there operatives on both sides of the aisle, some data to look at ways to -- look at which race to invest in and which one to not two host: virginia has two races on the battleground congressional districts. guest: this is the race, the establishment in washington heurt. hurt is up by one point in our poll. in virginia 2, glenn is down to scott. all are within six points. >> one more on this list of 12 districts. arizona's first district.

[applause] yes, -- guest: yes,gosar is beating kirkpatrick right now. that is an area brendan t. party is quite popular. there are some areas where it is more popular than others. perhaps because of voter security, but the tea party is very popular in that district. she is down, but certainly could come back and win. host: bob husak, managing editor of "the hill" talking about new polls out. this is the cover of "the hill" newspaper this morning, talking about the 12th batter brown districts. the next issue will focus on what?

guest: the second installment will be open seats. that poll and will come out next week, and we will be coming out with that with analysis on our website and newspaper. if a wave comes, republicans should do very well in open seats. and once again, these are not seats where a liberal member retired. the third one will be second term lawmakers. we will be focusing mostly on democrats, but we will be focusing on a couple of reports that -- republican that are in battlegrounds, districts that they really need to retain. the last one will be longtime incumbents that republicans are targeting. that will be right on the eve of november to. that will show -- november two. that could show that the democratic chairman could be in trouble. host: that does it for today's "washington journal."

join us tomorrow morning at 7:00. have a good day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you are watching c-span. here is a look at the day ahead. we will be live at 1:00 with the head of the food and drug administration. she will be at the national press club. you can watch that live here on c-span. our coverage of campaign 2010 continues with a number of debates today. at 7:00, a live debate between delaware candidates for the at

large house seat. from political wire and a number of other sources, bob woodward says in an interview today, it is a possibility hillary clinton could be president obama's running mate in 2012. he says it is on the table. some of her advisers see it as a real possibility. joe biden will -- would swap jobs with hillary clinton to excite the democratic base. by the way, bob woodward will be a guest on "washington journal" on friday. he will be talking about his new book "obama wars." and look out at a debate for illinois governor.

>> good morning, everyone. senator stephen douglas and abraham lincoln made history across illinois. the union league club of chicago takes great pride in welcoming all of you here this morning for the 2010 gubernatorial campaign debate. ladies and edelman, a warm union league will come for pat quinn and state senator brady >. >> and gentlemen, as we agreed,

we will begin with opening remarks and then question will follow. i will ask all of you participating this morning to do your best with block letters and short questions so your moderator can get them out to the candidates. i will try to group them in thematic groups, so please try to get them in early. we who are going to have rosemary reed and david cone. they will be picking up the questions from you. lucy daly, here in the front, will be keeping time for us. gentlemen, you do not want to mess with lucy. we flipped a coin and decided that governor clinton would give the first opening remarks of a -- quinn would give the first opening remarks.

with that, we begin with gov. quinn. your opening statement? >> thank you very much. i want to thank the union league club for holding this debate. i also want to thank the union league club for their devotion to our veterans, service members and their families. i worked with them on countless efforts to make sure that we take care of those who bear the battle. we are having a debate today thanks to the men and women, defending our democracy and the right to speak. when i was sworn in on january 29 of last year, our state faced three major crises. at the national level, we had the great depression as a result of the disastrous policies of george bush, which lost 8 million jobs in america. we also had a budget crisis in our state, partly because of the

great recession, but also two decades of failures by the legislature to address the deficit problems of our state. we all know we have an integrity crisis. we had a governor who was arrested and impeached, removed from office, and his predecessor is in jail. that is what i faced when i became governor of illinois. i took on those crises and rolled up my sleeves and took the oath of office, and i have worked hard ever since. we have tackled the integrity issues to make sure we have an honest government. restricted the freedom it information act in illinois. we have the most open government in the history of our state. we enacted campaign finance limits to make sure we have clean government. it also, we have recalls on the ballot in november. we done with our budget

problems. i have cut the budget by more than $3 billion in illinois, more than any other governor in history. i have cut my pay. we have also reduce the number of state employees. we enacted public pension reform. as a matter of fact, that will save taxpayers $220 billion. the most far reaching public pension reform in any history -- in any state of the history of the united states. we strengthened the whistle- blower law, the false claims act, to make sure taxpayers come first. in order to have good jobs, we must have a budget and government that is honest and a budget that deals with investing in the people of illinois. maintain our investment in education and health care and

public safety and definitely in helping our veterans. our state has grown jobs this year more than any other state in the midwest. eight months of consistently declining unemployment. we have enacted the largest capital bill in the history of illinois. we have been able to invest money in improving our infrastructure. we have also enacted a small business job creation tax credit. we are putting illinois to work. since early may, we have gotten 25,000 people jobs, mostly in the private sector, jobs that they can support their family on. i am the jobs governor. that is what people said yesterday when we extended the program. i know how to work with businesses, large and small. we have ford motor's coming to our state this year. they are expanding their manufacturing, 1200 new jobs to build the new ford explorer.

they did not take any other state in the south, they picked illinois, because we have skilled, hard working people. we want to continue that to create the jobs that we need for this year and years to come. thank you very much. [no audio] [applause] >> state senator bill bradley, your opening remarks please. >> well said, regarding our troops and veterans. there is no one else we should honor more. thank you for being here this morning. by way of introduction, not originated from chicago, let me introduce you to my background. i am from bloomington, illinois. i graduated from bloomington central catholic high school and went on to university where i

met my wife nancy. we have been blessed with three wonderful children, two adult children -- two of which are here in chicago this morning. our daughter katie is a nurse at children's memorial hospital. our son william is an aspiring law student at depaul university. our third child, our youngest, duncan, is a senior. we decided that illinois was a place to raise a family and start a business. opportunities were more abound and they are today. challenges faced business each and every day. as a businessman, i know what those challenges are like. we need to address the challenges to improve our state's condition. our state is in a difficult spot. you look at the liability section of the balance sheet,

the numbers are horrifying. $75 billion in unfunded pension obligations. over $5 billion in unpaid bills within the clinton administration. administration. i believe in illinois. you have to look beyond a liabilities and look at the opportunities. we are a state richly rooted in the agricultural economy. we have more right of way infrastructure than any other state per-capita. our corporate partners, health and human services providers, universities gives us the greatest opportunity of any state in the nation to grow. you have often heard me say, we have an unemployment problem. in the last decade we have lost the opportunity to create 800,000 jobs.

in the last 15 months, under the clinton administration, we have lost 200,000 -- quinn administration, we have lost 200,000 jobs. over 35 states in the nation created more jobs with fewer assets an. i have often said deficits and debt -- if deficits and debt created jobs, we would be in number one jobs producing state in the nation, but that is not the case. we need a real job plan. i have called for stabilizing the tax environment without raising job-killing tax increases. i have called for leveling the playing field, reforming medical compensation and not practice. reducing the fees that pushed many businesses to many states. developing a long-term plan. i will initiate a council of economic advisers.

we have some of the best academic individuals and business individuals in the state. but they have failed to define what illinois should look like in the next 20 years. lastly, we need a governor who will balance the budget. a governor of who understand we cannot continue to spend beyond our means. we cannot work our way out of this crisis with more borrowing and spending. i will apply fiscal discipline to our state, restructuring our medicare system, so we can improve our country's fiscal integrity. you want to see jobs invested in the private sector for our families. thank you. >> thank you, bill. [applause] getting a lot of terrific questions here. i think i will start with one that relates to the budget. in the first six months of your respective terms, can you state

your five top priorities to reduce the multi-billion dollar debt of the state, while still paying our bills? >> i think this starts with gov. quinn. >> we want to continue our economic recovery. i did not inherit the kinds of things that senator brady talked about. i did something about them. i think we need to keep jobs growing in illinois, keep cutting costs. it is important that we continue to do that in state government. lots of governors talk about reforms. we will save hundreds of millions of dollars by reducing public pension cost. we also want managed care for medicaid. lots of governors have talked about that. we are implementing that. we will restructure the medicare program in a way that improves our health care. i also think it is important to

make sure we save money on our vehicles. we are doing that in illinois. i think it is important, given the fact that state has a [inaudible] i imposed the furloughs on myself, 24 unpaid days off, unlike senator brady who refuses to cut his pay. we need continued fiscal -- austerity. we will also negotiate with our union to reduce our employee cost. . >> with all due respect, you have at 20 months to implement those plans. we have the worst bond rating in any state in the nation because the rhetoric -- record deficit and debt. the first thing i would do is call on my directors to implement a 10% reduction.

for a 10% reduction. most families have implemented reduction in these times. most of the snow you can cut 10% of spending. there is so much we do not know about. we need to know the truth. we will reform our medicaid system to deliver services at the primary care doctor. we must demand efficiencies of the zero professionals and place. >> senator brady, this goes to you. what is your plan to keep businesses in illinois? >> simply put, we have to make

illinois competitive to work in do business. there are taxes i called for reducing. the estate tax has put retiring baby boomers as a penalty. we need to eliminate that. the sales tax on gasoline to neighboring states. when need to level the playing field. medical malpractice drives them to drive up the cost. we need a long-term plan. we need to define what we need to look like not just next year but in the next 20 years. this is what out of illinois and

turn themselves to other states because of the fiscal crisis. >> they had to stay in illinois and grow and eleanor. this will magnify into 12,000 supplies. they give 3000 jobs in this state. they are not going to the south. it is remanufacturing to our state of illinois. you have a governor who can work with the ceo and small businesses. what is going to grow our

economy is targeted debt cuts that help businesses grow jobs. we have enacted the small business job creation tax credit. we have enacted put an illinois to work. >> thank you for that. we want to talk a little bit about the possible cut. i have a lot of questions about being specific regard any kind since the budget. >> the records show the we have that the budget in our state by $3 billion. the budget was about $28 billion. it is not $25 billion. that is the biggest cut in the general revenue funds in the history of our states, far more than any governor. i will continue to do that by applying the reductions we need to reduce expenses on we have

protected our scholarship program. we've already cut the state budget by more than 10%. it is a very important to let the governor that has a budget plan. that is what i present every year. we will continue next year to cut the budget where it has to be cut. we are not going to cut their programs for veterans. i believe in that. >> you have not cut spending. with record deficits and debt. your own numbers.

yet to become the announced a plan to create jobs. are pink and state resources in the private sector when it cannot meet obligations. we need real discipline. we cannot put a dime on every dollar. we can root out waste and inefficiency. we have to work with our providers to provide access. the costs are reduced. these are all of big-ticket items in need to be done. it needs to be reduced to a level we can afford. we are in the position of having the worst bond rating. it'll cost us another five printer million dollars.

