content-verification aspect. i draw that analogy with security. election security and campaign security have never been big priorities. we have had phishing, opposition, and other different strategies -- no one has really cared. no one talks about those activities, because it is a matter of establishing trust. we're just in our elementary, baby stages of the internet. in this last decade, we faced

new challenges. there is a huge business opportunity. at the same time, it is the users that will dictate what security parameters are going to happen. neither microsoft nor google will be able to solve it 100%. they are a lot better than me trying to hire somebody security person in a campaign that is only spending $30,000 in kansas. they just do not have the resources, let alone in building their website. >> that is a really good point, certainly for organizations depending on their size and scale. it is a totally different question. we have asked a lot of hard security questions. i am not sure there are perfect answers. there are not. this is an important distinction to make. we need to look at the users here. who are the users? what are we capable of? what republicans are people all of -- what republicans are

capable of or the dnc -- it is very different. that should drive the security. >> i will give you a little bit more detail. they will have to have more transparency to give you access to the data you want. i agree with the stan, that he will have to give a feeling for a need for control -- you will have to give up appeali feelingf control. it is a control and cultural issue and it will take time to change. we have to make a cultural shift. if you look it up from an i.t. standpoint, the biggest security risk -- it from an i.t. standpoint, the biggest security risks are laptops. 16,000 laptops were left at l.a.x. in a matter of months.

that is a huge security issue. we have seen that it into the wrong hands. the cloud moves us to a place where we do not have data on my laptop anymore. there is nothing on that laptop, because it is in the cloud. that is a huge paradigm change. we do not have usb sticks, because we transmit information over the cloud. many of the most common threats are diminished greatly, even while we still figure out how to have be -- how to be more transparent along some other pieces. you have to look at the whole picture. there are two sides of the conversation. >> that is a great point. it is an important factor for me, as a consultant to my customers.

should we not just tell them this is fast? you guys, as the vendors, you deal with the cloud part. you make it more affordable for me to sell to my clients. i cannot imagine anyone in my campaign spending, i really need to get amazon's cloud account or something like that. it is it not just simpler to think about "fast" rather than "cloud computing," from a customer-vendor relationship perspective? >> this is a good point. i cannot imagine any congressional campaigns for state or senate campaigns booting up some ec2 servers tomorrow. it may happen every once in awhile. whether or not it is a good idea is a complete different question.

google apps -- things like box.net are a huge deal. one thing we use a lot is a company that is telephony in a cloud. things like that are really exciting. not all campaigns or smaller organizations will use those. they will use other services that exist on line and did not on -- online and do not involve local storage. it saves time and money. >> cloud computing is fast. we tried to make sure that people get a common ground in, so that when there is a -- common grounding, so that there is enough intellectual stimulation to say, what is that

built on? what is that -- what is behind that? at the end of the day, you want to recommend things that you have a fairly strong sense are going to be robust and scale as they need to. understanding those next players is probably not critical for decision makers in a small campaign. it is important to understand what it is built on. to your question about security and depth, once you are convinced or not convinced that a certain offering has what it takes or does not, then you make decisions built on that as well. >> i think software as a service has been classified as part of cloud computing. it has a strong element in our industry. everybody wants to be like president obama's technology platform. everybody wants the same thing.

>> almost everyone. [laughter] >> i am in big trouble. we are nonpartisan. my republican clients will get mad at me. they want the same infrastructure, but they do not want to spend millions of dollars to recreate that. this allows us to not only scale, which is fundamental to campaigns, but scale at the right time. in your campaigns, you might have an issue during the primary. you might now have a 1 million more people visiting the website, but you do not have to pay those fees for your infrastructure. it is much easier to scale down with the campaign is over. government is always in power. it is just a matter of who wins. when you look at campaigns, it is a matter of competition. after the campaign is over, what

happens to all of that data? what happens to the next election cycle? no one talks about what has happened in the last ten years. four years ago people would take down their web site and start all over again. six years ago, people kept their web sites up. people are now saying, every day is a campaign. i have to do this all the time. president obama has maintained his campaign platform to do different messaging there. when we look at software as a service, i think it is going to be crucial. we have about 1.2 million candidates who cannot go ahead and spend even thousands of dollars, let alone hundreds of dollars, that would just be willing to go ahead and be able to benefit from microsoft and google software to take advantage of these applications for one day on a monthly basis

-- through one gateway throuon a monthly basis. . some of your more infrastructure-kinds of offerings, the google app engine, it will be dependent on what applications you are running and how they are managing archives. when you get to the software solution, the google apps,

they're putting archive solutions in place. you can do what you need to do in the cloud and have your live data in the cloud. that is beneficial to organizations. this is an emerging space. as a guy that has been talking to companies, i have two kinds of security officers. one guy says he needs to keep anything anyone has ever said or done, for all time. then i have people coming to me saying, i love your services, but i want to make sure that unless i tell you is gone in 60. that is a difficult set of requirements. i think there's a lot of discussion going on. the guys at the white house have a fairly constrained set of requirements they have to follow.

campaigns or in a different place. we see them begin to offer more offerings around the solutions and archiving needs over time. >> i will add to that. i agree with everything you said. you must be disappointed. the reality is, same problem we are in. what you bring forward is a very interesting thing that people have in their mind. that is the difference between consumer services, when they have a certain -- certain set of features and capabilities, their use to them, but they have a different set of abilities than a service that has been built for a government or an organization that has those requirements. if i am using my hotmail account, i do not expect the archive. i will not use it for purposes

where i will expect that. i know enough not to. i do not think everyone is dedicated to that degree. but as part of what we are going through as a society. when you enter into the space where you have those needs and demands, more robust services, probably paid services, they become interesting and necessary. the business model is different at that point. what you get is different. the interesting situation in this space is government administration and campaign in. you can take advantage of things in one and not take advantage of them in the other. i will let others comment on that. >> there's a thought that the library will start archiving tweets. >> i do not have a solution to a. does anybody know how they will

manage? >> [inaudible] >> another great one just got elected to the white house. it is obviously a concern for government officials and all kinds of other issues. these are things we have to figure out. >> are there other questions from the audience? i will pose one again. curious. we have four very different perspectives. where do you see a lost opportunity? you talk about smaller companies doing an interesting thing. folks are starting to take advantage of certain things. what do you think they are missing today? where do you -- put yourself

forward one cycle, four years from now. what do you envision going forward? do you want to take on first? >> there are couple of answers. number one, a lot of services appearing in the cloud and company's existing today that did not a couple months ago, we do not know what services will be in the cloud. hopefully, that is good. people are coming up with ideas that were not thought of before. if we look forward a couple of years and ask what services we will be using, if i give you a guess, it would probably be a bad guess. i will do that anyway. there are couple of things that i think are not being optimized or used in a way where there's potential for them to be used. one of them is data processing in the cloud. we are starting to see companies

appearing that do a lot of data worked in the cloud. amazon has tackled at a little bit, and there is a lot of implications for when you are building applications in the cloud, doing gotta work, but that is interesting. second as mapping services and general geode-location stuff. we are starting to see companies pop up and do some geographical stuff in the cloud. i know that as a broad spectrum, but i have seen interesting companies in the space. i suspect we will see more. i think that otherwise, from a campaign perspective, i think we will be seeing more services offered out of box, a lot of things that a campaign would pay someone for, have some vendors and things like that, tools that a campaign can get, this or

that, which they typically pay a company to install software for something. >> i think a challenge that we are facing in congress, we have members website or commit to website that are seen by 10 people per day at times until a bill drops in their committee. they get linked to it and they get 3 million views per day. that is something that they cloud service or platform could adapt to better. i think it is important that when we consider things like the cloud, from the perspective that i am in, it is important that we stay informed and try to do this every day, get people to be more open toward moving toward services like this. i am looking forward to finding out more of the use. >> in 2007, the website switched

to a fast model for online fund raising. we had a lot of push back. someone indicated that we never sold it as a fast model. as a technology firm, we realized campaigns were not going to spend $5,000 on a website, and getting a fund- raising page with a certificate, branding it, getting visa, mastercard, american express, discover, putting this together, the e-mail system, collecting data, was something a lot of candidates were not thinking of knowing how to do. we focused on developing a fund- raiser. we were trying to solve a problem in the space. political participation is crucial in terms of being able to understand that data is a key component to helping campaign to win. with the that the donor data, volunteer data, or vote for

data -- voter data. maintaining that will be future aspect of what cloud computing will do. we have seen the rise of social networking site. people are using it to store their photos and their comments. with twitter, and tomorrow it might be ritter, these behaviors are dictating what companies will do to invest in them, and it will deploy different strategies. in 2004, howard dean raise money online. we saw the rise of you to ban the rise of social networking. 2008, the rise of facebook. 2010, we are seeing the impact of what twitter will have on campaigns. every two to four years, we are seeing changes in which technology is making a greater role.

cloud computing is the cement that is holding the building together. >> i will give you a thematic answer to this. where i have seen us do well as our external facing stuff. we're using facebook, we are using twitter, we are using youtube. these are public-facing and we are taking a band of that in terms of regional audience. where i have not seen us adopt the cloud in the same way as in the internal stuff. where's my e-mail? where is my document? how do i make the campaign or the agency itself work better, not just reach out more to the public world? that is where i anticipate seeing growth in the use of the cloud. that is a big change. i have a new technology to leverage and i can think of how i run the campaign differently. how can i speed up the way we

do processes or mix strategy? how do i actually run differently and make different choices based on the capabilities the cloud brings into the organization? in the long run, i think there is an amazing opportunity for the cloud. when we use web-based applications, the need for software and laptops and disappears. what i am excited about from google, and this is not a sales pitch, we are working on chromo s, which is nothing but a web browser. you can pick up any laptop running it and it becomes your laptop. when you lock out, no data is left. as a googled guy, i envision a world where i get on an airplane to a plant up for two days of meetings without a laptop. when i get there, i grab one. i log in, there's my stuff. when i am done, i give it back. i can do the same thing with

mobile devices. those kinds of capabilities, when you think about what that can mean, that is enormous. we are not there yet. as you adopt the cloud model, the capability of having something where i picked up a laptop wherever i go and access it from mobile devices, that is a real possibility. it changes the way we think about the end user infrastructure and the way we think about the technology. >> i will have something to that and bring up a different perspective. we do think there are scenarios -- that scenario totaling makes sense. there are scenarios where that may not come to the floor. there are other areas where customers may make decisions to keep control in a different fashion. moving away from that, one of

the key things we are seeing and will continue to see, alluding to what you talked about, a continuing -- want to pick the right term -- fragmentation of attention, that is what i will call it. what my kids pay attention to today is different from what i paid attention to as a kid and what my parents paid attention to. the number of channels they listen to is expanding rapidly, hugely. for a campaign, the ability to communicate to those channels gets to be a huge task. i think what we will see and what we are thinking strongly about is how you bring those things together and manage them in a coordinated way so that your attention as a campaign staff is not as fragmented as the channels that your people are out there listening to that you might want to reach out to an touch as well. how do you target those communications? we talked about the ipod.

how you take the shift that is happening in a the budget campaign -- how do you take a shift that is happening in the budget a campaign will spend? what about mobility? what about gaming? what about all the places people are? measure where people are spending time today. that has shifted away from the tv somewhat. it is towards all these other channels. figuring out how to manage that, because i do not expect campaigns to get more staff to do what they are doing, unless they get better fund-raising, which could happen, but i think that the explosion will continue. that problem gets worse from the management side and better from the consumption side. that is a big trend that i see coming that will drive change. >> you brought up a story friend told me that i really like. it is not only different channels people are listening

to, but they expect interaction. this is a story about a four- year-old. she was with her dad. they put her in the explorer and put in a dvd. she looks behind the tv. her dad thinks this is cute. what are you doing? she says, i am looking for the mouse. she cannot imagine a one-we only medium at the age of four. that says a lot about the coming generation. it is about facilitating a discussion and interaction. that is a huge shift in the way this generation thinks. that was a shocking story. i am looking for the mouse. i want to control where dora goes. i want to have a two-way conversation. that is a massive way people interact with the media we will

have to adapt to. those who find a way to facilitate that interaction will reap benefits from that. >> it is what people expect from their government, too. it is not just, we are using the best tools available for congress, we want the best tools available. these are the things we need to look at and make sure that we are enabling the best back and forth we have with americans between government officials. it is not just a microphone we use, blasting e-mails and tweets that go one direction. we will not see the same people there anymore. we are not using tools that will use the cloud more. the level of expectation as much higher. >> we have five minutes left. we have one minute each.