>> it relates to human services. how will you prioritize position human services in the state budget, especially in relation to state pensions? how you plan to cut further? >> i have committed to funding pinza's. we have to deconstructs and reconstruct. we have to get best practices.

as governor, i will bring experts say you cannot get the best practices. we can learn from our competitors or our peers in other states. >> ford picked illinois. >> he cut the education budget by more than $1 billion. we have to have a government that understands the nonsense and it comes to the budget.

he wants to increase the budget deficit and giving tax breaks for the wealthy. i do not one to lose a generation of children or take away scholarships from schools. under center brady, thousands of students will lose their scholarship because of his cut. >> thank you. we are going to go to you first. we have a couple of questions on education. we are joined by a special person here. is the death -- beth still with us? she is in a greater hero this question. let's say hello to beth. [applause] >> what is your plan to

supplement the deficit in education funding? pretty good question for an eighth grader or a major reporter. >> i agree. thank you. we look forward to serving with you. i think it is important. jobs followed brainpower. i believe in that. we have a good education and grammar school. warner thousand students in illinois give scholarships from our state -- 400,000 students

in a malay get scholarships from our state. my opponent wants to cut that by over $1 billion. that will not get our state to a better place. it is important we get revenue for education preven. we are getting for under $50 million new. own problems. we have to reset the clock. every party had departed the reconstruction of the state. we cannot continue down the path of governor clinton. think about it. -- governor quinn.

think about it. these are resources that can go to our schools. it is the resources to better fund education. we need to stabilize it. record deficits and debt. if we delivered and do not leave them with an i/o you come and they can manage the resources a local level to provide a quality education. >> illinois face education reform funds in the first two rounds. what would you do to continue to push for education reform from

illinois? >> i've added a partnership with the education committee to try to work resolutions. if there is a federal program, i think we should tap into it. we have to make sure the rate to the top of degrees to the top is sustainable. i think working with the business community and educators will better enhance it. we have to realize that the fundamental challenges we face are here for illinois. we cannot continue to look to washington, d.c. to bail us out. >> less than might take, people in illinois -- we are entitled to a governor that will go to washington and roll up his sleeves to get money back.

we've got $450 million new in illinois. you just heard senator brady would not go to washington. he'll keep the money there. this is wrong. it is also wrong to say he will cut the budget for education. he did not live up to our constitution in illinois. if our state does not live up to this, there are 17 years of politicians. it sits the burden onto the property taxes. according to center brady, and there will be a natural rise in property taxes. >> how do you intend to deal

with pension fund underfunding going on? >> we have paid our pension payment each year i was governor. what also enacted the most far reaching public pension reforms of any state in the union ever. economist remarked of the people of illinois and their governor reform the public pension system. it'll save taxpayers $220 billion. but the people have talked about it. we got it done.

this is how you role of your sleeves and get it done. what legislative accomplishment has he ever done? what did see them when it comes to the record? >> kmbc next governor cannot manage resources? it is wrong. you know it. when it comes to pensions, let's be realistic. in the blagojevich administration, they doubled the unfunded liability in our pension systems over $75 billion. i want to protect the men and women who paid into the pension system. they deserved it. we cannot do it if governor

clinton is governor. yes defunded them last year. -- governor quin is governor. yes, he wanted them last year. public safety will be our first priority. we cannot continue to bar on the backs of our children and grandchildren. >> speaking with depictionhint'e when you combine the state employees in state teachers' pensions? -- speaking of pensions, will you combined the state employees and state teachers' pensions? >> i do not see any reason to do that. i will run the systems according to the law. we will meet our obligations. we will not dig a deeper hole. we need fiscal thisdiscipline.

it to be affordable for the people of illinois. it cannot continue to kick the can down the road people deserve to know that the governor is willing to have the fortitude to fund those obligations burd. >> there are three major ones for the state. i do not think we should consolidate them. we should enact pension reform. we have to be careful. we have over $1 billion in tax breaks for wealthy people.

this cannot be. this is a world does not exist. you have testimony record of accomplishment. when we have budget reports, we are sponsored by senator kit housekeeping -- senator quick house the. >> many service providers are being held up by the state brit. will they continue to operate without the funds? >> of the money for sosocial

i did not create it, it did not happen after january 29 of 2009. 29. it sounds like everything began then if you listen to senator brady. the structural deficit grew under governors and legislators. they did nothing about it. it is my job to come in and repair it. this goes to the social providers. we created more jobs.

>> i worked in the legislature for 17 years to balance our budget. it is not just the wealthy that pay the fees. it is small mom-and-pop businesses. my tax breaks will reinvigorate and create new jobs in illinois. that is what we need.

you extend a program that will cost the taxpayers $75 million so you can buy a public-sector jobs for people in the private sector. that is wrong. it is selling out to the people of illinois. >> putting illinois to work began to do it has employed 26,000 people. these are real jobs. they paid $10 an hour. hard-working people needed a job of. i got there. i put them to work. are we going to lay out 26,000 people? i do not think so. he would keep a program going so the federal government when they consider it again will extend

it. the new york times has said illinois has the very best program of its kind in the united states. it is the best way to put people to work. that is what i believe in. there we had a specific -- 26,000 people. they pay for rent and utilities. >> we are in getting the state by promoting a program that we cannot afford. you going to have the state pay everyone of those people. private sector is not.

we want to see them employed. people -- you do not have the money to reimburse them. what about their jobs? what about the services they provide? what about the deficit and debt? this is another this on his campaign ploy. >> we just heard the governor said lisa two of 26,000 people overnight, people who are working with 5000 different employers. it was all about getting together.

it makes trucks and diesel engines 3000 jobs and growing. i'm a job as governor. i know how to work with people. we will lose 120,000 jobs in illinois. >> this rounds into a theme. >> this is but human service providers. your government has left them when hasiou. those are real -- left them with an iou. those are real jobs. this is put this in this position of the way the state in

the nation that is still in a recession. we will free up the private sector and bring permanent sustain jobs. we will support human service providers that depend on the resources. >> i think that it does to our next area, not just spending but also the revenue. i want to ask one and then that summarizes many of the questions. many of us think the general assembly will raise taxes after the election. will you sign that bill? where reforms do you propose to add just a revenues?

the way to bring revenues is to bring the 800,000 jobs that the we lost under the blagojevich administration. i cannot tell you how many businesses are worried about the future. we need a right size government. we pay sales taxes on gasoline. the 800,000 jobs we lost treated trinity billion dollars in revenue. we need revenue like a state like texas. >> i like illinois.

i want to make sure we have a good state today and tomorrow. i heard business owners complain about the property tax in illinois. it is confusing. i want to reduce the property taxes. i do not think this is the right way to go. we should not rely on that. our state has the primary responsibility for funding our schools. we need an honest governor.

they say they will hold down taxes. that is exactly what they do after the election. >> some of these can go to a yes or no answer. you will be the judge of that. will you commit now to be to go a gerrymandered rematch of our legislative and congressional district? >> i would be to show a gerrymandered district. i live the effort with a club to reduce the size of the assembly. i think the best way to implement the will of the people is to have fair, competitive districts. i will make sure that happens. by reduce efforts to reduce the pay. i think these a the kind of

things that the people want. >> the gerrymandered process has ruined the democratic process in this state. it says you have a balanced budget. yet fail to provide people of illinois with a balanced budget. that is first and foremost. when it comes to property taxes come i never advocated an increase in property taxes. you know that. and set it aside for a property tax refund. >> do you support bringing a riverboat casino to chicago? >> my record has been clear.

we cannot solve this process by gambling our way out of it. he is the one who initiated video poker in ever establishment that had a license. this is not meaningful solutions to our problem. meaningful solutions are sustained economic growth through job growth. governor quinn's gramm was a false one. -- proposal was a false one. many communities have opted out of it. it is a wrong direction to head. >> when i was governor, i made your there is a local option established so people would have the opportunity to not have video gaming in their community.

that we have to have funds in illinois. interesting years of debate. illinois did not pass a capital debate. i got this pass. that is a record of accomplishment. he is a career politician. he does not have one single accomplishment as a legislature. i've got a record in getting the job done for the people of illinois. >> what is your position of the federal take over to house visitors from guantanamo bay? >> uygur to a law enforcement officers and illinois.

they are second to none. i believe that we should sell it in illinois to the federal government. they need a new federal prison. they will save tens of millions of dollars to us in order to buy it. i think that is a good deal. i worked with senator obama to make this happen. it is very important for our state. we will use them in a way to get money back to the people of illinois. the new federal prison will create about 3000 new jobs. we are working right now the federal government to support this. >> we have finally rid ourselves

of the productions. >> i would never move the focal point from terrorism in guantanamo to illinois. we need this to house inmates in the state. the governor is willing to sell it for a fraction of what a cost to replace. it makes no sense that he would sell a for what it cost is 10 years ago to build it. >> thank you for that. we have a couple of questions about women and minorities. >> what would the outlook leave?

>> i have been a strong advocate for fostering an environment that gives diversity for women owned and minority-owned contractors. it brings competition. it may set the economic fabric of our state. >> senator brady opposes equal pay for equal work. i think that is wrong. i think we should have equal pay for equal work. we have a very robust program in illinois, making sure there is diversity whether it is state buildings or roads. we have a building program. my opponent voted against funding for building anything in

illinois. we have to have the fortitude to go into the ring and get the funding for paying off. my opponent goes to the reading cuttings to take bows for the spending. he does not want to do the heavy work for the bonds. >> you bring up the issue of contract. this question asks, what plans do you have to facilitate the growth and improvement of this region's public transportation infrastructure? >> i believe the public transit. i've taken it on my life. i understand how important the cta is. we have money for public

transit. we have made sure they have adequate money. senator brady wants to cut deeply our investment in public transit here in northeastern illinois. for people who take the train to work, the wear. this is someone who does not understand the urban need. people need to get to work and school. is important to have the governor understands public and invests in public transit. we do it in a way that is sustainable. >> do not know where you are coming from.

we are going to have to reinvigorate the public transportation system. your revenues from capital bill from video poker in bars and from the tax increase -- the revenues are not there. that is what i warn you of two years ago. let's talk about having the backbone of public transportation. there is an issue we work for in a bipartisan way that would have eliminated threefree rides for the wealthy. we should not be providing free rides for millionaires in the city of chicago. it has cost us millions of dollars that can be put into the public transportation system.

>> this is about the -- we of questions like this from members and supporters. this is something i'm not going to read. it points up that the aging car is a delicacy and become an income stream. [laughter] there is compelling-a. >> says he is sticking to integrate the asian carp into the great lakes system. >> it is a serious problem. one of the responsibilities is river waste.

we can fix the system. to take leadership, we will put people in place to solve this problem. >> i have a record of getting something done. if you can beat them, eat them. >> in illinois, we have a company that i felt was catching it in the big river and freezing them. they are selling them 30 million pounds of them caught in illinois to people in china.

we can do it in a way that creates jobs. we can create dozens of judges are hard-working people. >> another attempt at a yes or no question. [laughter] will you live in the governors mansion if elected this november? >> he is a combat veteran. he is going to afghanistan in a few days.

he is a sergeant. his line to the most dangerous part of afghanistan. i had dinner with him at the governors mansion. i think that is what the governors mansion is all about. we have to in the senate to avenge that the governors mansion. -- we had 272 events at the governors mansion. that is what it is all about. we had our nascar drivers coming down. i think this is what a governor should do. we should celebrate illinois in every which way. >> one saturday night [unintelligible] i think it is important that the governor does take residents. we a series problems in government. it is the seat is a government.

in these difficult times, we need a hand on governor in the state capital. i think it is a slap in the face that the government does not live in the mansion. the people of illinois provided a gracious hospitality for a respectable place to live. as governor, i assure you we would reside there. >> we are getting close to the end. we have several questions related to ethics. what would you do to improve ethics in the state of illinois government regarding legislative leaders and members of your own

administration? >> transparency is the key today. we cannot continue to have secret programs. we have secret early release programs, secret pay houses, a secret tax increases. a secret deal with the state's largest public service union. why can these be on line? what can they know where the real spending cuts are? i will provide the transparency. we will put initiatives to put every bill owed online. it will be no secret deal of the expense of the people of illinois. >> everything is on line.

i think he ought to take a look. >> are your bills online? i'll let you talk. why did he let me talk. we have our boards and commissions for the you can come on line in see the boards and commissions. you can nominate yourself or someone else. we have an active campaign finance reform. a lot of these budget reforms in particular have been opposed by senator brady. i have led the efforts for years in illinois to in a conflict of interest. i collected 158 signatures in 1968. it is not good for the people of illinois.

we need an honest governor to make sure every day people come first without conflict of interest. >> three questions left and then closing remarks. pension and education keep coming up. . . >> i am against pension double dipping. our petition sought to eliminate double dipping in our state, period, and i think we have to be willing to do that. i believe in addition passing, i believe in referendums. that is why we have on the ballot a recall referendum this november for the people to enact into the constitution, recall for the first time in the history of our state. i got that on the ballot.

i also support term limits. my opponent is a career politician. he says he supports term limits, but in 1994, he would not even a sign our petition for term limits. he has been in springfield 70 years. he says it is time to end career politicians -- been in springfield 17 years. he says it is time to end career politicians. i agree. sponsor term limits but he's refused to do so. you need someone as governor who not only says things, but gets things done. >> senator brady? >> governor, you had a chance for recall four years ago but instead, you decided to call governor blagojevich an honest man of integrity. where was that recall? i've been involved in the private sector all of my adult life, governor, and i initiated term limits, i've called for

term limits, governor. we need honesty and integrity in government. when it comes to pension and education, the double-dipping is a real problem. you had nearly 20 months to pass legislation which would have removed the opportunity to double dip, but you didn't do so. you refuted what your ethics reform committee wanted do. i believe the best model is to move forward like the private sector, employee-owned defined contributions without double-dipping. >> we'll start with for this question about education. senator james meeks has a voucher bill pending in the legislature. it did not pass this year and it is directed to certain neighborhoods in the city of chicago on a trial basis. if this legislation were to be

passed either this november or next spring, i'm not sure of the mechanics of that, but if it were to be passed, and you were governor and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no. >> this is clearly a difference between and myself. i believe in putting students first. i believe parents make the best choice in their child's education. we need to bring more choice, elevate the tax credit for private schools. i worked hard with reverend meeks to provide a voucher option in 20 of the worst performing school districts in the state. we passed it in the state in a bypartisan way and were ready to pass it in the house in a bypartisan way but caved to special -- governor quinn caved to special interests. i absolutely will move forward on school choice. >> i believe in public schools and that's what our constitution says. i've signed bills to increase the charters, double the

charters for public charter schools but they're public schools. we have to make sure our public schools in illinois are second to none. i don't want to lose a generation of children. i don't want any state to out-educate illinois. when all is said and done, it's about making sure we invest in education. i want to invest in education and i have the courage to go to the people of illinois and say we have need of more revenue for schools, so we don't have high property taxes, so we don't have overcrowded classrooms, so we have enough teachers accountable to get the job done for the students. my opponent wants to slash the education budget of our state by $1.26 billion that will cause havoc for the school children, cause a loss of thousands of jobs in illinois. jobs follow brain power, there's no other way. we must invest in education if we're going to be a strong state economically and every other

way. >> final question, before we get to closing remarks. for both of you, do you believe that debates like this one are important for the voters to learn your positions on issues? and if so, why is this debate this morning one of only three public debates to which you have agreed? >> i've agreed to about 10 debates. i hope my friend, senator brady, shows up at all the debates. we want to debate everywhere. i believe in the nixon-kennedy debates and they were good for the country. the douglas-lincoln debates were good foriour state and our country and that's the best way for most people to get the information they need about who will be their governor. my opponent says he's a homebuilder but who would buy a home from someone without seeing the blueprint. we've gone through this debate without seeing any specifics from senator brady about what he would do with the budget.

i'm honest and direct. i've laid out our budget, we need revenue for education. i'm going to fight hard for that. if i'm elected on november 2, we will get more money for our schools so we'll have a good state that's strong when it comes to jobs. >> you're honest and direct. your budget leaves us with a $2 to $3 billion surplus and still leaves $6 billion in unpaid bills according to your own numbers. i think debates are important. this is a great forum and we've had trouble getting governor quinn to debate in elmhurst and other places around the state. we'll have access to forums around this state because it's important that people know their choices when it comes to election. our state is struggling. we have deep problems in the state. we need to define the differences between governor quinn's kicking the can down the road and what i think is a

blueprint for illinois. we've laid out the blueprint. we said we have to trim state spending to our needs. we have to build revenues into our budget to pay back the backlog of unpaid bills so we don't bankrupt the state's deficit with debt that on the bs of the taxpayers. >> i want to ask all of us here to recognize the harwork -- hard work done by everyone who helped set up this debate. [applause] this activity, as you can see from the turnout, has been open to all members of the illinois community. if you are a member, it's great

to have you back in the club house. if you are new to the union league club, this is a terrific introduction to the kind of things we do. you will find a flier outside about an upcoming violence prevention panel taking place in october. i commend it to your attention and we hope you will attend that activity here or some of our other public programming. it's great to have you here with us this morning. now i'm going to ask the candidates, a test to see how honest they really are. which of you was supposed to go first in the closing round? correct. and you've got two minutes to do it. state senator bill brady. >> our state is struggling with difficulty with a cloud of corruption in front of us. there are two issues that are important. we've got to turn the page and provide a clean break from the secrecy of our government. governor quinn's administration has continued the secret release

programs, secret pay raises, secret tax increases, a secret deal with the state's largest public sector union. when we negotiated a bypartisan agreement on how we were going to maximize the use of mccormack place, we find that governor quinn accepts a large contribution from one of the unions opposing it and vetoes the legislation. thank goodness we overrode that veto and within three weeks we signed $1 billion from sales from mccormack place, enhancing economic viability. we also have a state that is deep in deficit and debt. you can believe in governor quinn's tax, borrow and spend policies will work to prosperity. i don't think so. the successful states in the nation realize that taxing, borrowing and spending doesn't equal prosperity.

i would redefine government without tax increases. ladies and gentlemen, the future of our state depends on this election. i'm here today to share my ideas with you and ask for your support as we move our state to the forefront of this economic recovery for our children and grandchildren. thank you and god bless you all. >> governor quinn? >> thank you for listening. i really appreciate everyone's attention. i think it's important to have a governor who doesn't make pie-in-the-sky promises but someone with a record of accomplishment, a record of doing things, a record, not of promising, but a record of getting the job done in the toughest time we've had in illinois. we had an integrity crisis, we've passed landmark ethics laws. my running mate, sheila simon, and i will enforce those ethics laws and make sure the people of illinois have an honest government. that's the kind of government

the people want. two governors before me, one's in jail, one's in court. we also believe in taking on budget problems honestly, not with a fake plan that doesn't involve balancing the budget, but will increase the budget deficit. what we have to have is a governor who can cut the budget as i have by over $3 billion but still maintain investment in education, healthcare, public safety and helping our veterans. and i think our veterans are a model to me. they work hard, they take on every challenge, they never complain, they understand it's all about the future. all of us as adults and parents, we have to make sacrifices today to help our kids' future. that's what america's all about. that's what illinois is all about. there will always be fast-talking politicians who tell you what they think you want to hear but don't tell you

what you need to know. i want to be a politician, governor of illinois, who tells the truth before and after the election. i've done that every day since i was sworn in on january 29 of this year. our economy is recovering, we have a long way to go. i understand how hard it is to get people back to work, but i've been doing it, one by one, day by day, getting people in illinois a job. yesterday, we saved 26,000 jobs for hard-working people in illinois, people who live from paycheck to paycheck. that's what i'm about, fighting for everyday people, consumers, taxpayers, workers, veterans. they need a governor with a heart that cares about them. i've done that and i'll roll up my sleeves today and every day as long as i'm economy to get to the mission of getting our economy back on track and making the will of the people the law of the land. >> ladies and gentlemen, let's show our appreciation for our cand

>> you have been watching the debates between candidates to be the next governor of illinois. a quick reminder that you can watch dozens of debates any time online at our website, c- span.org/politics. also, there are campaign advertisements and polls and links to other pages. at 7:30 p.m. eastern, live coverage of the debate between candidates for delaware's at large house seat, after that, new hampshire's governor's race. in the race for a south carolina governor, republican gubernatorial candidate nikki haley said that they lost more than 236,000 workers and may need to take a drug test for benefits. that from the state.com.

president obama speech on behalf of kentucky's gop senate nominee in a new television advertisement -- well, kind of. it features a red paul -- rand paul impersonator. you can follow your candidates and campaigns on our website, c- span.org/politics. more from the campaign trail, with the latest debate between connecticut's governor candidates. dan malloy was the stamford mayor and is the longest serving mayor in the city's history. he ran for governor in 2006 but lost the primary. tom foley is running for office for the first time, having served as u.s. ambassador to

ireland from 2006 to 2009 the most recent quinnipiac poll had malloy leading foley. "the cook political report" rates this race a tossup. >> live, fox connecticut and the "hartford current" presents the debate, here's our moderator, fox chief political correspondent. >> good evening. i'm carl cameron, chief political correspondent at the fox news channel. welcome to the connecticut gubernatorial debate between the democratic nominee, dan malloy foley. this debate will cover a wide range of topics from the economy to education. joining me are our two panelists, once asked a

question, the candidates have 90 seconds to answer the direct question and 30 seconds each in rebuttal. timekeepers from the yale debate association are watching the clock for us. the order has been determined by a coin toss. specific subjects and questions for chosen by fox connecticut and the "hartford cow rant." they have not been shared with either candidate. the audience has agreed to remain quiet. the first question will be for mr. tom foley. we start with breaking news, so to speak. this afternoon, stephen hayes was found guilty of 16 of the 17 charges he faced in connection with the horrible triple murder home invasion in 2007. six of those counts are capital murder felony which is carry the death penalty. since the first question is to you, mr. foley, and you do support the death penalty, there are many critics who don't think

it should be used. what do you say to them and to your opponent by way of making them understand why you believe it would be appropriate, and what would you do to expedite it? >> first of all, if there was ever an instance where the -- where capital punishment, execution, should apply, it's this case. it's a truly heinous case against three women and a nice faly in a community here in connecticut. i support the death penalty, first of all, a majority of the citizens of connecticut support the death penay and i support it for two reasons. first of all, i think it discourages crimes but an even better argument that i've heard is that corrections officers are safer. somebody is sent to life in prison with no chance of death penalty can kill a corrections offir an there is no further penalty to be put on them.

it does jeopardize their safety. i also think there's a fundamental sense of justice related to the death penalty. i support it, i would not change the law. for the next governor, there will be a death penalty abolition bill waiting in their in box, i will veto it. my opponent said on friday he would not vee it. if he's elected, there's a virtual certainty the death penalty will be apolished here in connecticut. he said it wouldn't apply to the criminals who perpetrated this crime, but it would. even if it specifically excluded them, they would have a good case. i will veto any attempts to abolish it. >> mr. malloy, your opponent said it uolds a fundamental sense of justice. explain your opposition to the death penalty and why you'd veto it. >> let's be cheer.