if you have a few comments, i do not care who goes first. you look ready to roll. >> let's go for it. from our standpoint, we have invested a lot of time and resources into looking at how this will help campaigns. i am a political junkie. i was a candidate myself. i saw the challenges that candidates face. back in chicago, when i was growing up, having a website in 1997 was a big deal. having an e-mail address was a big deal, and corresponding with people. in 2010, those are fundamentals. you cannot run for office without having a website and e- mail address. things are changing. cloud computing as part of that evolution. it will be a revolution for campaigns because it allows

benefits. at the same time, it will take a lot of education. politics 1.0 was about providing an sharing information. 2.0 was about inter-activity. the government is starting to interact more with the sad descent. politics 3.0 is about analytics and rebuilding to scale in a way to share this information that we have never imagined. this goes beyond the borders of the u.s. and to every democracyw ld. if we can go ahead and do that, that is phenomenal. that is what gets me up every morning. these things could actually increase political participation in every country. if we can provide technology that will go ahead and increase from -- increase up to 60%, 75% americans participating in the next election cycle, that is

fantastic. today, cloud computing. tomorrow, whatever it is. was that under a minute? >> to echo what has been said today, demand that. we are demanding that. why are they not a head of the times a little more? that is where you and everyone else comes in. these things will not change until you demand that. house republicans will be employing a large cloud platform in a few weeks. it is too early to talk about what shape it will take, but the conversation on line, we hope to be one of the barges that has taken place between congress and the american people. it is up to you to make sure that type of things work -- type of thing works. if not, congress will continue to lag behind in technology.

>> i think a couple of partying points -- number one, as a campaigner, as someone who is organizing, i think one of the things -- we are doing two things. we are trying to remove technology as a hindrance of organizing. this is a really important point. it is exceptionally relevant for campaigns across the country as campaign's start off. i cannot tell you the number of stories i have heard of the e- mail system dying, the internet dying, all of these problems that should not be hindrances. this is relevant to other organizations as well. i see where we have are going with cloud computing as getting as part way there. we need to spend less money on technology. you need less people that are super technology-savvy.

we are moving to replace where technology gets out of the way a little bit and helps people do the job they are there to do. on the other side of that, technology is helping us do our jobs. we can organize in new ways where we have not organized before. this is an important point. it is not due to cloud computing, but a lot of the platforms coming up right now in the schools we are seeing are made so much easier by the fact that they existed in the cloud. we are in an environment where our scale changes radically over relatively short time. cloud computing a lao-tzu's to scale -- allows us to scale. it will be really interesting to see where it goes from here. >> my parting thoughts are that -- i would say at cloud computing and opportunities for you to leverage that in two

areas. how do i reach out to people i am trying to organize? how do i facilitate a new kind of conversation? how do i better-run my own organization? how do i remove the technology barrier to what we are doing internally? one of the really amazing things about cloud computing is because it put infrastructure resources in the hands of anyone, it removes a lot of the differential between the big and small. it allows people to look bigger than they are because you have the power of a microsoft or a google available at low cost to a smaller organization. that is something people can take advantage of. it is powerful for anyone. >> as the moderator, i get the last word. i will use it with an hour ground rules. thank you for staying with an hour ground rules. i think you appreciate it. what i would say is, to quote from one of our customers, it

could be one of yours as well, you need to be thoughtful about this, to your point about security. just because it is a new paradigm does not mean the problems you had go away. it is a different way to solve the program -- the problem. "don't go out and do this because it is cloud, but do not not go out and do this because it is cloud." determine whether the model makes sense and whether it is better or worse. the other thing i will say, one thing you hear, we are on the cusp of something, right? there are some companies that have taken this the whole way. they are early adopters. there are a lot of folks who are not sure about it. it is an education problem. it is a comfort level problem. it is a control issue. it does not mean people will let that control go.

as we get more comfortable and more familiar, we will see other possibilities,. again, thanks to these gentlemen for joining us. thank all of you for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i think there is a huge lack of knowledge about how this town works, how congress works. >> when you are doing the research work, you have to do that yourself. >> award winning historian richard norton smith and douglas brinkley will talk about their work, their books, and their

profession. they will revisit their first appearances on our network. "q&a" sunday night on c-span. >> the discussion on the use of new technology voter groups. this is part of an on-line politics conference hosted by george washington university. it is about an hour. >> is everyone having a good day so far? i am here to introduce her moderator. shana glickfield. i think this is something that we need to be talking about more. i think this is off the beaten track. it will be interesting to discuss. shana is a partner at a new,

innovative, very cool firm. she is a partner. she is the editor of nextgenweb.org. she is also a writer. i do not know if you have read her work, but it is very good and very entertaining. she is an amazing person. she has been a big help for this conference. i have appreciated everything she has done. we have a knock out panel. i will leave it to her. >> thank you so much. the microphone as on. welcome, everyone. i will introduce our panelists first. thank you. to my right, i have dalia. she is a senior analyst and

executive director of the gallup organization center for muslim studies. next to her we have matt reyes. he is a marketing and speaker, and is the founder of twiteros.net. next to him we havenavarrow wright. he co-founded the hip-hop community globalgrind.com and served as the cto of b.e.t. interactive. we have bill meierling. he has counseled a wide array of clients in their engagement with multicultural communities. we do have a knock out panel

today. i am with nextgenweb. on the website, we talk about the benefits of broadband, public safety, long distance learning, and we cover how broadband and technology are really powering participation at unprecedented levels. we are excited to talk about that. i wanted to let everyone know, more than 75% of americans are using the internet on a regular basis. on top of that, u.s. mobile penetration is predicted to top 100% by the end of 2012. we're seeing significant positive trends, minority adoption and usage of these tools. what does all of this mean for candidates, campaigns, organizations, and businesses? to get to the bottom of this, i

will last a couple questions. we will open it to the audience. first, i will go to a study by the joint center media technology institute. they found in february of 2010 that number of minority internet users -- the number is increasing, but minority groups are over-represented as a new internet users and under- represented as experienced internet users. minorities might be disproportionately disadvantaged in accessing some of the newest web platforms. can you tell us a little bit of what that means for communicators? what should we be thinking about? >> i will take a job. i think first, when you looked at the numbers, the numbers, 75% of americans have access to broadband. mobil is almost 100%

penetration. if you look at minority communities, those numbers are less than half of that. when you look at the mobil space, when you talk about mobile penetration of broadband, what does that mean? you look at the different devices the minority community uses as opposed to the mainstream community, the access to services they have. when you have a campaign, you cannot just create an iphone app. there's a generational crack reach a generational gap as well. you have to look of the specifics of that market and where they are in terms of the landscape as far as carrier and a vice. -- and device. >> looking at the saturation of multicultural communities and

internet access, via online device or the internet in general, i think we need to be looking at the overall representation of the time and build trust with communities. in 2008, it was 60.2% saturation rate with african- american audiences. we're looking by 2014 at a 72% saturation rate with access to broadband. we need to be looking at building trust and engage in communities in terms that they are understanding and willing to work with. >> i will jump in. i am a numbers guy. the key point that my colleague made with access to broadband, which is different than having adoptive broadband. we believe that a large part of the u.s. has broadband access,

but when you speak to minorities in urban communities, the adoption rates are low. there is a lack of value. the value proposition is not there. they are not educated on the value of broadband and what it can bring to their lives. whatever stand. it is from, the knowledge is not there. they do not see the knowledge. mobile broadband accesses high. they see it as a communications device. >> you have to make sure your website and communications are mobiley-enabled. >> they need and understanding. i have seen everyone here with some type of smartphone. this guy has a battery connected to it that looks like it came from his car. when you go into these

communities, the knowledge is not there. they need to do that education. you are creating new customers. >> what do you see in latino communities? >> represent the latino, and we have -- we are there for young, latino access. what we have seen online is they are early adopters. i am trying to figure out what kind of question they asked. what i have seen is that a lot of young people that are online are extremely early adopters. if they are minorities, they are learning how to use whatever medium -- gone twitter, everyone is probably on there right now. a lot of the topics are driven a lot by african-americans and

hispanics, which is interesting to see. in the campaign we are running right now for the census, we actually trended on twitter two weeks ago for the census. i do not know how we did that. that goes to show, the younger audiences -- there is a lot less adoption of months different markets, but when you slice it into younger demographics, it is there. they are ahead of the general market when it comes down to it. >> i spent my time studying muslim americans and muslims around the world. what we find this incredible diversity. there is no majority ethnic group.

35% of muslim americans are african-american, and that is the largest group. there is a tremendous amount of variety. we do find that they are more likely than the general public to have just a cell phone. they are very internet savvy. one of the drivers of that is the average age of the community is much younger. reaching the community through new media is probably not the biggest obstacle. a larger obstacle in reaching the community is going to the places that they access, finding the language and the web sites that they are most likely to read, and then connecting to that younger audience on the issues that concern them. >> great. thank you. looking from a more tactical

perspective of communicators, going back to candidates, organizations who do want to reach minority venues, we want to share stories as communicators, whether it is through our own organization, agencies, or things like that. what should communicator professionals be aware of when reaching out to your audience? is it necessary to be bilingual, for example? i will hand it to you. >> is it necessary to be bilingual? one of the things i see among latinos is 90% of the total young latino population actually prefer english when it comes to communicating with friends or consuming media. that number is high, 90% come even among first generation hispanics with parents from another country. they prefer english media consumption when it comes to that.

we make sure to throw in spanish nuances when it comes to that, but english is probably the way to go, especially for young demographic. actually, the hardest thing to come across -- i see it when i do private business consulting. that is the hardest point to get across to your client. you know, young people do prefer english amongst hispanic communities. it has been very interesting to watch clients kind of shifted their minds to think and shift their strategy when it comes to communicating to these communities. >> i guess i will have a counter intuitive answer. specific to muslim-americans, i do not think you need to be bilingual. young people, 90% or above, prefer english and are fluent in

english. the may be counter-intuitive peace to candidates and to people wanting to reach muslim americans is to not tailor your message to much, to actually be more mainstream and speak to them as you would any other community, and the other mainstream community where you are talking to them about issues on the economy or health care. i think that when we over-taylor messages to some groups, it actually can cause more of a feeling of alienation than being tailored. the advice i think i have is to make the message very mainstream. >> i have to agree with matt and dalia, specifically with regard to latino audiences here in the

u.s., where overtim time, we ned to be aware of cultural nuance, but also understand the interest of any given all the cultural community to assimilate or integrate into american society. therefore, we look at it and we want to make sure we are blending our culturally-nuanced messages, but not making that audience we're trying to reach feel separate from the main -- mainstream. >> i am from texas. in the southwest, there are a bunch of cities influenced by hispanic communities and by young latinos. in austin alone, when i lived there, there is an interesting connection of mixing different kinds of music and mixing different kinds of media together, with different cultures, and the same thing happened in l.a., among asian

populations. we are running a campaign in california targeting both asians and latino populations, young latino populations. the reason is that they both have similar stories when it comes to immigration. they also hang out with each other. they both listen to pit bull. we try to create a campaign that resonates with the mainstream, 1 foot in the mainstream and the other foot within their culture. that is representative of how millennial start today -- millennials are today. this notion of targeting can be dispelled by our generation, i think. it is a different approach. dalia was saying you need to make it mainstream with a hint