-- be clear. i want to express my condolences and my grief, it's a profound thing that happened to him and the two victims of the homicide. i want to be very, very, very clear that under the legislation that was proposed in the past, any legislation that i would sign, if these two gentlen are sentenced to death, th sentence will be carried out. period. what i have said is that i wld sign a prospective elimination of the death penalty. i also want to be very clear about this. i'm the only person running for governor who has prosecuted people, tom. when you went away to make a lot money, i took my first job in brooklyn, new york, and i did investigions work for 18 months, i prevented 250 cases to the grand jury, i tried 23 felony cases and i had convictions in 22 of those cases. the last four of those cases were homicides. i'm the only person running for

governor who has put someone away for life. so i want to be very clear, no one is going to protect your family as well as i will. if tom wants to insinuate that, he's simply wrong and trying to play politics with a very serious issue. >> mr. foley, you have 30 seconds. >> dan, you're a lawyer, and as you said a prosecutor. the prospect of these people being executed if you failo veto a bill, it's certain to be on the next governor's desk, apolishing the death penalty, it's almost certain that stephen hayes and his colleague in this crime will not be put to death. >> tom, why don't you tell the people of connecticut the truth, that the people who are currently on death row in connecticut, the one who has been there longest is 22 years. you can't assure anything is gog to happen. what i said is, any legislation that i would sign would beut into the future.

i guarantee it would be drafted in such a way, it's a guarantee that these two individuals, if we ever had a workable death penalty, would be put to death if that's the sentence of the jury. >> gentlemen, thank you. our next question is from the "hartford cow rant." >> we'd like to ask you about some of your ads tonight, some of your attack ads. this has been a nasty race, fought over the airves. we're going to take a listen to some of those ads and get your thoughts on them. the first is from the foley campaign. >> dan malloy's new negative ad? three lies in 30 seconds he said he created job bus official records say stamford lost 13,000 jobs since 2000. dan malloy, misrepresenting tom foley's record and caught in a lie about his own. connecticut needs a governor who tells the truth. >> tom doesn't like to tell the whole truth. for instance he doesn't want to

tell you that from 1995 to 2007, stamford was the only city that had grown jobs and retained more jobs than they had in 1995. with stamford severe -- was -- with stamford cervily hurt, the answer ises, it was. but what we did was take an old industrial city, not unlike the other old industrial cities of this state and change it into a financial center of the world. not the financial center, but a financial center. in fact, our community is so strong that tom actually moved his company there and has his headquarters for his campaign there. doesn't sound like a community that you wouldn't want to spend time in. but i also want to be very clear that what we did were some other amazing thing lowered crime by 63% between 1995 and 2008. we created thousands of units of housing. we added more open space.

we retained a triple-a bond ting and invested in instra -- infrastructure so the next generation has infrastuckture equal or better than our own. we improved our educational system. tom can take a point out of ything and boil it down and make it work for him but there's nobody that thinks stamford is not a greaplace to live and work. >> ok. >> mr. foley, you have 30 seconds to respond. >> 90? >> yes, 90 seconds. >> i agree, stamford is a great city. dan is misrepresenting his effort. i think it'smportant in negative ads you provide the voter with accurate information. stamford lost 8,000 jobs, he was mayor at the time. if you want to go back to the time he started, they lost 7,800

and something j. dan says he's created thousands of jobs. when did you create those jobs? as these jobs have been lost. he said stamford has a top 46 ranked school system. it has the largest achievement gap of any city in connecticut. only 37% of their 10th graders read at their grade level. so a lot of things that dan says and i hope tonight we'll be able to point o others, simply are kind of loose with the truth. i think advertisements legitimately, when you're providing information about an opponent's record, as long as you're truthful, an he was not truthful about my record, i assume i'll have the opportunity to talk about that when his negative ad on me comes up, as long as he's truthful. i'm running for office for the first time, i said i'm always going to tell the truth and i've done that. >> and now we're going to watch one of those ads and we'll have the chance to hear your

response. >> here's foley's history. in 1985, foley borrowed millions to buy a textile company and started firing people. when he couldn't pay back the loans and 2,000 jobs were lost but he made a million dollars, greedy business men ruined our economy. >> mr. foley, accurate? >> no. i never fired anybody. i bought the company in 1985, it was failing. i turned it around and saved the company. i owned it for 11 years. i sold it in 1996 andt has new management and new owners. two years later they closed the plant. and yes, unfortunately, when hundred people lost their jobs. but i was not involved with the company at the time. i had nothing to do with making that decision. it's unfair to blame me for it. as a matter of fact, when the company changed hands in 1996, it had 3,000 more employees than

when i acquired the company. and the company and those employees were far better off than when i first got involved. so it's simply untrue, the objective here of my opponent is to scare state workers. i travel all around the state, state workerare hard working people. they're trying t provide for their families. they have many of the same concerns as we do. they see the waste, they wan government to change as well. but state workers have nothing to fear from my being governor. i have said in my plan that i think over time we need to reduce, modestly, the size of the state work force. i said we can do it through attrition and not layoffs. so two things in this ad, dan malloy once agains not always truthful and second if you're a to worry about if i'm governor. >> mr. malloy, you have a minute and a half to respond. >> tom likes to blur reality. he's doing it again.

he was the chief executive officer of this corporation on the day they filed bankruptcy. period. they did fire their employees. tom was responsible for that. he did downsize those jobs, he was responsible for that. in fact, the town was actually named bibb and after he was done with the bibb company, the town of bibb disappeared. it was dissolved. in case i have it wrong, why don't you release all your records concerning the bibb corporation? why don't you give us all the tax document, open up all the files that pertain to this? let's go through all of that. maybe these folks would allow us some time because the reality is that the people who live in that town actually know what you did. you destroyed their live, you destroyed their futures, you destroyed their pensions, you destroyed their town. if that's the kind of business experience you plan to take to connecticut, then the state workers in connecticut should be

worried. after all, what we have to do is judge you on what you've done in the past. you can say you haven't run for office in the past but for 30 years, according to your own resume on your website, you've been involved in politics. you were involved in politics when i was still in law school. >> mr. foley 30rk seconds to respond. >> dan, you'reaking this stuff up as you go along. you're an attorney, you should be doing better homework this company was not located in columbus, georgia, or bibb city, it was in macon, georgia. i never fired anybody. the company went through a financial restructure, it didn't go out of business. no employees were affected from the financial restructuring. it was an exchange of bonds for equity. you're misrepresented what happened. why don't you be truthful with the voters, why don't you be truthful with your negative ads. just be truthful, that's all we're asking. >> mr. malloy. >> tom, everything i've said is based on f.d.c. filings, on the

bankruptcy filing in delaware, on the statements of people who worked for you who lost their jobs. tom, release the papers, that's all you have to do. but you have to understand, it was unfair for you to walk away with $20 million when people lost their pensions. >> gentlemen, we're going to move on. our next question comes from fox connecticut morning anchor logan burns. >> we want to get more specific about jobs right now. that's what everybody is talking about. connectit's unemployment rate as of august is above 9%. over the past two years, connecticut has lost roughly 100,000 jobs. we are dead last in the nation when it comes to job growth and job creation. junge people are leaving the state faster than we can educate them. on the subject of jobs, william glickman of glasstonberry sent us an email of -- email question that says, i've been out of work for two years, how are you going

to get and keep high tech jobs in connecticut? what do you tell him and others like him? >> we are one of only two states that has had net job losses since 1989, the other is michigan, they have an excuse. it's the wrong policy. i have 25 years in theids world, i know what business people need to hear before they'll be willing to hire people in connecticut. we have an out of control legislature that changes the rules of the game every year and puts mandates on businesses and we have a d.e.p. and d.o.t. that can take up to 24 months to get a permit to expand a plant this doesn't make any sense. other states do a much better job. when i'm governor, i'll fix these things. i've identified seven industries in my plan for connecticut. who should, once we fix the problem here's in connecticut, including our budget deficit be interested in coming to

connecticut and using the wonderful assets we have here in the state. we have a highly educated, well-trained work force, some of the best academic institutions in the world. we're centrally located in the northeast corridor, near cultural centers and finacial centers, we have a high quality of life. a lot of reasons why employers should want to be here if the government would get off their backs and make it easier for them to do business here. i come from the business world, i know what business people and employers need to hear. i can deliver that here in connecticut. >> mr. malloy, what to you tell william who asks the question, how do you get and keep jobs here in connecticut? >> you go after them, but you've got to begin on day one by consolidating three broken agencies that are supposed to be doing economic development in this state and connle is dating them and changing the leadership and making them perform. you begin by having a governor who has hadxperience. tom has attacked my record on jobs. u.b.s. brought over 2,000 jobs

to stamford, purdue brought over 650 jobs to stamford, nestle waters is in the process of moving over 400 jobs from stamford and one of his competitors is bringing jobs. maybe you want to somebody who has dobe the things tom talks about. a transportation system needs to be invested in, a quality public education system needs to best tablied an ever-improving. we also have to mak sure we benchmark every tax that we have and understand how that affects our competitive advantage or disadvantage. we also have to benchmark regulations and understand whether we're putting jobs at risk. finally, we need a governor who understands that most job creation in the next 20 years will be done by small businesses. a majority of those small businesses will be owned by women and people of color. i want to support those small businesses.

after all, i come from the middle class. >> mr. foley? that sounds pretty good to some people, what do you think? >> an important part of getting businesses to come here and getting -- providing the confidence that employers need to start hiring again is solving our serious budget deficit. we need to reduce spending, not raise taxes. we have the highest tax burden between state and local taxes of any state in the country. it's simply too high. the average x bill on a home in -- a household here in connecticut is $8,800. that's too much my opponent wants to raise taxes to close the budget deficit, i'll do it by lowering spending. >> mr. foley makes a decent point about how mandates ht businesses and businesses are leaving. what do you do to try to bring businesses back? >> tom makes some good points and leads into things that simply aren't true.

for instance, tom, an average household of $68,000 pays $2,680 in taxes. you need to know how government works. what we need to do is curb our appetite for expenditures. we need to live within our means and set our priorities. i intend to do it. after all, i did it in stamford. >> our next question. >> since the state budget came up, we know the state faces a deficit of $3.3 billion mr. malloy you said you'll cut your staff and what taxes will you raise to close the gaps and when you make the cuts, how do you do that without angering the public sector unions who he been your base of support. >> most of those unions did not support me in the primary.

>> they're for you now. >> sure they are, they're afraid tom will do to connecticut what he did to the bibb company down in georgia. i'm not promising to raise anybody's taxes. what i said is we have to bring everyone to the table and start making cuts. that's why i'm prepare to elimb gnat 15% of the job that the governor plays a role or the governor's commissioners play a role in filling, of which there are about 600 of those jobs. cutting by 15% or maybe more. ebay has existed for a long time but in connecticut, we bid commodities basically once or twice a year. what we need is an ebay system to allow us to price the things that connecticut consumes on a daily bay sitz and i plan to do that. we need to consolidate the services performed even with the structures and institutions that will remain. in of -- many of our colleges and universities operate on

different labor and i.t. structures. if we move them all to one, we'll save quite a bit of money. we could save millions by purchasing our electric energy differently. we could save mo by moving to a reimbursement basis for car use. but what we'll have to do is get everyone to the table and i believe that those same employees that you just talked about want to play a role in turning this state around for the children -- for their children and themselves. >> mr. foley, speaking aut the state budget, you said you have a plan to cut $2 billion from the state budget but many of those proposed cuts are long-term that won't do much good next year. how will you deal with the budget crisis? >> i don't agree they're long-term problems. i set forth in my plan for connecticut many ways to reduce state costs immediately. we can change our incarceration rates, for example. we can -- i feel an obligation

to the taxpayers, if i'm governor, and we can provide something more cheaply by using an outside contractor with the same quality of service, we have an obligation to do so. we have very expensive medicaid elderly patients mostly in nursing homes. states that y more attention to their elledler -- elderly population prefer community based care. if we get to wher oregon is with their elderly population, we could save up to $600 million a year. health care costs are very expensive in connecticut as you know, it's one of the highest health care costs states in the country. $7 billion of our budget is health care cost related. if we could reduce that by 10%, which is what the estimates were for the front end, we'd save an additional $700 million. there's a lot of waste in our government. you may have heard several weeks

ago, it was reported that two cell phones were lost by state employees. and our state government coinued to pay the bills, $31,000 over eight months were paid for people who had stolen those phones and were making calls around the world. we can save a lot of money and save it immediately and we can save that $2 billion and i'm confident i'll do it. >> my opponent didn't give you a single specific cut he would make. not a singlene. in fact, i've looked at hislan where he says he'll save $2 billion, it doesn't exist. the reality is, there will be hard work to do. i've sat across tarblees and negotiated contracts, i've had to disappoint people. i understand what it is going to take. wel reshape connecticut and make it work again for the middle class. >> here's dan malloy being loose with the truth he said he would reduce the governor's staff by 15%. that turns out to be fewer than five people.