of something else. there are secondary markets that we interact with as well. hispanics have interacted with the hispanic community and somewhat identified. i have a friend who is white who loves hispanic culture and seems more -- speaks more spanish than i do. that is needed in the communities in the southwest and on the west coast. >> to delve even deeper into tactics, i wonder what strategies you would advise to someone who want to communicate with your particular culture. if a candidate wanted to be more inclusive, or your culture as well-represented in their base, what strategies would you recommend that they use? look up blogs, maybe you would

recommend they actually hire a minority ambassador. what would you recommend? i will start with navarrow. >> i do not know if and ambassador -- that this kind of strong. i do think they need to have an understanding of any audience they go after, have an understanding of where they gather information from, whether they advertise their. the beauty of the internet and social media is that there is infinite scale. if you have multiple messages you need to get out to unique groups of people, you can get them out at the same time. you can react to them. get those messages out on the sites they live, and give them reasons to come back. i think the obama campaign is probably the archetype for a lot of that stuff. he had profiles everywhere from

black planet to asian avenue to facebook, where anybody lived. he was able to give unique messages on those platforms and show that he understands the issues, but at the same time, bring people back to a central point where they were unified. it allows you to do both. >> among latino communities, i would recommend engaging people with geographical awareness. the geographical awareness is two-fold. first, heritage, second, area of residence in the united states. i believe in teaching people -- i believe engaging people, not so much an ambassador, but individuals that are placed well in different communities, be they community activists with a

propensity for online platform use -- you have a guatemalan who is better able to address other guatemalans about issues in the united states. a nicaraguan has a different take on it. i think there is a difference in propensity for use of second language as our primary language is depending on where you are in the united states. hear, if you look latino, you will probably be addressed in spanish, and it is completely acceptable. i expect that acceptances derived from the international focus of the area, the world bank, the imf, and so on. on the sock was border, if you look latino, it might be insulting to address someone in spanish or approach them via a spanish web portal. >> that is a good point.

>> matt? >> in terms of reaching out to -- like, among different social networks, one thing that i was trying to relate to my colleagues at work was a case -- there was a statistic that said a lot of organizations were leaving out minorities because they shifted from myspace to facebook really quickly. let me look of the numbers really quickly. that existed for a good year when facebook was getting more popular. then, they need a really interesting shift. they were not college-centric anymore. minorities -- a lot of minorities were not in college. in the past six months, that

migration is pretty much done, from myspace to facebook, and that was something that i thought was really interesting. they are on facebook know. a study done by a colleague of mine in austin that does advertising brought in 20 unac culturated people into a room and asked, how many of you have a facebook account? these included some custodial staff, some people from around the community. 19 of the 20 of them raised their hands. they had a facebook profile. they are not on it all the time. they go to the library, they go through their phone, but it is interesting that that becomes the social network now. six months ago, i thought it was split. it has been interesting to see

that that exists right now. >> i think that, you know, the interesting thing about the muslim-american community is that we do not have a hierarchy. in place of a formal hierarchy, there are multiple networks. people wanted to reach this community have to tap into a number of networks, starting with national organization, not to sightline organizations that are trying to be representative of the community on a natural -- national scale -- that is where a candidate should begin to have that credibility. they should also go to informal networks like those around popular bloggers. finally, to connect to the community on a very local level with very large institutions,

but there has to be a number of touch points to tap into such a diverse and dispersed community. >> we talk about social media sites and using those. with the proliferation of social media sites, especially among minority communities, are we really seeing actually improved communication by communicators to these populations? is social media enabling a better conversation there? do we just have more opportunities we have not tapped into yet? i will pass this microphone. >> i definitely think the opportunities are higher. the key question is, are people taking advantage of those opportunities? with the value of those increased opportunities, there is a validation. your message can get passed along to someone else that they already trust. they look at it with a higher level of credibility. it allows the users to have a

level of control. i just got a post from a site that says mountain do just released three fan-created flavors of their drink. they went to the users and said, what flavors do like? they changed their supply chain. that gives the users who are there a feeling that they are part of the process. that allows them to have direct connection with their audience. anyone from the campaign or a business can take elements from that. people are trying to connect. >> the one microphone is a bit problematic. i agree on the idea of online engagement and engagement in general with multicultural communities.

minority communities are largely decentralized. there is not one specific access point or area of origin. i believe that on-line groups, online platforms like twitter, like facebook, are giving us opportunities to reach trusted community elites and allowing them to report this information. information given by a trusted friend is more valued. we have seen recently, over the past 10 months, latinos and african-americans highly trust messages delivered to them by their friends on social media platforms like facebook. they are more likely to buy products recommended by their friends and more likely to prescribe to services or support a candidate. to offer another statistic that is interesting, over 2009 and into 2010, latino and african- american use of twitter has grown 770%.

latino use of facebook has grown 65% in the past 18 months. >> matt? >> this is going to be my last question before air open it up. i will do a looking for work -- -- forward question. one of the fastest-growing groups in the country as multiracial americans. i wonder what advice you have for preparing -- as communicators, how we can better prepare or address this new, growing demographic. matt? >> hispanics are by nature multicultural and multiracial. it is something that is not new to the population. the majority of america is becoming that way, even if they

are mostly european. they have contracted with these communities. we are multi-cultural, even if you are in iowa. sometimes, you are connected to different communities. i think the trend we always try to make sure to watch for is that there are different areas of influence for cultures. in the southwest, it is hispanic-oriented. in the southeast, african- american. use that not as the whole, but use that as a point of reference to direct any messaging, that sort of thing, and not to, i guess, separate. my whole thing is that separating groups can sometimes just put people into silos and not interact with others when the reality is quite the opposite. i think there is this different

amount of synergy amongst different communities by the very nature of being in this country. >> i think that the biggest trend that we're going to be seeing is that less and less people will define themselves according to a specific ethnic group. because of how multi-cultural one family could be, and the community that i study, muslim- americans are very multi- cultural, no majority has dominance on them from the group in terms of the race, and there is a great deal of interest- marriage between people of different backgrounds, but i think that where we will see more of the definition as a round generation. communicators will really have to tailor their message not necessarily to specific race groups, but to a specific age group that actually was in a

generation, regardless of ethnic background. there will be common factors. i think the dominant identity marker will just be shifting in the future. >> so, i am less -- i do not think the whole multiracial thing is anything new. we are in multiracial culture today. there are two groups that exist. we talk about age groups. we talk about the digital natives, which are the 10-year- old, the 25-year-old now, who grow up with the internet with them in their everyday lives, opposed to many of us, who were dismal immigrants that were dragged kicking and screaming into the internet age. we need to focus on the connected and the disconnected. we look around the room and when would you think you would come

to a government conference and it would be sponsored by aol and ipads? that shows you the speed of the industry. for every new loss of a new product or a new idea, there is still a subgroup that does not have a connection to it. they may have heard about it, but they will not touch it or interact with it until later down the path. as it accelerates, that apple widen. there's an opportunity from the business standpoint. there is need from a political standpoint to address those issues, regardless of race. it is multiracial. if you go to silicon valley, it is a diverse set the people creating these applications. race is not the issue. it is about free open sharing. if we brought minorities over, you would solve a lot of the issues. >> just one point to add, to

give a little bit of a window into the diversification of america, i am nicaraguan-german first-generation american. more and more, we're seeing really interesting cross- cultural communities and individuals who feel very strong value for messages from the general market and in reference to their cultural heritage. i would not say it is changing the way communicator's communicate. i would say it is changing the windows through which our communities view messages. much has been said throughout the panel discussion so far. i believe it is important that we continue to outreach to multicultural communities, but at the same time making sure our contact with them is relevant and specific to issues of importance to the community. i say this and it seems very

generalized as a statement, but it is very important to understand that our communities are interested in hearing messages that are important to them, while not, as communicators, pandering to communities around issues we perceive as unimportant. >> we're actually going to open it up right now. i saw your hand go up. i believe a microphone is going around. this is it. >> sorry. i have two questions. matt, in terms of the younger generation being early adopters, how does it translate into voting and taking action? in addition to myspace, you have seen people have moved to facebook, but it has no data.

you can collect to know what the real numbers are. how are we really tracking that and looking like that? navarrow, in terms of mobile access, with a large percentage of african-americans having smartphones, how does that change the strategy for campaigning and otherwise? >> the first question is, how can campaigners reach their audience? that is through sustainability. if they are barely introducing themselves to one community, they have not done their job. i think that is my name point. if they have not reached out to that community already, i think

that is something that should be addressed before they hop onto the social network. offline interaction is probably the best way to interact with any community. the second question is, you are right. facebook does not track ethnicity. that is where the research comes into play. you are researching different musical tastes, different interests, that sort of thing. if you were to purchase facebook ads, you can do it with different interests, like spanish-language. we do it through music. a lot of our campaigns are music-driven and celebrity- driven as well. .

and it even though it does not cover exact at the city, there are cultural preferences pinpoint -- a cultural references. >> i do believe that, specifically in the mobile space, anyone who is going out to try and reach a broad audience has to take a multi- tiered approach. if you're going to come out with a new campaign, say you deployed on the ad, to reach the the reserve addition of audiences, -- say you deploy on the ipad, to reach the reverse audience -- it is not going to do it.

you have to go native. you have to look at the device is people are using. you may have to go through -- you may have to look at the devices people are using. you may have to go through sms. they are using a variety of devices that may not have access to the site you are presenting them to. people use those as excuses to not address the issue of the gap and divide. you have to account for whether you are losing out on customers and opportunities. >> to take it back off of that, one main thing i tried to drive home is that low-fi works. people ask about what the next facebook is. part of me does not care. let's just be in place. if there is communication that exists, low-fi works.

sms campaigns can be extremely successful. it works well among even young communities. it is probably more successful than social media. it is very interesting. i do not get to check my facebook message until after this panel. if there was a message that came through, it would come up really quickly. not penetration is there. one of the most interesting -- that petition is there. one of the most interesting statistics is that 25% of iphone users are hispanic. that was crazy. you can look up that statistic. if you go to sports categories, the univision futbol act is n umber one, due to lack of competition. that is an opportunity for other businesses. it is not -- it is kind of an

all-in approach. it was multi-tiered to cover every smart phone, down to the very basic -- smartphone, down to the very basic phone that handles sms. >> other questions? >> navarrow, you talk a little bit about education. how do you see education bridging the digital divide between those who have these technologies and those people who have not yet adopted them? >> example -- i wrote a post on my blog about two months ago. i wanted to see what it would take to build an iphone app.

i went to my local library. i went on itunes, and i took a free class. it costs $99 to get a developer license on the app store. if you look at that, compared to opening a restaurant, starting a cleaner, running a paper route, any of those things were more labor-intensive than it was to get on one of the emerging platforms out there. having access to those things is an enabling tool. we need to educate people that this information is out there. we're in an age where there is nothing you cannot find on the internet, whether it is a skill, a piece of information, but there is a group out there that has no idea that exists.

that is not the first place they turn to. google is not an instinct for them. from an education standpoint, many things are offered for free. you can start your own path, to a certain degree, without spending a dime. once you do that, you realize there are opportunities you can create without leaving your home. it gets us into the geographic limitations. it does not matter where i live, i can create opportunities for myself. no other medium allows us to do that. >> were there other audience questions? >> since you have been talking about everything online, i was hoping you could elaborate on offline, like a multi-tiered approach of grass roots engaging of minorities and so forth.