on friday he said, it was the whole executive branch. that's over 7,500 people he'd be cuts from state government. tonight he has a different story system of it's somewhere in between, i guess. when are you going to make up your mind? >> may i? i was asked a question. >> make it brief. >> tom you really don't undetand government at all, do you? the governor appoints directly by himself at least 600 people. there are in fact 7,000 employees who are not union members or civil service. we can reduce this work force and do it humanely. when you accuse me of not telling the truth, you don't think i should respond to you? i'm responding to you because there's a lot riding out there for connecticut's middle class. >> mr. foley? >> i stick with what i said. i think dan really doesn't -- he's been a mayor in stamford but it appears clear to me from what he said in his ad, what he said on friday and tonight, he

doesn't really understand state government. you need to do a little more homework before you put yourself up as governor. >> fox connecticut and the "hartford cow rant" asked for qutions from viewers and readers, this is one. what will you do to bring state employee wages and benefitin line with the private sector. mr. foley is this >> fir of all, we need to make our state work force more efficit. we need to make our government do more with less. part of the problem we have is that we don't get as much output out of the same size work force as we do in the business world. we have a very expensive state work force, it used to be the contract was that they would in exchange for more job security and better benefits. what's happened is that the current composition of our state work force is higher than the private sector. and the benefits are about 60%

of payroll, whereas in the private sector a good benefit package for a large company tends to be 25% to 30% of payroll. we can't afford to keep doing what we're doing. i wish in harm on state workers, they're hard working people, trying to provide for their families like everyone else. we need to figure out a way to get compensation more in line with what's available in the state, in the private sector. we need to use information technology, other ways to get efficiencies out of a state organization and if the private services at an equivalent level for less, i feel i have a responsibility as governor to make sure we have those private contractors provide those services. when that's happened in the past, the private contractors invariably end up hiring the state workers, probably on a different compensation level. >> mr. malloy what would you do to bring down state employees

wages and benefit or is i appropriate that they should be higher than what's made in the private sector? >> i think the position on each sary needs to be based on the salary class and the work being performed. using generalities is sometimes unfair. tom refers to 60% of payroll in benefits. if tom actually talked about current employees, it is 30%. what he fails to tell you is that because our state government failed to fund benefits through 1984 in some classifications and through 1997 in others, that has added expenses for the failure to have done the right thing to begin with. when i become governor, what sure that the state reports under gap finance rules, generally accepted accounting principles. if we don't start telling the truth to ourselvesnd the people of connecticut, we'll never dig our way out of this hole. tom talked about privatization. some of those privatization experiments his colleagues in the republican party brought to

the state of connecticut led to drainage systems on 84th not actually being contracted, led to bad construction all over the state, led to a system of construction of schools where school construction per foot is on average $100 more and most of that being reimbursed by the state of connecticut. let's be very clear. we need to create efficiencies. what did i do in sfamford? i downsized the work force even as we were growing the population by 12,000 people by 8.4%, creating efficiencies and having people make the decisions at t closest level to the service provision level. we can do this. we can create those efficiencies and we can curtail the increas we're talking about. >> mr. foley 30rk seconds. >> i guess his answer is he doesn't think there's opportunities to get savings out of the ste work force, i didn't hear any suggestions. let me give you another example, riverview hospital where we have 80 young patients who have mental problems, across the state, $922,000 a year to care

for each of these young people. prive sector people who can provide an equivalent level of care, perhaps even better, offered to do it for less than half that amount. that could save up to $25 million. do the taxpayers of connecticut thk that paying that kind of money, $25 million, makes sense when an outside contractor is willing to do it for yes, sir. >> mr. malloy. >> sure, let's be clear. we need to create efficiencies, i've done it before. i've talked about changing work rules, talked about getting around the table and having conversations about how the employees who gave up $1 billion last year to play a role to continue to play a role to get connecticut's economy back on its feet. but tom's republican party entered into discussions with that group and he wants to pretend his party and the salespeople he supported to be governor, because we have had republican governors for 16 years.

>> now gentlemen, the point where you have an opportunity to ask one another questions. mr. foley, you get the first question of mr. malloy. >>an lovato announced he has a union questionnaire you filled out committing not to reduce any ion member whors state workers or reduce their benefs. he has promised to release this questionnaire soon. my question to you is, have you made any commitments to unions such as this one and please just provide a yes or no answer. >> does tom get to make those rules? >> i tnk he just did. >> no. no. >> that leaves you with 30 seconds to respond to his answer. >> ok, then do you deny that what you said on a teletown hall meing to teachers last week it

was widely reported in the press, which did provide commitments to preserve tenure, to not have money follow the child, to not support choice to not move to performance pay, do you consider what you said to be accurate? >> you've read my education plan. all the things you mentioned are in that plan. if you want to make teachers the enemy in connecticutgood luck to you. but these are hardworking people doing the best they can and in my school system we closed the educational gap that exists by 8% -- or 3.8 points last year as opposed to the statewide average of 2.5. if you want to argue about whether teachers work hard, tom, you are so disconnected from the people of this state, it's just unbelievable. >> mr. foe ree, you have 30 seconds. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to ask y to not do that i'm sorry to be a bit of a nag but we all agreed. mr. foley, you have 30 seconds

to respond. >> listen, i don't think you're being candid with the voters. i think it's widely believed you haveade commitments to unions. i think if you had -- if you have, it will be impossible as governor to faithfully represent the voters and to have a conflict such as that. so i would hope in the weeks ahead you'll be candid with the voters and talk to us about any deals you cut to get elected, both in the primary and deals you cut hoping to get elected. >> mr. malloy, i did not mean to cheat you out of the 29 seconds, so you can have another. >> well, thanks, tom, the fact that you repeat things more than three times doesn't make them true. >> are you still denying that that company went bankrupt under your leadership? are you really denying that to this crowd of people? >> i'm denying it. >> what we're talking about -- >> and i deny i ever took $20

million from the company. >> show us the records, tom. >> stop lying about it, dan. stop lying about it. >> gentlemen and audience. thank you. mr. malloy, you have an opportunity to pose a question directly to mr. foley. >> tom, you have a running mate who has said he's anti-choice, and doesn't support a woman's right to choose, has taken various positions that you are not comfortable with, as you acknowledged yesterday in a debate we had, so tell me, tom, when you have the opportunity to name a running mate, why did you leave it the way you did? why did you end up running with mr. bouten a candidate who might ultimately be governor, why didn't you express the kind of leadership you talk about in choosing and bringing a ticket forward? >> dan, again, maybe you ought to go back and take your civics class on connecticut government. i didn't choose a running mate.

the lieutenant governor is elected separately. the registered republicans in mate to run with me. i didn't choose him. but it's also important for people to understand thathe governor sets the policy and he's not running for governor. so my policy, what i promise to voters, is what the voter will get. mark happe to be quite an experienced person in government, he served in the legislature for a number of years, served as a successful mayor of one of our largest cities, he's very qualified for the job and frankly, since i'm coming into government, i serve twice in government but never in elected office, our resumes fit together perfectly. we have all the skills required to fulfill this job. i talk to him about how we'll divide the responsibility in the executive branch and he's a perfect person to promote our

legislative agenda, he'll do a great job because of his experience as mayor, he'll also do a gat job working between our state government an town government, which have not had good relationships recently. we need to have state governments and town and city governments working together more coopetively and mark can do that. we'll have a good lieutenant governor serving once we're elected. >> i want to make sure i have this straight, tom. it's ok with you that your running mate is anti-choice and doesn't support the minimum wage and voted against it three times as a member of the legislature. here's a history lesson. our current governor was previously lieutenant governor and had to take over mid stream and the governor in new york was previously lieutenant governor an had to take over mid stream, what your lack of leadership did n failing to select a canada that matches your values and ideas is potentially endanger the well welfare of the people of this state. >> mr. foley, you have 30 seconds. >> well, i mean, you picked a

running mate who served most of her time in government. you don't have anybody in your government who has ever had any serious private sector experience, nobody has ever met a payroll, nobody can talk to employers about what it's going to take to create jobs here. you're missing a piece of experience on your ticket that connecticut needs to bring jobs to this state and close this nagging fiscal process we have. >> i'm sure you'll have ample opportunity to work in your additional response there. >> we're going to move on to education, gentlemen. connecticut used to be number one in the nation in school test scores. we have slipped recently, in fact, connecticut's achievement on education recently received an f grade between low-income students and their wealthy counterparts we have the worst achievement gap in the nation. connecticut also lost out on

$175 million in the federal race to the top funding. mr. malloy, what can you do differently to work with the legislature to try to effect some change in the education system? >> i'm proud of my record as an education leader. in fact, in stamford, i'm known as the education mayor. why? because we started universal prekindergarten 11 years ago and eight years ago, we brought together one of the first commsions on closing the achievement gap and rogers international school is the third best school with respect to the test scores of children living in levels of poverty. and westover school is ranked sixth. rogers international school a school i helped move along and get a new building for was actually ranked by concan as one of the 10 best schools in connecticut. aye done some of the things tom talks about. i signed the applications for two charter schools in theity of stamford. the only mayor, only board of

education and the only not-for-profit to do that in the state of connecticut was in stamford and as a result, children are doing better. we had a far higher average closure on tests this past year than the state average and a far larger closure than other cities in the state. tom will say something which he referred to and has wrong, 70% of the 10th graders are reading and performing on grade level. not the 36% that he quotes. tom just doesn't know how to read that document. if he did, he would actually admit what every writer for state newspaper has admitted that tom has it wrong. >> mr. foley, dewpoint to respond to that and tell us why you think as governor you would do a better job in the education environment? >> i've been in involved in education for over 15 years. i think it's a shame connecticut hasn't done better with its achievement gap and failing inner city schools. i have -- i want to be known as

the jobs and the education governor. i put together a comprehensive education plan three weeks ago. there's some very important school reforms that we need here in connecticut to fix our failed inner city schools. we need school choice. we need money following the child. we need excellent teachers and i'm all for excellent teachers but we don't have a system right now that gives us excellent teachers in all instances. with need performance pay for teachers, we need teachers promoted on the basis of merit and performance, not time on the job. we need to be able to measure teachers' performance and if they aren't meeting t standard we need professional development for them and if they still aren't performing, we need to find a way to retire them from the system so our young childn aren't being cheated. dan talks about charter schools. he's talking about local charter schools. nobody thinks local charter schools, the two he authorized, they're unionized.