>> don't do it. [laughter] you have to answer your own question. whether it is the economy, how fast we need to move, everybody is trying to do more and -- more in less time. you know the time and avert a takes to do and on0-- the time d effort it takes to do an on- the-ground campaign. you may not get the same feedback on the ground. there is tech confidence. people are more open when they are not looking at you in the face. it is not a cure want to knock on their door and have an argument about it. dot is -- it is not like you are

going to knock on their door and have an argument about it. it is free-flowing information. did you look at your campaign data, i have to believe that -- if you look at europe campaign data, i have to believe that when you focus on the platforms and media and then you get feedback. you are able to react to it. >> i will give a slightly different point of view on that. with some committees, you do actually need a multi tiered approach -- with some communities, you do actually need a multi-tiered approach. you need personal interaction. you need face-to-bface interaction. important -- it is important for many communities. you need to connect with them where they are. it could be things like universities and connecting with young people at university

organizations. >> amongst young audiences, they can smell a rat on line or offline. offline is the way to go to build trust. if that name has not been brought up offline among friends or colleagues, i think offline is the most important thing, even before they get on to facebook. it is the trust issue. when i am online, do i trust someone? have i heard their names before in my community? that is more important than, this guy has a great message on facebook. offline is definitely the way to go before you get on facebook. it is common sense to me. it is easy to see who is authentic and who is not.

>> [unintelligible] >> i have to agree with all of the panelists. we run an annual poll called the trust barometer. one thing that we have found over time is that someone like myself is the most trusted person. each person has that image in their mind -- of who someone like myself is. given that, there is a need for offline communication and engagement. i can speak specifically to latino audiences where we have many countries of origin and many specific nuances between country and issue, et cetera. when you look at someone like myself, it is developing that relationship off line and bring it online to augment it -- relationships offline, and

bringing it online to augment it. won that we experienced offline -- one thing that we experience off line is that can be difficult for some community leaders to get direct access to their groups. the way to capture those individuals and engage them directly and have them become your supporters is to follow up and engaged them online. -- follow up and engage them online. >> great. these are great answers. online tools are great for feeding into offline activities. i do not know of would get penalized for mentioning the obama campaign. -- know if we get penalized for mentioning the obama campaign.

people woere doing offline activities and online activities. technology feeds offline activity. were there more questions? i have one more. go ahead. >> hi. at least two of you have mentioned the need to build trust to attract particular audiences and bring them to the online activities. i would like you to elaborate more on that. there are people who do not use the internet in the same way. they do go to the internet. their families may live in other countries, but they do not use it in the same way.

i would like examples on how o to how online trust -- how to build that online trust. >> the main thing is that it is a medium. social media is just a medium. television is just a medium. the main thing any politician or organization needs to do is answer, what is your purpose? if the organizer is not well- informed on his or her issues, then the medium does not even matter. that turned into an offline organizing -- turns into offline organizing. with the proliferation of online media, there is more of a check

on what they have done in their life, what kind of issues they have championed throughout their career, and if there is some sort of discrepancy. it will become very apparent and turn into an offline disaster. >> i mean, i would chime in. regardless of the medium, you have to be authentic in your message. secondly, with any medium, you have to give people a reason to want to be there. even with the internet users who only use it to communicate with their friends and relatives, that is their reason. you can capitalize on that. connecting to the people around them, so that they see those messages around people that they trust and have relationships with, it spurs the conversation

while they do that interaction and it leaves the thought in their mind. i do not necessarily believe that there is a one-size-fits -all. you have to see what resonates with them and try to drop the messages in the authentic ways to connect. >> i think it is important to start offline and to connect with people in a way that they feel they have had that personal interaction. i will give you one example. i worked on a campaign last summer to mobilize muslim americans for community service. it had a very large online component. i do not think that would have worked, had there not been a very strong offline component,

both with engaging community leaders personally, phone calls, meetings, and then actually connecting with large numbers of people at a national conference. because there were these two components, there was an ability to connect with them and motivate, inspire, and follow up with an online component. there does have to be that marriage between the two. you have to give people something to do. if you want to keep them engaged, they have to feel a sense of ownership and involvement. once you get and have their attention, you need to give them something to do that will empower them to be part of this larger movement. >> to get to another part of that question -- how do we build communities up the ladder of technology sadness? how are we building their

digital literacy -- technology savvy? how are we building their digital literacy? are there things we should be doing? >> i think digital literacy is -- it can be part of a campaign. you can create a duality of a value. if you know you have to reach a certain audience and you know they are not literate, you can educate and inform them of your cost at the exact same time. the reason why it serves a double benefit is that, if it resonates with them, they share it with their friends and bring other people online. until we great that value and reason to be there, you are not going to engage them. he will not have them -- until we create that value and reason

to be there, you are not going to engage them. he will not have them online. -- you will not have them online. they need to know what they are coming to look for. >> it is a compelling call to action. we've seen adoption. we have more folks engaged and online. it is beholden upon this as communicators or other entities to buy in while you are still ahead of the wave. we're looking at incredible numbers of people online. there are incredible numbers of multicultural audience is becoming the majority. there may not be online platforms deployed that service those groups, however, let's look at how quickly to other online platforms have grown,

specifically within these groups. this is the turning point, right now, where we need to get out there, not only with the compelling call to action, information, education, but also to get out there and engage. >> the most important thing that we look at is net neutrality. it is very important. we came out and spoke in support of net neutrality. it was very upsetting to see the ruling that came out a few weeks ago. with digital literacy and the quality, that is our main thing -- and equality, that is our main thing. >> not necessarily. [laughter] >> it is a balanced kind of thing. a lot of people said the other side of that is, what will do

the best in terms of adoption and making that our focus? it is a little bit of both. i have one -- i saw one more question from the audience. >> [unintelligible] >> the main one that i read does a lot of media history. he is an excellent for a customer -- excellent professor. he talks about media proliferation and history it amongst different communities, and how that fits into economics and history in general, of how businesses and organizations proliferate. he talks about equality. he is probably the one who has had the most influence on how i formed my opinions. rushkoff.

>> i was going to say that there is less about authors. get more active in the blogosphere. by the time you research, the research is old. bloggers give you a real-time assessment. the day the ipod came out, you've got real time reviews of how users would use it, how it would change the industry. by the time someone writes the first ipad book, that information is outdated. you can find people logging -- blogging about it. >> did you guys want to recommend any other things for people who are trying to get a better understanding of communicating with multicultural communities? >> i would recommend looking at

research. i am going to do something less -- some shameless self- promotion. at a gallop, we have research on every community you can think of. -- at gallup, we have research on every community can think of, including demographics and attitudes. >> two others. i would highly recommend the hispanic center. there are incredible amounts of open information. it is a little bit old-world. there is a hispanic-american center for research. they have some really great information out about engaging latinos in the united states and in general. the mother is a little blog -- >> there is a little blog

called navarrowwright.com. >> we are at a time. thank you for the new information. -- we are out of time. misnomer -- minority is a misnomer. we should talk in terms of multiculturalism. i learned a lot of new things to use in my communication going forward. it is not just about the online the new. -- the online venue. you have to think about generations and geography. you have to think about the message itself. around of applause for our panelists. [applause] we will be around for questions afterwards, as well. thank you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> refreshments are outside, sponsored by aol. stop by our table. >> there is a huge lack of knowledge about how this town and congress work. >> when are doing the actual research, you have to do that yourself. but this week and, two award winning -- >> this weekend, two award-winning authors will talk about their work.

that is on the "q&a." >> now, the second of three election debates with prime minister and labour party leader gordon brown, david cameron, and nick clegg. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> now to the first debate among the candidates for a u.s. senate seat in arkansas democratic primary. the race has been rated as one of the most competitive in the country. you'll hear from senator blanche lincoln, who is being challenged by lieutenant governor bill halter, and businessman d.c. morrison. this debate is being held at the university of arkansas at little rock. it comes to you courtesy of katv. >> three candidates, one

nomination. incumbent blanche lincoln, looking for her third term in the united states senate. bill halter, in had the final year of his first term as lieutenant. he jumped into the race on march 1. and businessman d.c. morrison, a self-described conservative democrat appeared only one will face the republican nominee in the fall. all three will make their best case to you tonight. from the university theater on the ualr campus, katv presents the u.s. senate debate. >> good evening, everyone. my name is scott inman. it is my pleasure to welcome you here to the ualr campus, whether you're watching across the state or across the country.

on c-span or world wide. we are glad to have you. for the next 60 minutes, we will be engaged in an important discussion about the state of our state and our country. we will be focusing on three candidates. we would like to introduce the candidates to you, now. to my left, senator blanche will become -- centre blanche lincoln they will field questions from the panel. we have four people on our panel. let's introduce our panel. to my right is christopher smith. to his right is jessica being.

to her right is craig canion into his right is david catanese. the rules are simple. the panelists will ask a question and they will direct it to one specific candidate and each candidate will have one minute to respond. each candidate will have a turn. we will begin with a two minute opening statement. the order of that was determined before the broadcast i think katv and ualr for hosting us. i have been honored to be serving as your lieutenant governor for the last three years. i would like to thank those that have embraced my family but such

warmth and affection first >> the second thing it means is that i have been in the maternity ward at least twice in the last three years. maternity wards are one of the great equalizers in our society. it does not matter what your wealth is. everyone has the same hopes and dreams -- they want a happy, healthy child. i have seen it. i have seen the parents and grandparents as they make that silent prayer and silent promise. they say they will do everything they can to give their children a better life. unfortunately, washington is no longer working for those families or for those children, or for our future. that is why i am writing for the

senate. in the last 10 years, washington has added $7 trillion to our national debt, almost $100,000 for each arkansas family. we have lost millions of jobs in this recession. washington, unfortunately, listens more to special interests, than they listen to us. they take special interest money and then they vote their way, rather than for arkansas families. they let wall street when our economy into the ground -- run our economy into the ground, and then they want to take credit for finally noticing the problem. as your senator, i will not take a pay raise as long as the federal budget is still in deficit. i will get in a truck and hold town hall meetings in all 75 counties in arkansas. we need to put more arkansas values into washington. >> thank you. lt. gov., halter. -- lt. gov halter.

special interests have been shooting at me from both sides. i will work consistently to get the best results for the people of arkansas. i know who sent it to congress. it is the people of arkansas. i worked hard and in 184 years. the senate committee on agriculture has never had a chairman from the state of arkansas, but it does now. these are the bosses is a part of our economy.

i have passed the most and is that child nutrition bill in history. this week, we brought some light to a derivative market so that lawmakers can no longer gamble with taxpayers in arkansas. i will continue to fight transparency -- fight for transparency. i stood up for special interests as i have throughout my life. that is what you sent me to washington to do, to stand up for what is good and right for arkansas. tonight, i come before the democratic primary voters, proud of my voting record that makes me accountable to you, the people of arkansas. i would appreciate your vote at your support in this election.

i would appreciate your .c. morrison. >> thank you for hosting this. i am honored to be here tonight to visit with you. when i decided i would run for this office, i began by going all over arkansas, door-to-door, to meet people face to face to see if they felt the same way i do. they are dissatisfied with the national government but it time and time again, people have never seen it before and their lives and they invited me into their homes -- excuse me -- and i found that their concerns are the same as mine. one thing they are concerned about is jobs.

i have some ideas that i think can help our country rebuild our jobs. one of the things i would like to work on is the passage of the to work on is the passage of the gress. it would abolish the irs and appealed the 16th amendment. you pay the tax on consumption and not on income. this would encourage businesses to invest in the united states insists sending jobs overseas. the tax code is called "code" for a reason. there is indecipherable rules and regulations that create -- that keeps americans in trouble with their taxes. i would like to work on this health care legislation. how will 16,000 new irs agents and 150,000 bu how will 16,000 new irs agents ill not. within 10 years, private

insurance will not exist and you will talk to a government bureaucrat in place of talking to your doctor. i want to do something about that. thank you. >> thank you. our first question is from a politico reporter. >> you have touted your opposition to what is known as cap and trade, where companies would be charged for their commission. in the last congress, you come -- co-sponsored a bill that would have capped commissions with the market based trading system i would like to know why you changed your position on cap and trade and where you stand today. but i do not think i've changed my position. i have expressed that it is critically important that we focus on lowering our carbon emissions in cleaning up our environment. i think it is essential that we lessen our dependence on foreign oil for economic reasons and in terms of national security.