the answer and real choice in this states state charter schools. thank god he doesn't support race to the top. race to the top is what's put pressure on our legislature to open up more charter schools, which have shown the way. they'll never solve the problem but they can show the way for what we need to do if in our inner city public schools. >> mr. malloy, do we need performance pay for teachers? >> i know that tom needs to do his homework. the charter school he is referenced are state charter there is one difference about stamford, under my leadership we closed the gap between state dollars going to that institution and its acal cost. we were the only city that actually did that. race to the top, tom says i don't support it? where does he get that? he makes it up. of course i support race to the top. i think connecticut can reform its education so it can compete and bring money to the state and as governor i'll make sure that

happens. >> we were in an education forum last week and you said you didn't support race to the top. do you just say what the audience in front of you wans to hear? >> i'm happy to engage with you. did you realize you had it wrong about the two charter schools? do you realize they're state charters? are you willing to admit to people -- >> money following the child. >> are you talking about dollars going out of new haven to some other community? >> gentlemen if either one of you would like to answer your simultaneously posed questions, we'd be happy to wait. >> mr. maloy, is it your understanding that performance pay for peachers -- teachers is part of the race to the top funding requirement. >> it is a system that receives

a lot of points in that application. that's why i support what was done in new haven this year, where the teachers union sat dun with the school administrators and brought about a program that everyone can live with and support. why didn't we do that in the rest of the districts? with a governoror who understands education and bothers to read about it, we could. >> mr. foley, you have 30 seconds to respond. >> one of my goals as governor is to solve the vexing problem of our inner city schools. i was involved in drafting the legislation that unfortunately took until 2005 to get teach for program working across america, getting excellent young people into classrooms. i helped write that education legislation. i have been working on this problem. as governor, i will continue to work on it and i believe i can continue to fix the problem. >> it's been a spirited debate,

we've been talking about our seemgly sometimes intractable problems, so mr. foley, why would you, or why would anybody want this job and if the voters do lift you into it, what policy decision do you most dread? >> well, listen, we have serious problems. i've spent 25 years in my career in business turning around ompanies, i know the difficult decisions that executives face when there's financial stress and organizations need to be turned around, when they aren't performing. and that's definitely what's going on here in connecticut. i don't like making those decisions in many instances but i am -- one of the things i'm most proud of in my business career is i've always made those decisions fairly. decisions that take into account the needs of families, that take into account the needs of the people that you're representing. and that you never trade the long-term for the short-term

which is what we've been doing in connecticut for far too long. challenge for the next governor. i have a plan, i was surprised when i got into this race that none of the other candidates had a plan. nobody goes in to think about turning around a business or running a business that's doing well without a plan. you need a destination, you need a place you're trying to go. then you need a road map for getting there. i've p that together. i know that based on my preevet sector experience and my two times serving in government that i can fix connecticut's problems. i look forwardo the challenge. these are things that i've done before, i have the skills and experience that i think connecticut needs now and the next governor needs, i don't believe my opponent does. >> mr. malloy, same question and what is that policy choice that you'll face that is the -- that leaves you the -- with the most trepidation? >> let me begin by explaining what motivates me. i was born in a middle class

family, the youngest of eight children, the seventh son. i was born with severe physical disabilities and it was learned that i had a processing disorder, including dyslexia. i had to fight every day to overcome those. my mother made an important decision, not to listen to people who talked about t fact that i would never amount to anything that made all t difference. but she also said something to me almost every day of the 30 years we shared this earth. she said, dan, you have an obligation to leave this world a better place for your having lived in it. for all of my 55 years, including the years since my mother died of cancer, i tried to do that. is it a perfect record? probably not. but as a member of a board of finance, a volunteer position, i fought to improve education and hold down spending in my city. as a member of the board of education, i fought for improvement. as mayor, i fought to bring new industries to replace those leaving sfamford.

the touest decisions are those that will affect people's lives, who will have a job, who will have the medical coverage they need, who will have the mental health treatment to keep them out of a hospital or prison. what i'm saying is, if you elect me your governor, the values i was born with, the values my parents fostered are the values i will govern with. >> we're going to move on. >> our republican governor has enjoyed a lot of success, can you name some things she's done right? >> she took a state that was reeling from ethical violations and restored a sense of decency and e is a very decent person. but when it comes to transportation, she failed us. when it comes to job creation, she failed us. when it comes to reforming, a reformation of education, she

allowed a document for race to the top to be filed with 122 blanks, she failed us. she's a wonderful person but it's time to change direction. so i bring a different set of values, a different set of experiences and tom, i've laid out 72 pages of policy which you can down load, in fact you may have already done it, of how i -- what i would like to do with the state and how i'd like to govern it in the future. can we do all those things in the first year? undoubtedly, we can't. but if i don't tell you the way i want to lead this state, where i want to bring us, then you'd have no reason to vote for me for governor because after all, i'm going to replace jody ralph if the voters decide it and i'll take this state in a very different direction than the direction it's gone for the last 16 years. we need to create jobs, improve education, invest in infrastructure, and understand that local governors are our partner, not our enemies, that's

what i'm going to do. >> same question, with a slightly different twist. >> last week, your plan was 17 pages long, now it's 7 . i'm confused. >> that's just not true. if you can use the internet, go and look at it. i think a lot of people who work for you already have. >> jody -- >> hold on, the question for you is slightly different. >> i'm sorry. >> can you list a couple of thing she is has done wrong? >> i would have vetoed the budget last year. which she didn't, she let it pass into law without a veto. but she's done a very admirable job i think under very difficult circumstances, because she has veto-proof majorities in both the house and senate. so her only option is to either veto things sent to her or not. and the vetoes more often than not get overruled, i'll give you

a good example of why democracy isn't working well in connecticut when we have a single party with overwhelming control of both the house and senate. when dan malloy decided to use taxpayer money trun for office, the grant was $3 million. and the house and senate both, democrats from his own party, waited until after they saw the results of the primary and when they saw i wasn't taking public money, and he was, they uped the grant, $3 million more so dan malloy can run his negate ads of taxpayer money. that the kind of abution that we're getting in our legislature right now. i hope the voters understand what's going on and have the interest in making sure that we have a more balanced legislation for the next governor to deal with. i hope the next governor -- governor is me and i hope --

because we need a check and balance. >> mr. malloy in your rebuttal, can you address his concerns about too much power in the hands of one party? >> how about history 101. the majority of the governor's vetoes were upheld. that's the truth. she was never, ever, ever overridden on a spending bill. on a budt bill. >> she was everridden on your campaign -- >> you're not really telling the whole story. the maximum matching grant under that system was $9 million. $9 million. what they actually did was to limit the total expenditure to $6 milli. the base went up from $3illion but came down from $9 million. why don't you tell the whole truth to people. that's what's wrong with our state government. people like you are not willing to tell the whole truth. >> i'm not the career politician here, dan. >> you are appointed to a

position from a guy who you rised $100,000 for to become president of the united stat. >> gentlemen, we're going to leave it there. we've been talking about issues and policy and mr. foley, you have another 30 seconds to rebut. >> what is the question to me? the opposite -- >> how would you do it any differently, presuming there's no chaming in the legislature, how would you work with the democrats? >> i mean what i said. i ink democracy in connecticut is not being well served by having one party have such overwhelming control of the house and senate. i've been working hard to support republican candidates to the house and senate to get a better balance in the house. we need a better balance in the house, no matter who is governor, but particularly if i'm governor, we need bette balance in the house so that the legislature can't run roughshod over the will of the voters and the governor. this is what's going on in washington. this is what got people pretty

-- pretty angry. we have a single party that overwhelmingly controls the congress and white house. it's not working very well as far as most voters are concerned. >> we have just a few seconds left, gentlemen, we're going to do what we affectionately refer to as the lightning round. i'll ask a couple of quick question, give us one-word answers. mr. malloy, live in the governor's mention orommute? >> live. >> live. >> mr. malloy, favorite vacation spot in connecticut? >> any day i can spend a day with my wife anywhere in connecticut. >> mr. foley. >> that's a one word answer? >> only a career politician could consider that a one-word answer. >> mr. foley what's the md of the state right now? >> angry. people are angry. >> disappointed in their leadership. >>ne word to describe your opponent?

mr. malloy. >> rich. >> mr. foley. >> loose with the truth. it's hyphenated. >> one word to describe the former governor. >> unfortunate. >> i hope changed. >> this is a tough one. leno or letterman? >> leno. >> at least your both on the same side of that, i guess. gentlemen, thank youery much that ends our debate we very much appreciate it. we now go to closing statements. we'd like to thank the folks here and newman's own foundation for its generous support as well as fox connecticut and the "hartford cow rant." we leave you with a few records from the c.e.o. and president but first, the closing remarks.

i believe mr. foley, you get to go first. >> thank you for joining us tonight. connecticut's future rests on the outcome of the elections in four weeks. i wanted to state -- i love this state, i love its people, i've been traveling allround, it's a beautiful place with a ric history an culture. but all is not well in connecticut. too many families are out of work. too many people have lost confidence in their government and their leaders. i want to be your governor because i want to restore that confidence. i want to fix these problems and i believe i can. i want to take us in a new direction. there's a big difference between me and my opponent. i'm an outsider, i'm a problem solv. i have real-world experience that i think enables me to fix these problems better than somebody who has been a career politician. -- politician. my opponent is a career politician. he's still wedded to the

policies of tax, borrow, and spend that got us into these problems. i also have a clear plan for restoring jobs and bringing back the economy. i know what needs to be done to get employers to start thinking about hiring agan. i also have a clear plan about closing our serious budget deficit. i will do it with reducing spending, i will not increase your taxes. my opponent says he'll increase your tax to close the deficit. i have committed to, as i said, solve one of the most vexing problems we have here in connecticut, fixing our failing inner city schools. .

condemn what deperms trying to do. i'm trying to build a better state. you know, tom talks about not being a career politican, yet he frequently admits he has so experience, including having been awarded job for somebody he raised over $100,000 for. so let's be clear. tom, we're both politicians and i hope we both want the same thing for the state. but there's a gigantic difference between us. i was born in the middle class. i reside in the state in which i was born. i have great vision for the state of connecticut. some of the things you talk downsized city government,

improved education, invested in infrastructure, brought new employers into my state of connecticut. i did things that you can only talk about. now, businessmen do some wonderful things, but they've also led our country astray. some of your friends, tom, are responsible for the downturn in our economy, the things that happened on wall street. in many ways they mirror what you did to the bib company but you did it 10 years ago and it came home to roost finally in the biggest collapse in our economy since the great depression. if we hire you, tom, i'm afraid you will do to connecticut what you did some of your companies, some of your employees. and there is but in your history that tells us -- us you have the ability, maturity and strength to turnhis thing around.

sometimes i think you are running to be captain of the titanic. i on the other hand want to launch a new ship, one that grows jobs, invests in the infrastructure and protects the middle class. i do want to pro tech the working man. >> thank you gentlemen, thank you bushnell, thank you one and all. please hold your places for a quick word now from rich. >> thank you for watching tonight's debate for connecticut's gubernatorial office. fox connecticut and the "courant" believe in an open, honorable democratic process. we believe that a healthy democracycycycy >> looking at the california senate and governor's races from political wire, a new reuters poll in california find barbara boxer leading carly fiorina.

49% to 45%. in the race for governor, jerry brown has the lead over meg whitman. you can keep track of all the political races, including debates and speeches at our website, c-span.org/politics. c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. >> it is with a lot of hard work, with the message that you believe in limited government, get the government out of my way and that the blaze my own trail, quit spending my money and put people back to work. that is a message that is resonating out there. you are probably feeling on the ground what i feel all over the place which is folks rising up and we are going to take our

country back. that is great. >> i am here to say we are in this together but if people do not vote on election day, we are going to wake up and things are going to be really bad. we want to wake up knowing that we will continue moving forward. the first thing i learned about politics is if you are in a whole, quit digging. we are out of that hole. i do not want to go back to digging out of it. >> the candidates are the incumbent freshman congresswoman debbie help for sen. she is from a far suburban suburb. she is being challenged by atom can singer, from central illinois. he is an iraq veteran. >> halverson has a number of challenges. for years, the district was represented by a republican, so

she is already a target because the republicans want to get that back. she has also voted with the president on two of the most controversial bills produced, stimulus and health care reform. however, she did run on health care reform, so that is important to voters here. i do not think she will take too many hits over the health care vote. i think she is trying to seen as an independent. there are a few urban pockets, but it covers the south and southwest suburbs of chicago. then there is a tiny portion that stretches to south central

illinois, including a university town. it is mostly white, rural, republican-leaning. it was a district created by the republicans in the last redistricting. there has been some tea party activity here. you are here from their that day -- from them that they want to protect the second amendment, less government. halverson is an interesting democrat because she has come from a rural, hunting background. she is trying to remind voters that she is a homegrown gala, and that is what she has going for her. she rose from being a township clerk to a member of congress. she works hard, is a known commodity around here, so i think she is battling with voters being familiar with her, familiar with us. >> it can go either way.

when i won last time, we knew it was going to be a tough race all along. i represented a swing district when i was a state senator for 12 years. it could have gone either way then. the voters like the fact that i am an independent insider. i am the eighth most moderate member of congress. people want somebody who is going to fight for them. i brought the soon to be vacated silver cross hospital. it will be a veterans center. we want to make sure we continue to fight for things that are important for the district. >> adam kinsinger is a young up- and-coming 20-year-old. he joined the international guard and served several tours of duty in iraq, afghanistan as well. he is well spoken, comfortable talking to the media. he has been challenging her on a

lot of points. he is not afraid to pop into a fundraiser and speak to the owner of the white sox, asking for a contribution. so he is running on a more pro- business or tax platform. he also, interestingly, was not the most conservative person in the primary, so he is getting some tea party support, but there are some others that he ran against that are more conservative. he ran on the agenda that we need to work together in washington. if the democrats have a good plan, i am willing to work with them. i have seen him pull back from that message since then, but he still believes that the things are broken in washington. >> we are talking about over a 11% in a lot of areas. people want to get back to work. one of the things that has put out, there is a culture of

corruption. even beyond that, people are tired of the arrogance in government. that is why we are seeing out of control spending, unemployment. washington, d.c., in many cases needs to run the government like people run their homes. ultimately, the private sector is what matters. >> his biggest challenges she has not been in congress for 10 years. if she had been serving all this time, and the throw the incumbent county must with her, that would work for him, but she is a freshman. they are both raising a decent amount of money and putting out mailers. by all accounts, it looks like they will both to raise a million dollars.

is one of the most watched races in the country. most of the d.c.-based organizations are paying attention to this race, spending time looking at it. we have not seen as much money pouring in from these entities, but the democratic campaign committee on both sides are focused on these candidates. i think republicans think they can win its. democrats are desperate to hold on. they got this seat after 15 years of republican representation, and they want to make sure halvorson hangs onto the seat. >> c-span is traveling the country visiting congressional districts as we look of some of the most closely contested races leading up to this november's midterm elections. for more on what our local content vehicles are up to this season, visit our website, c- span.org/lcv.

>> coming up at 1:00, we will go to the national press club to hear from u.s. food and drug administrator commissioner margaret hamburg. she will be speaking at 1:00 eastern. until then, a look at judicial vacancies and what it means for law and society, from this morning's "washington journal." slate" magazine. and the chamber's -- empty chambers. you think the american public is not adequately concerned about what is going on. what is the crisis and what does it matter? guest: we have a problem at the federal judiciary for some time in that the numbers of feder judges -- obama has only been able to seat half of his judges. at this moment, one eighth of

the federal bench is a it. host: there are several reasons why, people speculate. but why does it matter? guest: it matters because if you are an american and you have been in some kind of suit because your seat belt is dective and you want to bring a civil lawsuit against your motor co., how can you do that if the backlog in the court is years waiting? how can you do it under the speedy trial act? there are federal courts that have to bump their entire civil docket just to hear this -- criminal cases. the backlog is so intense, they cannot even hear your tort case because they have to catch up with a criminal docket. every american regardless of party should be very worried. there are not an of judges on the bench to even hear me. i can't even get into the court. that is not a partisan issue. host:, vacancies and how many have been filled? there are 103 vacancies on the

court, and eighth of the bench. an estimate came out last week suggesting that if the confirmation rate continues at this pace, we will have a by -- i am sorry, by 2020, half of the federal judiciary will be empty. in other words, if we can't do something to break the gridlock, this will no change, it will be obstruction on either side regardless of who is in power. if the numbers dwindle down to a trickle, half of the bench will be empty in 2020. host: what are the factors? why are there so many vacancies? guest: the big thing is we just hit the snooze button on the judiciary. americans don't think it is an issue. of course, they shouldn't think it is an issue -- the economy is an issue, the war is an issue. but it hinges on the premise that we have to be able to get into court to fight for our rights. even if you care about the environment of the care about

the courts, or even if you care about health reform, the courts are where these things will ultimately be decided. there is no question that the things we are most passionately about -- arizona immigration act will end up in the courts, gay marriage. but we don't want to connect the dots between who is on the bench and how effectively they can do their jobs and thedea that we want our rights vindicated. i think there is an act of the that makes people not to pick up the phone and call their senators and say, confirm somebody. i think we are in a moment his starkly when the courts and judiciary have become so politicized. if you look at the confirmation battle we went through with elena kagan, if you look at the judicial election races in the states that elect judges, people are worried about judges. they are mistrustful about the judiciary. the have a sense it is elite of touch group so why are they going to fight to put people on the bench if they generally are not completely sure if it like the idea of cour at all. host: many review them as

activists -- either liberal or conservative. why is that? guest: we have been going through a real cycle of this country since the 1980's, since the time of ed meese, when there has been a concerted focus about how we talk about the courts. that is where the idea of strict construction and regionalism, and, where the idea of judicial activism, and dared -- com in. it is in fairness and response to a judiciary that really did reach out in the warren era and took on a lot of issues the judiciary did not take on -- brown, abortion, church-state issues. there was a huge backlash. now i think the way we talk about the judiciary has become very political. it probably hit its high water mark a few years ago when there was talk of impeaching justice anthony kennedy because he cited foreign lot in an opinion.

there used to be huge rallies called justice sunday where they would get up and ran to about the court's been out of touch. but i think it left a lingering smudge, a sense that judges are not responses, that they are out of touch, that they don't answer to the majority. that was the point. they were supposed to be e branch of the government that does not answer to the popular polls and the will of the people. i think we probably lost sight of the benefits and maybe the judiciary that was half empty was better than a dish. that was highly well-paid-well functioning but anti-democratic. host: at kind of judges are we talking about? guest: a great question. one thing that happened in the judicial wars is we reflexively talk about the other side judges as though they are completely insane, in need of medication, wildly active as lunatics, and we both do that on both sides. you get bark -- both parties,

cartoonist caricatures of those being put up for federal district and appeals court judges. host: there are two different judgesships. guest: it is important to understand there are 850 lower- court judges. these are only the federal courts. states have their own mechanisms for seeking their own judges. but these are the federal courts that hear federal cases. it is actually is slim minority of the cases that are litigated in this country. come up through the federal courts. but they arelso the important cases -- margie phelps and fred phelps and though westborough baptist church. these are foundational cases where we need good judges hearing them. what has happened over the years is as the abilityo see judges has dwindled, it has become even more political because there is a sense each judge -- i could never shake the entire federal

bench. and george bush, one of the great long lasting legacies of the george w. bush administration will someday be seen as not the war, not even culture war things, but the fact that he managed to very successfully in eight years seat one third of the current sitting federal judges. host: before you talk about his ability to do that, what is the hang up in the senate with president obama's judicial nominees? guest: two things. one is, in fairness, obama was slow to start naming judges. he added layers to the process that made it a little bit long for to get them out of the gate. i think it was faito say he was not passionate about this issu. george w. bush, the minute he took office, started naming judges and judges who were in line with its ideological views. obama took a very, very long time to get out the gate on this issue. there has also been this

extraordinary obstruction in the senate and republicans have used very arcane senate rules to block judges. one of the things thais happening is confirmations that us to take only a few weeks are now taking hundreds of days. if you want to in the united states senate slow up a judge through this process, you can do it. you can stretch it out for weeks and months and even in some cases, over a year. host: democrats today -- republicans say democrats did this to us when president bush was nominating his judges as well. that this is a parlor game being played on capitol hill. guest: and that is true. no question this has become and en vogue proposition. both sides block the judges. in fairness, the length of the wait haseen much longer. the rate of confirmation has gone down. host: mcconnell says half of the nominees in the senate calendar

have been pending for less than two legislative weeks. guest: that is not a statistic i have heard. i have heard that 16 out of the 23 are pending have had bipartisan support in the judiciary committee, unanimous bipartisan support and still cannot get through. i think -- and there is one other factor worth pointing out. this is hair splitting. i am here to say this is a bipartisan issue. i n't think the pointing fingers at saying you started this, and you were worse, and remember that time in 1987 -- i don't think that is a useful conversation. but i do think one of the things that has changed and obama administration is this has gone down to the district courts. when you talk about a trial court level an appeals court level, a federal appeals court, but said in a fight for a long time but now we are seeing federal trial court or district court judges held up, and that is new. host: what is the impact of that question on guest: you can't get into a corporate longer and

longer wait for litigants to get into the court. we have 30 states now that have been declared a judicial emergency. that means the judges are trying to handle a bucket -- docket they cannot handle. in the eastern district of california, each judge in her doctor has 1097 cases. you cannot do it could just as if you are trying to handle a caseload that size. the judges cannot retire. they desperately want to play golf and be with their grandchildren and a cannot retire. and the judges feel they cannot speak out. they can't say i am overwhelmed because it is such a political and partisan issue. again, i would circle back to the idea that we have to free those judges who cannot speak for themselves and understand, you would not want your heart surgeon to have 30 cases that they are handling. you just need it, in order to have competent judges, you need to have adopted down. you need to seek better judges

and now and fast. host: talking about the federal court and judicial vacancies. new orleans. teddy on the democratic le. caller: how are you all this morning? i have a question for your guest. i am just wondering -- everybody is referring to the constitution, the constitution. where in the constitution should this be addressed, and if this is the case, why haven't our legislators take unnecessary action to make this correction? if you look back at the history of what has been happening the last 12 years, i would like to know where and the competition when you are looking at federal judges -- she was saying they used to take a position of the president who is recommending them -- tell me where in the constitution where the supreme court can appoint a president? thank you. guest: it is a good question. what the constitution does provide for is the senate plays

a role in "advise and consent." in other words, the constitution allows that the senate is going to play a role in this. really, your question is a good one, what does "advise and consent clause " mean and that is what we are bickering about, is whadoes it mean? does it mean that the senators basically rubber stamp the president's choice is, or does it mean the wrestle him to the ground and pulled them in the eye. i think it is worth pointing out that the real hero of the elena kagan confirmation fight this summer was senator lynsey gramm who says, you know what, elecons have consequences and i would not have picked elena kagan. if i were the president -- i don't love what she stands for. but as a senator, "advise and consent clause " means if she is competent, i have to sign off. thats a position of lot of republicans on the judiciary

committee were not willing to take. if w take advise and consent to me obstruct and bigger, we will never see judges. if we take it to mean, look, we have to scrutinize the judge's record but at the end of the day if they are well qualified, even if you do not love them, if they are well qualified, thumbs up. i think they lost the notion of advise and consent right now. .

each judiciary committee that covers this matter is more and more angry and democrats are frustrated and they don't want to do this again. i think there will be a tit for tat feeling. i think leahy is trying to find some path out of that. again, i think that his principle challenge is convincing the american people to vote for this. host: there is a lot of these nominees pending before the senate jewish and because they've been -- senate judiciary committee and because they've been so concerned with elena kagan it didn't free them up to get these judicial nominees through the committee process. so that's why this logjam, this bag log comes from.