we should see the challenges that exist by creating good, green jobs. i supported a bipartisan bill that came out of the energy committee. we look at energy standards. we make sure we but those in place. we make sure that everyone is helping to solve those problems, not picking winners and losers. the legislation that came through the house picks winners and losers. that does not include many of our industries and arkansas. we want to support wind and solar. we want to make sure agriculture's part of the solution. we want to encourage industries to be around the table as they lower the carbon emissions. but thank you. d.c. morrison is next. >> i am opposed to the cap and trade legislation . i think the man-made global

warning is a hoax. co2 accounts for 3% of the greenhouse gases. of that 3%, only 3% of that 3% comes from activities of man. i want common sense solutions. i would like to look at it. i do not like the man-made global warning argument. over the history of our earth, there was a mini-ice age. the earth's orbit caried in the orbit arounds the stem orbitunspots hand and -- around day sun. sunspots have an effect on this. we need to step back and take a but at this and do what works. >> thank you. i would not support the current cap and trade bill without some changes being made to it to level the playing field with some of our competitors like india and china. i have been to china.

i have seen the pollution . we are putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage. we clearly need to meet the goals of the cap and trade bill. we also need to establish energy independence. we are spending $1 billion a day on imported oil. not only is that a drain on our resources, it presents us with a national security issue . it is evidence of a real figure in washington. we've been talking about doing this since 1974. we have not done it. it has costas in terms of security.

if you send me to washington as a senator, i will make progress. >> our next question is from 4029 news. mr. morrison will be first to answer. >> the question for you, and a lot of views that you have seemed to be those close to some republican views. some viewers are asking what kind of democrat are you and how would you define the candidates running against you? >> i was born a democrat. my mother is a democrat. my family are democrats. the democratic party serves the state of arkansas well, very well. and lots of our county judges are democratic folks working not for the little salary that

they are paid but because they want to serve their community. my problem is with the liberal democrat in washington for duke i think that we should put it -- washington. i think the way to put party politics aside. i am not happy with either political party. i am an american first. i am a member of several hunting clubs. i am a christian. i am a father the way down the list i am a democrat. you can make of it what you want. i was born a democrat. i am a democrat. >> thank you for that statement. i would say that like d.c. i am an american and a father, a husband.

i am also a very proud democrat. i am proud of what the democratic party has done to advance our nation's ideals. i am proud of what the democratic party has done in its best days in advance in education for americans, in protecting medicare and social security, in trying to give everyone a great start in life so that we can all live up to our god-given potential. i do not shirk from that lightly or at all. we have done great things as a party. it is hard to put one word labels on both. i know there are a lot of folks that would like to do that. i have some conservative and moderate positions to do i think all of them are within the

mainstream. i am proud of that. >> thank you. >> i'm a democrat from birth. i am proud of that. i am proud to be an arkansas democrat predicted that means we do chairs the root of our democratic party, the encompassing is so much diversity that we know is a rich part of our history. i think it is important to note that democrats are doers. we work hard. whether it is educating our children or protecting our soldiers are making sure that our communities can create the environment where we can bring in good jobs. that is the number-one issue. i worked diligently in trying to eliminate the deficit and making sure that we create jobs. i think democrats are doers. that is where the reasons why i am a democrat. i'm proud to be an arkansas democrat. >> thank you. our next question comes from jessica dean. >> good evening. my question to you is this.

this will make it easier for unions to organize. do you agree with this or support it? >> the employee free choice act is really no longer operative. if you talk to labor leaders, that is no longer on the table. what they are talking about is streamlining elections, speeding up collections, and putting in place some opportunities for folks to make sure that they are not inhibited in their democratic decision making when it comes to whether or not to organize or not. interesting hoehling, senator lincoln was a sponsor of the employe 3 choice act. now she has been an opponent. she signaled the leadership that should filibuster the employee free choice act.

i am looking for a compromise. what i've heard of the principles of that compromise i would support. >> senator lincoln is next. >> i appreciate that the bill has seen that compromise. most senators have not seen that compromise. i think the biggest issues are jobs in the economy. the countries and when it the greatest climate since they treat depression. it has traded a volatile environment. there are 100,000 arkansans letter out of work right now. we can work to bring business management and workers together to help create a good economy. i do not support the legislation. i do not support card check. i think it creates a division as well as destruction at a time when we do not need that. we need all hands on deck. there are great strides that can be made, particularly in looking at the national labor

relations board and the improvement there. i hope that we will. >> mr. morrison. >> thank you. i like to listen to mike builders. some people may can sitter me an elder produced a guide that i really admire was senator george mcgovern. last year he made a statement that he opposed card check. i would have been opposed to that as well. senator mcgovern, if you like to know about his life, you can get the book. it is a great story. he served in the senate for about 30 years. when he got out of the senate, he went back to north dakota and one is to open a business. he said at that time that if he

had had any idea abou the votes that he cast while he was in the senate and how they really impact small business, he would not have done half of them. that is my point. a lot of the people in washington are out of touch with main street and the folks here. that is a good example. >> thank you. our next question is from christopher smith. senator lincoln will be first. >> what kind of judicial nominees to the supreme court would you support with your vote? would you consider a judicial activist or a very progressive nominee? >> one of the most important responsibilities we have as a senator is to judge those nominees that the president brings before us. to look at it in a holistic way and make sure we are looking at

individuals who have the background and the ability to look at the issues and to make a judgment based on the block. -- law. i do not being a judicial activist is inappropriate. i do not think it is appropriate for them to try to create law but to look at the law and implement it as it has been written by congress. i think we have great opportunities. i have looked at several of the supreme court justice nominations that have come before me. some of them i have agreed with politically. some of which i have not agreed with politically. i based on their qualifications. . .

i am glad you asked that question. one thing is very important to me. should i be elected, i would oppose the confirmation of a judge to the supreme court that i even suspected of being pro- abortion. >> mr. halter. >> thank you. i think as senators should evaluate judges on being impartial and fair-minded, adhering to the constitution. we should look to those candidates fore higher -- for higher judgeships. wish to discern whether they have been fair and balanced -- we should discern whether they have been fair and balanced. i think those that before

nominees should make sure they represent the broad diversity of arkansas. you can count on me to do that, to make sure that judicial appointments and judicial nominations are representative broadly of arkansas and its people. >> thank you, mr. halter. >> we have to get spending under control. we cannot leave that for our

children and grandchildren to pay off. if you have someone with a salary of $25,000, and they owe $25,000 to credit card companies, how will they ever dig their way out of that? excuse me. we cannot leave that. i ask each of you tonight, if you are parents, would you go into your child's room and take money that they had earned babysitting or mowing the lawns, and spend it for something that you thought you wanted? of course you would not hear the politicians in washington are willing to do that. that is one of the reasons -- of course you would not. the politicians in washington are willing to do that. that is one of the reasons i am running. when president clinton into that office, we had a two and $80 billion deficit.

it was projected to go higher. i was proud to be part of the team that balance that budget. it left a surplus at the end of his administration. since that time, washington has wrecked our budget. this year we will turn in at least a $1.40 trillion deficit. in the last 10 years, we have added $7 trillion of debt on top of arkansas families and the rest of the country. that is not right. there are things we can do and have done to try to trim spending. also, we need to get our economy moving again. that will help us to reduce the deficit in the longer term. i'd look forward to working on these issues. i look forward to balancing the federal budget again. >> thank you. >> in my first days in

congress, i started a group called the blue dog democrat who supported the constitutional amendment. my opponent takes credit for balancing the budget under president clinton. that is a tough vote and make it a reality. there are important things we can do to help is still without a deficit. putting our spending is a critical part of it. long-term spending is also important. we have got to deal with those. that is one of the reasons why healthcare has been so important. it lowers the deficit by $132 billion. i have helped to pass pay-go rules. we should be balancing our budget and the nation. i put instrument in place to help our nation do that.

>> that concludes round one. we will now move into round two. >> you have criticized the signature with her votes for the tarp stimulus, right? we cannot seem to get an exact answer it how you had been in their how would you vote? >> tarp and the stimulus are two different things. i would have voted no on that tarp bill. it has very few strings attached and accountability. i would not have voted to dicker regulate wall street in the first place. -- to deregulate wall street in the first place. this problem did not occur overnight.

as president obama said just yesterday, the responsibility for this lies with wall street and washington. i also cannot simultaneously regulate an industry and then go out and solicit campaign contributions. i asked senator lincoln to give back the contribution goldman sachs made to her campaign. they are under investigation for fraud. i think it is unseemly to be raising money from the very folks you are supposed to regulate, particularly when they wrecked our economy. >> thank you. we have indicated that we would no longer take any of those funds are deal with goldman sachs. the 45 countries that i received from the tax unfortunately has not affected

what i have done. i have created an passed the toughest reform bill on wall street that anyone had seen. we bring the $600 trillion out to the dark and into the light of the dave . -- of day. we lowered systemic risk. we bring 100 and transparency to the market with real-time reporting to both the public and the regulators to do we protect municipalities. when regulate foreign exchange -- we regulate foreign exchange. i get criticized because i deny do this 10 years. i have done the best since i could since i have gotten it. >> thank you. washington always seems to

solve the problem that just happened. the financial meltdown began with misguided efforts in washington, d.c. for home ownership for every american takeovers to banks to make unsound loans -- every american. a day, worst -- they coereced bacnk to make loans. they were ignored by washington because they wanted to continue this practice. barney frank has said that he wanted to roll the dice a little bit more. when it all came down, the taxpayers had to pick up the bill. of course wall street is responsible. any company that leverage is up 40 to 1 deserves to go broke.

the taxpayer should not have had to bail them out. >> our next question is from jessica dean. >> recent polls show that the majority of arkansas voters think that the health care bill was bad for the country. you voted for it. do you still believe that vote was good for arkansas? >> asaph this lead. -- absolutely. there is no doubt there has been a lot of misinformation. we started this debate with seven different bills. people that differenbits and pif those different bills. i started working on health care in 2004, working with senator snowe on a bill that focused on the largest percentage of uninsured, working to see how we provide a marketplace similar to what we have for small businesses to access quality

health care at a low-cost. when the health-care debate happened, i heard from our arkansas. they wanted to make sure children were not born to be denied health insurance. we did that in this bill. we made sure that the 230 million americans better uninsured will be able to keep their interns in the private -- that are insured will be able to keep their insurance in the private marketplace. >> thank you. mr. morrison? >> i think it is a job killer. health care needs reform. there is no doubt about that. i do not believe the federal government has the power to force you to buy anything, including health insurance.

cleveland clinic gives us a -- a just recently published study from the cleveland clinic gives us little clue -- smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, lack of exercise accounts for 50% to 60% of the health care costs. health care costs are not tied because premiums are high. health-care costs are high because of habits of the american people. the federal government is not one to solve that. my concern is that seven or 10 years down the road, you will not be able to buy private insurance. you are going to have the same people running your health insurance that thought home ownership for every american was a good idea. >> i think there were many good things in the bill, including an elimination of pre-existing conditions to exclude people from health insurance. you cannot be done this issue unless you are clear in what

direction you are going. senator lincoln was initially for the public option. then she said she was against the public option. then she went to the floor of the senate and threatened to filibuster the public option. she voted against the reconciliation bill which would have improved to the underlying senate bill but is now the law. president obama supported that. senator lincoln has run television ads saying she oppose the public option that president obama supported. shares also run radio ads on -- she has also run radio ads on african american radio saying she supported president obama. you have to be clear and decisive . that did not happen in this issue. >> thank you. our next question is from christopher smith. >> mr. marston, since president obama was in office for two

more years, how would you go about establishing a good working relationship with him? what issues would you support and issues you do not support with the president? >> if i'm elected, i am going to be working for the people of arkansas and the people of the united states of america not president obama. the issues that i would like to work on are the issues that are before us now that i mentioned earlier. i would like to pass the fair tax. i think it will work. i would like health-care reform that would work. without forcing them to buy health care under the threat of a fine or going to jail. another thing i think that is important that is not being addressed is the board is security between the united states and mexico and our border security all around the

country. it is a little disconcerting to mention. mention. there were 17,000 murders in northern mexico and the last three years. that is scary. 650 kidnappings in arizona. something has to be some. >> i think our most immediate needs are to work on creating jobs in the united states and in arkansas. i would wear to eliminate the tax provision that action against american companies an incentive to move jobs overseas. replace those with tax credits so that we can create jobs here at home and said the more bailout for wall street. but put those funds into loans for arkansas small businesses.