guest: i don't think there's any question that set the obama administration behind on this whole enterprise was having two supreme court confirmations. they had to pay attention to that and they had to ramp up for that. and i also think -- and ts is something that, you know, democrats are going to yell about, but i also think that president obama just doesn't think that the judiciary is necessarily the centrally important critical issue for him the same way republicans have been laser focused on the courts for decades. and so i think there is a stance not just the timing is bad but that this was a desperately urgent path and obama's nominees look like clinton's nominee in they don't appear to be far left academic. they tend to be minorities and women. they come from really interesting and diverse backgrounds but these are not

sort of the hippy pot smoking liberals. and so i think he tried to diffuse some of the partisanship by putting up what he tuesday is moderate judges. loip let's go to wayne in north carolina. independent line. caller: good morning. host: you are on the air with dahlia lithwick. caller: this is a very interesting topic that i never thought i'd call about. i am in the middle of a lawsuit against an insurance company and it is taking forever. i am a lifelong democrat that has now -- i was a lifelong democrat that has now gone independent. i just want to know -- i just have a couple questions. can i really make a difference by calling my senator or congressman about this issue? and the second thing is, is there a website where an american citizen can monitor the progress andelection of appointments? guest: those are great

questions, wayne. the first answer is, i think it always makes a difference to pick up the phone and call your senator. particularlyn an issue like this where they are probably not getting enough phone calls. it's critically important to say, you know what, at the end of the day i recognize we need a fully stuffed bench and i urge you, i urge you to do whatever you can to make this process happen faster. i'm just going to give you one website that i think has done a pretty good job of monitoring this and that's alliance for justice. and they've done a pretty good job of watching the confirmation wars as they've gone on. i think that you can also go to the federal judiciaryebsite at this point. eric holder did a really good op-ed last week in "the washington post" where he laid out good job of tracking where

the big fights are and what you can do to help. don't give up this issue. it's crucial that americans understand how they're affective about this. host: joseph is joining us from massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for receiving my call. i'd like to discuss the state judges that are appointed. it has to do about being too lenient on some of these people and then having to retry them a year or two later when they re affirm. that is a huge mistake and i wish they would be a little less lenient. thank you fotaking my call. guest: joseph, i think what you're saying goes to the point we were making before when we said the way we talk about the judiciary has become very, very political and veryublic and you know most states elect --

many of their state judges, it's one of the most interesting things we are looking at now is the campaign spending on these state supreme court election races. these used to be races that you could absolutely sleep through. nobody cared. and a lot of these state supreme court races, these are retention elections, so-called retention elections which means a supreme court judge who was appointed by someone runs against nobody simply to be retained. and we're seeing millions of dollars coming from out of state in these elections for exactly the sorts of issues that you're talking about. people say they're too activist or too liberal or soft on crime and the really amazing phenomenon and some of this comes out of the citizens united campaign spending decision is we're seeing millions and millions of dollars come from out-of-state into these state ections. host: they're pouring money into this. guest: a lot of groups who are

either anti-gay marriages or two judges on the ticket. i think it's in idaho, two supreme court judges who are on the ticket in idaho who just for retention elections and never thought about these issues. but they uphold gay marriage. they throw millions of dollars into ads, print ads to defeat and at the state level the conversation about judging has become very political, fraught with big money and full of these quicky ways of describing judges as activists or pro-gay marriage or anti-abortion or what have you but they're very, very thin slivers of who these people are. you have people who have 20-year judicial records who are going to be defeated in november because of one vote and one case. host: and you recognize the outside groups. our viewers might know the names of. guest: i jusdon't have it

with me and i am relucta to say. i wrote about it in "slate" a month ago. sandra day o'connor has been speaking out about this. she's very opposed to judicial elections and i think she thinks that states should rerethink about this is a good idea. she -- rethink about this is a good idea. she spoke out about groups on single issues to try to unseat federal -- i'm sorry -- state supreme court judges. host: if you're interested in that story, dahlia lithwick rights for "slate magazine." she is a senior editor. the website is slate.com. atlanta, georgia, greg, democratic line. you're next. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just have a comment. and i'd like to get ms. lithwick's answer to it about where does she think that the erican people aren't outraged as the republicans are to stopping the judicial nominees? it seems like there should be more outrage about it.

guest: it's a great question, greg. i think the easy answer and this is going to be too easy is that republicans have really owned the language about the judiciary for the last couple of decades. i think that democrats have really not fought to explain to americans why the courts matter. host: and when you say that -- let me just jump in -- republicans, this is an issue that gets the republican base jazzed up. they talk about it. they get -- they're active on this issue whereas the democratic base is not. guest: well, the democratic base picks its issue and it can be abortion or labor rights or it can be the environment, but as i said, they don't always say, you know, there's a very, very good way to ensure that the right to choose is protected and that is make sure the courts rlect my views on that. and democrats have not done a good job on that. as you said, republicans have done such a good job on saying to the base, look, if you care about abortion, we need to peel

off everybody on the federal judiciary and put on new judges who are pro-life. if you care about corporate rights we need to peel the people off the bench who have been falling all over themselves to help employees in the courts and put pro-business judges on the bench. we have done as democrats i think have done a terrible job on messaging why the courts matter. and so democrats when they see a logjam at the senate on judges, first of all, they say, it's typical. this is business as usual. this is a totally dysfunctional institution. secondly, i don't think they feel that deep, deep sense that their life and their values are going to be affected the way republicans feel, oh, my god, the comsition of the court affects everything i care most about in the world. host: well, one reason that president bush was able to have -- the track record that he has in filling judicial vacancies, he did away with the american

bar association as hisominee. president obama has taken that back up. awful his nominees go through the american bar association. they vet them. they decide whether or not they have the credentials for this. what does that mean? what is the a.b.a. process like and why does it matters? guest: it depends on who you ask. the way that george bush did away with the vetting process is because he thought it was a liberal leaning group who was tough on conservative judges and easy on liberal judges. if you ask obama he said, this is the american bar association, this is the central, most respective, most arbiter of who the best judge is. slernl when i alluded at the beginning to adding more layers to the process, adding the a.b.a. does add a layer, and i think that every time you add a layer to the process it takes a

little bit longer to get your judges out the gate. host: an email from a viewer who wants to know your definition of a good judge. guest: this is a good qstion. i say this and people throw things at me. i have been slightly persuaded over the years that a good judge both adheres to the constitution as it's written, the text and the original meaning, but a good judge also understands that times change, that the framers didn't have any intention of binding us to their views of what was cruel and unusual punishmt under the eighth amendment or what their views were under free speech. it's a very complicated process. i think it takes many, many, many steps to get to a good answer in a case. i think probably the best judge knows that she can be wrong, and i think that some of that humility has fallen away from our conversation about the judiciary but i really do think that the very, very best judges know that there's no such thing

as easy, that ese are all hard cases, there's always two parties who are very, very desperately interested in prevailing and a really good judge takes both parties into account as well as the law, the text, the word, the intent of the constitution and tries to find a solution knowing they don't know everything. host: dahlia lithwick is senior correspondent for "slate." has covered the microsoft trial and other legal issues. also, weekly legal commentator for the n.p.r. show "day-to-day." past experience, you clerked for one of the chief justices of the ninth circuit court and worked for a family law firm in reno, nevada. let's go to las vegas. larry, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes. long time listener, first time i was able to get through and i was glad that i was because to me it's very simple why there's a logjam there. you got the president, you got

the congress, both houses, the entire agenda -- even your last comment, gretta, about the american bar and all this kind of stuff, the original reason i was going to call in is i was goings to tell them that even c-span and now this lady, everything is tilted toward the democrats. and the last fashion possibly from total control is to at least stop some of these judges. host: so, larry -- caller: it's so obvious. host: larry, in your view you agree with republican senators who have held up these judicial nominees because you're opposed to president obama's agenda? caller: total control by all three branches. not just the presidency, not

just the congress and now the senate too -- the judiciary branch? is that total control if you could get it? host: dahlia lithwick, why not, then? if you're a republican, like larry, and you don't want -- you -- you disagree ideolocally with the obama administration, with the democrats in congress, then why not oppose judicial nominees? guest: you know, if i were a republican in the senate i would probably oppose them because, look, if you got a bench that's half empty by 2020, that's a lot of judges you're going to be able to put up someday. i think as we empty out the benches, the stakes are going to get higher and higher because you are going to have the ability to hugely impact the federal bench. but i think i would just urge the caller to really, really say, is it true that every single judge that obama has put up is a rabid lefty radical who

wants to transform the shape of the judiciary? host: are they conservative, though? guest: i don'think they're conservative. as judicial judges go they are prty moderate people. we saw this again in the fight against sotomayor and kan. the people that were mad were democrats because they didn't want temp rate, moderate, you know, liberals on the courts. they wt to see bill brennan on the court and they were furious for obama for not putting up a real liberal. i think these are fights that we have these fights that we have every time a president puts up judges. they're never to our liking. i don't know if that gives us license to block. host: boston, eric, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, ms. lithwick. i've been listening to this and i am absolutely appalled at what i've heard. my first comment is it doesn't

matter if it's a democrat or republican that is president. what it comes down to is finding someone who is fair. we have been pit against democrats d republicans and not nessarily moving the united states forward as americans, and we've lost that. and more so since obama has been president, i've watched c-span and the news, both left and right, it's beenore opinionated on each side. each one helping each side and not really looking at the middle and reporting the facts. it gets more distorted, and not even an american citizen watching tv can really find the truth. host: so given what eric just said and larry, too, is there a way to remove these judges from the political process up on capitol hill so you can fill these vacancies? guest: you know, in my dreams we wouldn't have confirmation hearings at all. i've sat tough four of them

now, gretta. i would happily do away with them and going back to what we used to do which is do them on paper and not parade them in front of the cameras and pull their hair and see them cry. this is not th way to choose judges. i also think we need to really dramatically -- and i think this goes to eric's point -- ramp down how ideological the conversation about judges is. you want to fight to the death about health reform, have at it. you want to fight to the death about the war in iraq, have at it. but if you can concede, and i don't know if every caller wants to concede the judiciary is slightly different. it's not purely polital. it's not only are indeed that what judges do is different by definition and it has to be differen and if we reduce the judiciary to just people who are going to vote on the bench the way they would if they were fulling the lever in an election, ware in big trouble as a country. nobody wants to see a bench dominated by the other side.

we have to take this down a notch. i just think i want to really agree, harke, that maybeart of it is we talk about everything in such extreme and angry political caricatures but we need to rhink of how we think about the judiciary. at the end of the day, is an entire -- i think that's not smart. host: caller from flushing, michigan. caller: i'd appreciate it if you don't cut me off. you have to give president obama slight. the wars had to be top priority. if he didn't move as quickly on the judges he certainly had reasons why he did not. secondly, i think that the real

change came when president bush said, "i don't like the american bar association. i'm turning to th federalist society." that's a group of people of attorns that he knew what law schools he went to, what economic beliefs, the financial theories they had, they're anti-little people. those -- that's where he turned to. he truly chose ideological candidates. the bar association is a wide spectrum of beliefs. that doesn't even play into the bar association. membership. it is because he turned to the federalist society that, for instance, the u.s. attorneys, there were -- you recall the scandals of those resigning and the u.s. attorneys because they were demanded to take political

action to go after people and consequently, for instance, a woman by the name of georgia thompson in wisconsin, madison, wisconsin, went to prison. it was a political. she was totally innocent. when there was a three-judge federal panel review of her case after they had already thrown her in prison and using it for political purposes, the judges that heard that case got her out of prison and said and defined it as -- host: ok, mary, we are going to leave it there. dahlia. guest: i think the point is right. i think that we have come to use instruments of the law as mary said whether it's u.s. attorneys or whether it's a state's attorney general, we're seeing these arms of the legal system pushing very, very hard ideological lines. and i think part of what i'm begging for here this morning t