i would build on a scholarship lottery to improve the training of our workforce long term. i believe we could get passed federal legislation that would build on the arkansas scholarship lottery sell arkansas students with a 2.5 grade point average could go to any public college or university in arkansas tuition free. that has been an ideal and go for democrats for years, to provide that educational opportunity so we can live up to our potential. >> i am glad to see that he is back on his a positive campaign. we would like to agree with him. it is very important to have this tax credits. i join the governor and fort smith. we noted the mitsubishi plants coming in. making sure that we are working to provide those kind of tax incentives to keep jobs in america and not send them overseas. i already work with president

obama. i already know him. i work well with them. healthcare was a big issue. i feel proud about what we did. bill thinks the reconciliation was very essential. i did not think it was essential. i think we did a good job with the health care bill. i voted for it on christmas eve. i did join the president in the signing ceremony. i believe we have made a good effort. we are making sure that people could not be denied because of an illness or be dropped because of an illness and not to mention covering our children. >> our final question from the panel tonight is from david catanese. >> you and the senator have spared recently about the issue both social security. like medicare, it is an entitlement that is going

insolvent. what is the most feasible option that basis social security? raise taxes? raise the retirement age? >> about social security, i was proud to be the deputy commissioner under president clinton. i thought president bush's attempts to privatize -- in the past, when we have needed to improve solvency of social security, which always had a balanced package of revenue increases and benefit reductions. in the past, we have worked with raising the retirement age. that is the current law. my birth year covert to be the first at the age of 67. if you look to previous history on social security reform, you will see that we can do this. over a 75 year time frame, so security is only out of balance

by about 1.8% of payroll. that is something that we have successfully addressed in the past. with a balanced package of revenue increases, we can balance social security for the long run. >> thank you. >> i certainly believe that keeping our promise to working americans will be there in their golden years is absolutely a promise we must keep a bit and do not think there only three ways to solve the problem. i have opposed attempts to privatize social security. bill has mentioned that he does believe there is an opportunity to be able to invest social security money in what street. we know what would happen if we would have done that. i do not support a reduction of

social security guaranteed benefits. i introduced a bill to try to implement this. i think it is inexcusable. a bill will preclude members of congress from getting a pay raise this year. social security benefits are not. i was a strong supporter in the effort to trim the bush tax cuts and direct it to insuring solvency of the social security trust fund. the best thing we can do is get our economy back on track in getting people back to work. >> social security is very important. we must do everything possible to make sure it is there. you folks have paid in cash. it has gone to the government. he should be able to trust them to do what they say they will do. when social security began in 1937, we were a dunk nation.

there were 16 working folks for every been necessary. there was never an accumulation phase. the money should have been accumulated over the years. currently, there are three people working for every recipient of every social security. there will soon be two people. in 1981, the congress raided the trust fund, to cut the cash and replace it with an iou. this year, we are having to cash in those ious. we are probably barring some of the money from china. the government has to keep their promise. i would do that by cutting spending. >> we will close with e-mail questions. we go to john -- i am sorry commentary for our next.

senator lincoln will be first to respond. >> do you think though "biting sound-byte" ads, that you run it to a stronger candidate? >> i am disappointed by the negative tone of this election, too. the problem is that i'm being outspent 3 to 1. there are outside groups coming in and spending large numbers of money in arkansas. those people will not tell you who they are predicted. tagline at the bottom. they will not tell you who they are in terms of telling you who we should be in arkansas and what you should think about me. roughly 1/6 of the ads are mine. all i'm trying to do is to make sure i can get my message out and insure the voters are able to see the path of the

opponents. i think that is only fair i had a 15 year record of votes. i am proud of that record. >> i have enjoyed the ads. [laughter] i used to think that talk was cheap until i found out what channel 7 charges for television. [laughter] it is worth every penny. if i had the money, i would do it. i enjoyed one that showed children throwing money in the air. i am trying to show folks that you can do things without money. money is not the solution to all our problems. personal responsibility and hard work will take you a long way that is about all i have to go

on with my campaign. i am opposed to a lot of the ads. i think we should just stay to the issues and run on your record. i think that would work better. thank you. >> i too would really love to see an improved tone. as senator lincoln pointed out, there is an ad out there that folks will not even reveal who they are. they basically charged that i was for the privatization of social security which is a lie. they will not tell you who they are. they are still out there. i suspect they will run some more ads. that was such a distortion that jim roosevelt came out and called it an outright lie. unfortunately, senator lincoln has run ads that commentators and arkansas have called this

honest, smearts. if you hours to launch another ad -- it provides a pretty girl to take down of a recent plant -- a recent ferro takedown of a blanche lincoln smear, so the lies continue. i've taken down the website that is called bailout blanche. i would ask you as we go forward if you stop referring to me ask dollar bill. [laughter] if you would seize the mailers. let's present a positive that we want for our futures and kids. >> that concludes the question portion of tonight's debate. we will now move in to closing statements. each candidate will have to statements predicted minute. -- two statements. >> thank you for everyone being here.

two nights ago i was at a pizza joint in arkansas where i met three generations of an arkansas family. the grandparents are on social security. the mother is bravely raising two daughters alone because her husband and their father died in service to our country. the 16 year-old daughter told me proudly that she had a 3.4 grade point average and that she was going to college. her 11 year-old sister spoke proudly of her dad. she said she was going to college, too, because she was going to earn a scholarship. they are not asking for special treatment. they certainly earned it. they have not given up. neither will i.. this family deserves a senator who is on their side.

together we can stand up to special interests and we can change washington's ways. in arkansas, we passed a scholarship program that provides scholarships for the two young woman. some say it cannot be done. we got it done together. as your senator, i will be proud to work with better jobs in arkansas to fight social security privatization and cuts in medicare and to balance the federal budget again. if you are tired of politicians to take special interest money and then vote their way, if you think it is ridiculous for washington to stand by white wall street runs over our economy and now want to take credit for addressing a problem that has been there for tenure, -- for 10 years, as i would say

let's change washington together. to that family in dumas and across arkansas, when you give us a level playing field, we can win. >> thank you. senator lincoln is next. >> i certainly will meet that challenge of being positive and bill will make sure that the special interest will bring down the negative attitude as well. i think it is so clear. primary voters have a clear choice beginning may 3. you know where i stand. i have proven that i will take the tough votes. i will make the tough choices when it is right for arkansas. my vote for the budget in 1993 meant that i had to face a difficult reelection the next year. it was the right thing to do. that budget agreement led to four straight years of budget surpluses and a booming economy. fisher, my vote for reform means that i will face a re- election that is difficult. i know it is the right thing to do for arkansas. it will help stabilize our economy and offer access to more than 500,000 uninsured

arkansans. as we enter the final days i want to ask for your boat. -- for your vote. you may hear a lot of guessing or misrepresentations about my state. i am proud to be an arkansas democrat. i will always say predictable and dedicated to the three things most important. my faith, my family, and my loyalty to the people of arkansas. i'm not going to expect that we agree on everything i know you will stand with me to help our proud and beautiful state to remain strong. i can assure you that the folks in washington do not care or know much about what happened in arkansas.

but, folks, i do. this is what i fight for. we want to thank all the sponsors tonight. we think the voters. -- we thank the voters. i wish my opponent well. and what thank the people of arkansas to give me the opportunity to represent you. >> the health care legislation is not one to create jobs. there are a lot of things that we can do. i'm a strong believer in the fairfax. -- in the fair tax. as far as special interests, i have no money from special interest. my interest are first and foremost our children. a lot of this have completed our carriers. -- a lot of us have completed our careers. we should not be debt to our children.

we to the they legacy. we are leaving debt. i do not think either one of these are going to do anything about it. i am willing to stand up to them and cut the size of the federal budget and cut spending in washington, cut personnel. i would cut everything but national defence and border security and use it to rebuild social security, medicare and medicaid, and cut down the national debt. i am giving the people of arkansas, regardless of your political affiliation, a chance on may 18 to send a message to washington that it is time for change. we have term limits for the president. we have term limits for our state legislature it is almost impossible, but i'm willing to do it. i will work hard. it is almost impossible for an individual like me to compete with this. leading people in office until a eating -- but leaving people

in novice until they died lot of cases they die in office before you can get the amount -- [laughter] that is no indication here for sure. [applause] we have to make a change. that is why i am running for office. >> ladies and gentlemen, or three candidates on the democratic side. [applause] >> we hope for the audience and for those of you watching around the state that tonight has been informative. we hope that it has been helpful. for those in arkansas, the surgeon hope they will vote in a primary on may 18. that is going to do it for our debate tonight. thank you for watching.

thank you for being here. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [no audio] >> sunday, the second of three british election debates with

prime minister gordon brown, a conservative leader david cameron, and liberal democrat nick clegg. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> we have to get this right because if we do not we could stifle innovation. we could stifle the free-market. we could stifle our economy. we could cause more harm than good. >> as the senate moves forward toward tightening restrictions on wall street, see the process unfold with other experts at the c-span and video library. every program since 1987 now online. >> up next, a debate between the five republican candidates running for the u.s. senate seat from indiana in the may 4 primary. the democratic incumbent, evan bayh, is not seeking

reelection. it is judged one of the most competitive races in the country. this was hosted by the indiana debate commission. it lasts about an hour. >> live from indianapolis, the u.s. senate primary debate, sponsored by the indiana debate commission. >> good evening. welcome to the indian in debate welcome to the indian in debate commission. >> good evening from indianapolis. i am your moderator, amos brown. boaters will ask the questions and watch. friday night at 9:00, we will hear the candidates answers. let us make them. marlin stutzman was a farmer. he served three terms in the

indiana house of representatives. richard behney is a member of the tea party organization and is a community volunteer. john hostettler was represented -- was representative of the eighth congressional district and served six terms. don bates jr. is a financial adviser and a past president of the rotary club. dan coates is an attorney and former united states ambassador to germany. he served in the united states senate from 1989 to 1999. the order in which they will answer the question is by drawing lots. i will announce the amount of time each candidate has to answer. most will be one minute answers, with the final answer 90 seconds. but i may announce that one answer length will have to very to get us to that final

question. as moderator, and may have to cut off one of these gentlemen if they exceed the time. i hope that does not happen tonight. our questions come from voters and were reviewed by a committee at the debate commission. the candidates will use small boats and no props. let us meet our first voter. this is a banker from grazier, indiana. >> my question is what is your idea of a representative government. given an important decision, would you vote be of the people or would you vote your own opinion regardless? seconds to answer. >> thank you for posting. i i think this is one of the questions that a but the people are asking themselves, how do our representatives represent us as people? i believe as a representative we are elected . the route the campaign we make

our case to the people and ask them for their support. for myself, i have my personal convictions that i would always few as very important toç me ad break my personal convictions and be the constitutional parameter for our federal government. it is important that we listen to the people and those who have elected us and have that dialogue. when you are communicating in listening, you can better represent those who you represent at that time. it is important for us to make sure that we are listening. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. a great question. this is where i have come from this last year. this is what i've heard from thousands of users across our state that have this concern

with politicians and politics, that we have strayed away from citizen representation. that is the outcry i have heard this past year. we want to get back to a people that we are that they had in mind, with citizen representation. that is what the qualifications are very clear. so that your neighbor would go and represent you. it to be an honor and not a career. i believe in citizen representation. i will lead with my convictions and concerns and by the constitution. >> thank you. >> thank you for the commission for allowing us this opportunity. excellent question in that one of the five of us before you tonight will take an oath ultimately to uphold the constitution. that is essentially our job description.

. . times prior and the people, when i took that oath, of the 8th district of indiana at that time and indiana in the future will know that it's my obligation to and talking about how i will fill them. >> thank you. thank you for the questions. w3. . past few years is that government is not listening to the people a poll came out this week showing that four out of

government is not listening to the people. four out of five people don't trust the government. we have seen our representatives go to washington and live happily ever after and ignore the will of the people. that has to stop. that is one of the reasons we are seeing this reawakening in indiana. it is because people are realizing their voices in the past have not been heard. it is one of the reasons i am running to be your u.s. senator. i am going to washington to represent you and listen to you. >> d.c. morrison -- daniel coats. >> thank you for hosting this event. we do take a solemn oath. one of us will take that oath to uphold the conversation -- uphold the constitution. you have to listen to what they

have to say. had this president done that he would not have advanced is spending agenda on the american people. i also believe it is important for a representative to state to the people he represents -- to state their basic convictions. sometimes the popular mood moves populist -- say they want to legalize drugs. if it goes against your convictions you have to say this is not what i believe. they have the opportunity to vote you out of office, but it is important to let people know your fundamental convictions. >> joan could not join us tonight, so she recorded her question for the candidates. >> i am from indianapolis. i would like to know what do you propose to do about the lack of bipartisanship in washington?

>> as we rotate the order, we began with richard behney. >> great question. it depends on what you talk about bipartisanship. right now there is this idea of compromise being good for we are as a people. i will not compromise when it comes to our constitutional principles and values of life and liberty. i will have no problem extending a hand across the aisle when we are discussing what kind of paint color we want to have, or maybe what's jets we want to purchase, but when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i will not compromise. >> i believe the people of indiana and the u.s. will be sending a message to washington

in november, and that will be heard loud and clear on both sides. this is likely there will be a new majority in washington very similar to what happened after the 1994 elections. the members of congress will get to work doing the people's business. there will be that mandate to work together in order to bring the federal government back to within its constitutional constraints, balance the budget. it is the result of the people doing their job to maintain their own liberty that will be practiced in november that we will see an outpouring of bipartisanship in washington on capitol hill. >> thank you for the question. i'm sorry you could not join us. nine number one responsibility is to represent you -- my number

one responsibility. even if i have to be partisan, if i am doing the work you want me to do it then i am willing to go it alone. one of the things i have noticed in washington is there seems to be a double standard. it appears we want republicans to be bipartisan but there is not this move for democrats. i don't think that is fair. my responsibility is to represent you. if i can do that in a bipartisan manner, i am happy to. we have to do what ever it takes to put people back to work. i will do everything i can to do so in a bipartisan manner. >> daniel coats. >> currently in washington there are two different views of america. the view represented here this evening by people speaking to you is a different view than what is coming out of the white

house. that makes bipartisanship very difficult. two parties looking down opposite path. the issues our country faces are issues we have to rally around. we have to support them on the basis of conservative principles because they have worked. what we are doing to our economy with this administration is leaving as down a disastrous road. to solve that problem we need support from the other side. people have to support that. they should come our way on that. the threats from abroad. we need bipartisanship in dealing with people who want to kill us. that is something we have to reach above ideology and support each other in protecting america. and when i've traveled the state as i've traveled the state over 25,000 miles talking with

hoosiers and listening to them and hearing what they believe what i'm finding is there's a common thread through us as hoosiers we believe in the constitution we believe in freedom, we believe in god, we believe in our families, we believe in our communities and we believe that hoosiers are the answer to our problems, not always the government and that's the problem right now in washington, d.c we have politicians who are trying to cram legislation down our throats and taking over major portions of our economy, for example, the healthcare legislation that just passed i believe if they would listen to hoosiers and realize the effects that they have by taking over more and more of our freedom that people are going to react very strongly in this next election i think bipartisanship is important on those issues that we agree upon, but some there are going to be issues that we just have to agree to disagree >> thank you matthew daily yea's a lawyer and lives in fishers, indiana matthew, what is your question for our candidates? >> thank you, sir my question is: if you were to be elected to the senate what would be the topic and purpose

of the first bill you >> what would be the topic and purpose of the first built you would address -- dziewit draft to make law law? >> we will begin with john hostettler. >> legislation would have to deal with the deficit. it is the single most important issue facing our country. the expansion of the government evidenced by a takeover of the health-care system by the federal government, an incremental step is such that it is important members of congress focus on this issue of the deficit. legislation i would introduce would deal with a plan to bring the budget into balance as soon as possible. that would require a discussion of many issues across the board.

that is legislation i would be introducing early on in my tenure. >> thank you for your question. on december 31, 2010 the bush tax cuts will expire. the next day every taxpayer will get the largest tax hike in the history of our nation. we cannot afford to allow this to happen, especially in a time when our economy is struggling. we have 10% unemployment in indiana. we need to generate jobs without an artificial stimulus bill. the first legislation would be to make those tax cuts permanent. it will inspire confidence that we are serious about rejuvenating our economy and it will get as that on the road to recovery. >> the same reason that the state of india struggles with the bouncing of the budget the

u.s. congress needs to struggle to balance the federal budget. until we have a balanced budget amendment that forces members of congress to control spending, to stop government from exceeding its constitutional bounds, we will not have fiscal responsibility. we have run up debt that is unconscionable. we are digging a hole that our children may not be able to dig out of. you send money to washington and it will be spent. we have to have an imposition of those under oath supporting the constitution disallowed from spending money and not bringing our fiscal situation into balance. people are depending on that. we are losing credibility around the world because we cannot stay up with it. >> time served. >> thank you for the question,

as a small-business owner that is one thing i bring to the table. i have never voted for an unbalanced budget. we need to control washington the same way. there should never be a budget that is unbalanced. we would have to raise taxes and put our children at risk, whether through deficit spending -- it is important for us to ask our government to do the same thing so many families still, to have a balanced budget. it is a very appropriate thing with the trillions of dollars of debt one of my opponents voted for a debt ceiling increase. we cannot continue to borrow and spend. we need to stop the in balanced budgets congress continues to pass.

>> that is just the point, our government is creating too much legislation. i am asking hoosiers to repeal a lot of this legislation that the government is shoving down our throats. this health care legislation must be repealed. it has changed the dynamic of who we are. we are no longer a free people. i will work to repeal this legislation, for is an economy- killer. it is a killer of our liberties. >> our next question is from a student's point of view. he is from indianapolis. >> my question, do you think taxes are a viable way of getting out of debt? do you think a limited federal government can exist in this day and age?

>> thank you for the question. i have a lot of friends on the campus of iu. we must lower taxes in our nation in order to rejuvenate our economy. president reagan approved if you allow the american people to keep more of their money they know how to rejuvenate this economy. yes, you can do both. we can lower taxes and live within our means. that will force us to make difficult choices. we have to acknowledge that the spending binge we have seen did not happen overnight. republicans were elected in 1994 with a mandate to straighten government. it only took them 12 years to lose their way. we have to rebuild trust with what we do in washington. >> daniel coats. >> you hit on a very important point. raising taxes as soon as

government needs more money. right now our government is soaking up some much through taxes and sell much incentive is lost in providing support for small business and providing relief forç homeowners that our economy is stagnant. government is bloated and doing beyond what is required to do. is spending money as if there is no tomorrow. that is destroying our economy and putting us into a difficult situation. lowering taxes -- john f. kennedy lower taxes and it stimulated the economy. what is the role of government and how will we stop this ever expanding government? this health care plan will add hundreds of thousands of people to the government rolls. stimulus has added government workers. we have to stop the expansion of government. >> i think our government can

exist and we could not do better. we in indiana have done the same thing. in 2005 we had a $1 billion deficit. we have eliminated debt without raising taxes. if you keep taxes low you broaden opportunities for people and reduce the cost of business to government. you are not paying as much to the government and can put that money in your own pocket. you have so many more opportunities. it is vital with the massive amount of debt we have that we reduce spending and keep taxes lower. i believe that is what will get our economy moving. i come from northeast india out with high unemployment rates. -- northeast indiana. we need sound policies like energy policies that will get our economy moving again rather than more government.

money to buy additional equipment or employ new employees so certainly we must make the bush tax cuts permanent this year but more than that, we must simply stop the spending we have a $3.9 trillion budget that is one-third out of balance one-third out of balance that's $1.3 trillion out of budget we simply cannot continue in that manner we must stop the spending and we must cut our budgets and make the bush tax cuts permanent and that will go a along way to help small businessmen like myself >> moderator: mr. hostettler? >> ronald reagan often said >> it is not that the government tax is too little bit is that it spends too much. i have consistently voted to cut taxes across the board in order to allow people to keep more of their money and recognized that

they invest much more wisely than bureaucrats. they have created the jobs as a result of the spending. might impose to bring the budget into balance -- it is that the government spends too much. it spent trillions of dollars at this point. the question is not can limited government be a possible -- it will take place if we do not take steps now to limit government deliberately -- it will be limited as a result of an economic disaster that we must work to avert. >> you are listening to the indiana debate commission's debate of the five candidates for the republican nomination. our next question comes from barbara. she recorded her question with

the help of our friends from lakeshore public tv. >> would you support legislation about the treaty president obama signed with the head of russia earlier this month for a reduction in nuclear arms by both sides and with verification? >> this is another one minute answer. daniel coats, you can answer this first. >> i will not support that until i find out the details. we have seen treaties proposed that once you get into the details you find out information that does not justify the decision. i have to be frank with you. i think the foreign policy of this president is someone who has not had experience -- he has

gone around the world apologizing to our enemies and not representing us in a way we need to be represented. we saw the positive results that resulted from that. this deserves great scrutiny. while it is desirable to reduce nuclear weapons, i don't want to see the u.s. give that up given the policies of this particular president? >> i would not support this agreement. it is crucial for us not only to secure america, but also protect our men and women who serve in the military. one of the responsibilities is the federal government -- is national defense. we need to make sure we as americans that we are fulfilling

that responsibility and making sure our nation is secure. we are the first to help those countries in need after a natural disaster. it is important for us to maintain our freedom through that strength we had in our military. the president continues to weaken ourselves militarily, those countries wanting to do damage and hurt our freedoms will see that as a sign of weakness. it is important stand strong in our military. >> i will not support this treaty. i believe our president sent a poor message to those who wish to do america harm. message, this gentleman is bent on creating nuclear power, nuclear weapons and a nuclear

iran would be unthinkable and we need to send them a very clear-cut message that if they build it, we will come >> moderator: mr. hostettler? >> barbara, i would not support this treaty because i think the president has gotten his priorities backwards and that is before you move to disarm, limit the capability of striking back, we must first fully develop a layered national missile defense shield when i was in the house of representatives, it became the policy of the united states government to develop a layered national missile defense shield that would be able to defense us from not only long-range attacks from, say, russia but also short and medium-range attacks so that we could preserve the security of our -- of our -- our nation and all its territories we must do that before we seek to disarm, because without that defense, without that

capability, disarming would be -- would not be in the national interests of our country and would make us more susceptible to danger >> moderator: don bates >> barbara, thank you so much for the question i have to tell you there are many times when i >> thank you for the question. there are many times when i feel like i am living through jimmy carter park two. one of my greatest disappointments with president obama is his foreign policy. he has insulted our friends and apologize for our greatness to our enemies. i would not support this treaty. i was disappointed he pulled back from the czech republic and poland with the missile defense we promised them. i believe we are sending the wrong message. instead of a message for leadership we are sending a message of appeasement.

>> our next question is from stephen per ervin. what is your question for our candidates? >> where do you stand on any future semi-automatic weapons ban? >> let's start with marlin stutzman. >> i believe it is the people's liberties teeth. it is the second amendment for a good reason. i would not support any additional restrictions on assault weapons. i don't believe in it is necessary. we need to protect those rights. back in the 99 because there were votes to ban assault weapons. we have to be vigilant in how the government and fringes on

our second amendment rights. we value those freedoms we have that are guaranteed by the second amendment. this election is very important. the nra is making a clear statement how they will endorse the upcoming primary. it is important to stand strong on the second amendment issues and would not support additional appeals. >> i believe the founders were very clear with the second amendment. they were not talking about deer hunting, they were talking about protecting one's self and one's republic. i believe any attempt to take away the second amendment rights in any way is not appropriate to who we are as a people. it gives teeth to the amendments and has kept us a prosperous

people. i will work hard to protect our second amendment rights. >> i oppose any new restrictions on firearms ownership. in 1995 i cast a vote to repeal the clinton gun ban put in place prior. i also opposed national gun registration and have worked to make sure paperwork collected is destroyed within the time requirements of the federal law with regard to reciprocity, i sponsored -- legislation to allow those individuals with -- to conceal and carry with other states. i think the second amendment is

very clear and we should not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. >> banking for the question. i will not support legislation that hinders our right to bear arms. the second amendment goes to the heart of one of our liberties, the right for us to protect ourselves. you will notice among most democrats there is a difference of opinion when it comes to the second amendment. it seems like they are always coming up with legislation that will hinder our right to bear arms. there have been a few well- meaning republicans who have joined him. i will not support any legislation that will hinder your ability to bear arms. >> i would not support legislation of any of the three questions asked. the second amendment guarantees people the right to protect their home and their family.

it gives the right to collectors to maintain weapons and keep weapons. that is a right guaranteed by the constitution. it is a right that ought to stay where it is. >> what would you like to ask the republic candidates -/ç askd the republican candidates? >> how would you cut spending and attempt to balance the budget? >> i will start with richard behney. >> being 80 party guy, i would like to rip everything out. our economy is very sick. to do such a thing would throw our economy into -- nothing would be left off the table. i would take a businessman's approach and look at our budget

and our expenses and look to make cuts across the board. we must make the cuts and must look at it as a people. these are entitlement programs. what are you willing to give up? that is a question each of us must answer for ourselves. we must start making cuts. our nation is depending on it. >> it is an excellent question. it will take a layered approach. this year one-third of the senate will be reelected, so we will have numbers which we will have to work with in order to make the change in philosophy and the way of doing things. the first thing we must do is we must not allow for any new spending. when i was in congress for 12 years under democrat and republican presidents congress

was lobbying for new spending. i opposed that. ultimately, we must look across the board at reducing spending in all areas. my only exception would be international defense given that the constitution requires the government have the defense of our country. every other program would have to be on the table. >> thank-you for the question. this is one of the waste republicans lost the trust of the american people. it is one of the reasons we lost in 2006 and the lost to a democrat for the first time since 1964. we must acknowledge even republicans lost their way. i have been very specific about where we start. i am not a politician and i have çanswered these specifically.

i am asking senators to take a 5% pay cut. i told you americans do not trust government. if we said weç have cut our pay 5% it will go along with. after the supreme court takes down the health care bill we must reform of medicare and medicaid. we must reform social security for those my age and younger. we need to understand social security must look differently. >> thank you , i will try to give three or four quick points. now new programs, even if it is a popular program. we cannot afford it. government has way too much. we need to get government back to its original purposes. there are a lot of things governments can pass on to the

states. there are things that can be done outside the government because they do not trust the rest of us. line item veto, offered that when i was in the senate. -- i authored that when i was in the senate. congress will spend anything they are given. leslie on defense, i am for a strong national defense, but to say we will not take a penny out of -- there are items that have to come out that were built in the cold war. >> thank-you for the question. as a small-business owner i have dealt with budgets needed to be cut. we have done that under the state level. we have been able to balance our budgets and cut spending. there are three things we can start on. i believe we should eliminate

ear marks. there is no need for earmarks' to be spent when we are facing trillions of dollars worth of debt. with our children having to pay for frivolous spending going on in the government. we need to look at every department head and they need to deal with their specific department as a business owner. how can i cutbacks we cut almost 20% across the board. we can also look at the department of education which is a huge spender of those dollars. it is better suited for our states. rather than the federal government trying to find more ways of spending dollars. karen k. leonard is a retired teacher from indianapolis karen, welcome, glad to have you kind of step up to the mike so these distinguished gentlemen can hear you what is your question tonight?

>> my question is by what parameters would you determine whether to support a nominee for federal office? for example, an appointee like a supreme court justice? >> moderator: we begin this time with john hostettler >> thank you, karen that's a very important question in that there must be a philosophy of government that underlies >> there must be a philosophy of government that underlies all of these decisions. the senate has given the power to advise and consent. that idea of consent is important in that we should not look at every appointee who goes before the senate as someone who has a past because they had been chosen. of would ask diligently of this nominee is their political nominee is their political ophy and how they would

apply the constitution. i would not take part in a compromise that would suggest that future nominations would be based on some nebulous agreement. its is as a result of diligence we must make sure every nominee will do that which they are asked to do under the constitution. >> thank you for the question. i am not here to talk about the past, i am here to talk about the future. i am concerned about what the supreme court will look like by the end of president obama's first term. i will weigh every nominee carefully, but i am probably buys from the get go because i know the philosophy of this president. i know how he is trying to shape the supreme court. therefore i am concerned.

i will look at the records and whether they have been legislated from the bench in a way that proves to be a liberal activist. i am very concerned that these nominees and i am concerned about the future of the supreme court. >> the justices of the supreme court are there to defend the constitution, not to rewrite it. they are not there to interpret it said they can advance their own ideology or policy projections to what they think congress should have done. that is not their prerogative. i was fortunate enough to be announced by president bush to shepherd through the confirmation process just as illegal -- justice samuel alito. there was a man faithful to the

constitution for what it says. he was faithful to the rule of law. together with justice roberts, we have two models of who we ought to support, faithful to the constitution, judge roberts and judge samuel alito were great additions. >> it is one question that is very important in today's government. the judicial branch is the third branch of government. i look at the judges as umpires to keep the rules of the game and not to be legislating new rules. if it is very important that those judges who are nominated by our president for the supreme court understand that. they are not to be changing the law, they are to be interpreting it. i would agree in the 1990

possible and senator coats voted for justice ginsberg, that that is not good for the process. confirmation hearings are there for a reason. it is more important that we've that each one of those nominations for how they viewed the constitution and what role they play in interpreting the law. i would support making sure we applied strict constructionists. >> i had an american by s. -- i have an american bias. i believe our constitution protects life through its inception, disability, age, all the way until our father in heaven calls us home. i will not vote to confirm any justice to the supreme court who will not publicly announced they understand our constitution protects life and they are pro

life. >> i'm sure you will agree there are questions from hoosiers that demonstrates hoosiers can come up with great questions. they came through our indian that the debate commission website. larry is from marion. here is his question. what are your proposed plans on the north american free trade agreement and other trade agreements that allow companies to move out of the country and still get tax benefits? >> thank you for the question. >> i'm sorry, it one minute answer. >> thank you for that question. it has come up on the campaign trail quite a bit. i have heard people say we need to abolish nafta. i'm sure there is validity to that point, but it you were to abolish nafta i can promise you

prices will triple in america. that is that the action we want to take to rejuvenate our economy. what can we do to preserve jobs in the u.s. and in indiana? i believe you do it through tax cuts. we are losing jobs to mexico. we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. why don't we incentivize businesses to grow in our great state? let's not penalize them for sending jobs elsewhere. >> i agree with that. while trade agreements must be fair and must scrutinize them carefully, it is important as a nation that the u.s. be able to export to other countries. in the and that derives a great number of jobs from the export of goods. we have to be careful not to cut

off our nose to spite our face. we need to provide the basis for jobs to be preserved in america. the incentives through lower regulations -- this administration is imposing taxes on small business, in opposing that on indiana is costing us all lot of money -- imposing that on indiana is costing us. >> benjamin franklin said no country was ever destroyed from free trade. what we have done with nafta has been one part -- it has been good but we are hurting american jobs through higher taxes. we have the second highest corporate income tax. when that money is not going to the government, it is going back to standing and a comic --

expanding an economy. we need to lower taxes and have less regulation, because we are creating an unlevel playing field for companies in america. if we are going to tighten them down when we have free trade, as john's will start going elsewhere because it is easier to do business elsewhere. it is important for our economy to put people back to work that we understand this business principles that made our country. >> this is just the perfect example if we get the federal government out of our business we can get things done. i've created hundreds of jobs in indiana and hired hundreds of employees. we have the best work force in the world. if we can't allow this work force to do the job we can allow

companies to figure out how to get the job done, we can get it done. we must get the government out of our business. i will go to d.c. to do just that, to get the federal government off our backs. >> the north american free trade agreement was not a free trade agreement. it would have been easy to say no tariffs shall be imposed on american goods going into the other countries of north america and no tariffs will be experienced by this exporting to america. it had to create an uneven playing field, otherwise the american economy would have overwhelmed the zero economies of mexico and canada. -- would have overwhelmed the economy'ies of mexico and canad. we must have agreements that

recognized u.s. interests of workers come first. we should not get away the farm quite literally in these agreements whenever the agreements must devalue the ability for the u.s. to compete. >> gentleman, we are at the final question. it is not like final jeopardy, but our question comes from someone fromçó moticello. i will read her question as she wrote it. you will have 90 seconds to respond. that will also include any closing comments to the people of indiana you might wish to make. what makes you exceptional from the other four candidates that you should turn our vote? we have gone through the full cycle nearly twice, so we will begin with daniel coats.

>> i think what differentiates me from my colleagues is not so much the position on domestic issues, but the foreign policy experience i have enjoyed as a long-term member of the armed services committee and also serving overseas representing our country. i have had to deal with national security issues on a day-by-day basis during a time of war. meeting with heads of government, working with our heads of government trying to fashion policies and being very engaged in all of that. let me just say this, the most important words of the constitution are, we the people. i think washington interpreted as me the president and we the liberals. at a time when they ought to be focused on getting our economy

back on track they are pushing through a massive new spending programs that are running as deeply into debt. hoosier's know who i am. i had served them. i am a ronald reagan conservative. i am for less spending. i am for a limited government. faith, freedom and family have been my guiding lights. those lights are burning brighter than ever. we need to be a nation who has a model of not we trust in government, but under guide this government can go forward. -- but under god this government can go forward. >> thank you for your question. i respect each one of these gentlemen and have enjoyed the campaign trail, but it is important for us to look at where we are as a nation to realize the attack on our freedoms and realize what country will we hand off to our children?

as a small-business owner, my wife and i were married in 2000. in 2001 our son was born in august. we were down in florida the day we were attacked on 9/11. that they changed my life in realizing my son had his whole life in front of him. i believe we needed to get involved at that time. we stood together as americans. i believe we are a citizenry that is frustrated with our government because it continues to infringe on our freedoms. our constitution is clear on what the government is structured to do. it is important for us to protect that freedom for our families and our future, to have a senator that will be responsive and will listen. i have had the opportunity to see how federal government affects our state.

that is one thing that separates me from my colleagues, i understand the long arm of the government and how it affects our freedoms. i would ask for your vote and go to my web site. >> thank you. >> i appreciate your question. this has been an amazing year for me having brought the tea party movement and to be standing with these four other fine gentleman, but i feel like i had been standing with four gentlemen who are applying for a government job. we have three who have been there and done that and one who has done little, but all four still had a goal long to get along attitude. -- a go along to get along attitude. it is time to send someone other than a politician.