examination, it would reveal that this thing that looks so good in fact has feet of clay. >> in the islamic world, we have been at war for almost 10 years. there are a lot of people who are afraid, angry, whatever. ahmadinejad looks like someone who is standing up to the united states and so he benefits from that. >> and to israel, untto add, that is another reason. >> i am a british journalist spending time at the center. a lot of conservatives in pteron, imported conservatives do not really like this guy.

they think his rambunctious and has mishandled the economy. they do not much care for his chief of staff, this rather strange character that rabin described. so why do they put up with him? and will they go on putting up with him? >> that is a great question. clearly, there is a deep and growing division in that critical sector of the clinical spectrum, conservatives unhappy with the hard-liners, unhappy with ahmadinejad and his political appointees. the supreme leader allows this to continue and that is the way it is. it always reminds me of a

wonderful joked in tehran that, if there are five iranian shiites, there has to be at least six political parties that they divide among themselves automatically. the revolution started basically as a one-party state. today, you have over 240 political parties, factions, movement, etc. i am surprised that it is that small. as long as the supreme leader allows this to continue, that is the way it will be. >> there is a principle of iranian politics and that i think, a few keep in mind, it will be helpful. no one never leaves office voluntarily. you either die or are pushed out. part of what you're describing, roger, is a break up for a split of this 25-member men's

club that has run iran pretty much without opposition from 1979. people like hominy and jetty and others are charter members and they have stuck around. this group is either -- maybe it is the effect of age or the new generation coming up, but this group seems to be splitting apart. you see the kinds of conflicts and others getting that you would not have even imagined 10 years ago. of course, the hard part to this is then to say, so what?

what does this mean in political terms? what do these splits mean? it is either one of two things. either it will break apart the system or is it will lot. as our iranian friends say, is either one of two things. and you do not know at the end of the day. you can look at them. you can see these splits, but the political implications are very hard to read. >> if i may add something to this -- in the history of the islamic republic, there has been one case of mpg president. -- case of in teaching a president. hamini willnk that' allow this to happen again.

when you hear rumors of impeachment statements in parliament, they have to work together. the argument of the government has been that there have been free elections and ahmadinejad was elected with over 65% of the majority. therefore, he has to finish his term. that is how i see it. in the back, yes. just wait for the microphone. >> i got the impression from what i have heard that ahmadinejad is in a strong position domestically. could it be that the actions he has shown so far is an attempt to hide perhaps a weak position

within his own country? >> a think that is what i said at the end. i think he is still very vulnerable, despite his bravado. >> a question from the overflow. you talk about mr. ahmadinejad pressing that the international community cannot dictate its terms to the iranian government. >> made before the last 100 years or so, there has been an ongoing struggle to do exactly that. to restore some kind of balance between rulers and route the ruled -- between rulers and the

ruled. we're supposed to be talking about president ahmadinejad's visit, but i did not see or hear anything in what he said that suggested that he or his allies would be more open and more accepting of views of other segments of society, particularly intellectual ands or lawyers or human rights activists or filmmakers or these others who have raised questions about his and other policies of the government.

that tension will continue, i think. >> yes. >> georgetown university. i have a question regarding two things that were said. the first is the idea that the sanctions are helping iran's industry and the ahmadinejad engineering perspective. there's a lot of indication that the oil industry, the oil and gas industry is suffering pretty tremendously. the oil fields are regressing, in terms of capability of production, 7% to 11% per year. that means they may be pulling out nothing shortly. do you think the biggest danger is the lack of technological imports into the country? the country is very far behind in terms of exploration, in terms of development, and in

terms of refining the downstream aspect of the oil industry. >> please. thank you. >> i am not an economist and i would defer that question. but it has been known for a long time that iran has had difficulty with its refineries. its oil fields are the oldest. they have gone through a significant percentage of what they have. i do not know that sanctions, short term, will make a difference on the oil industry. they impacted gone -- they cut back on the amount of oil they are importing. they're trying to increase their independence. but i will fill you and giving you an answer because that is not something i know about. >> i speak with great authority as a non-economist.

again, going back to something we mentioned earlier, uc similar -- you see similar analogy is with the lack of refinery capacity, the growth in domestic consumption, all of these things. yet, you can find the studies going back to the early 1980's and looking out five years and the collapse that people were predicting or the sense that this group, in five years, would be mugged by reality. it has not happened. it leads me to one conclusion. as i said, i do not have a good economist view of this, but it tells me that the iranians are smarter than we think they are, they are luckier than we think

they are, or the people are much more long-suffering then we give them credit for. >> please would for the microphone. >> think is a must for your comments. and you referred to ahmadinejad 's defiance. i would like to ask about that. one of the other themes that he pushed in his visit was a lack of respect. i would like to ask you what you see in weather that point is facing reality and whether the

government can do something in public diplomacy to kind of take away that point from mr. ahmadinejad and the iranian government. >> that is a good question. when the issue comes of about seeking respect, i think it is our colleague barbara slave and who says that the iranians think that they are the rodney dangerfield fielof the middle e. they get respect. i ask myself the same question. how you get at this idea? president obama, he has spoken repeatedly about the need to deal with iran on the basis of mutual respect. but here is maybe what is going on.

the u.s. is talking about engagement based on mutual respect. president ahmadinejad seemed to be talking about mutual respect and will worry about the engagement later. how else to explain his idea that, yes, i am ready to talk to the united states, but our dialogue should consist with a public debate with me and my counterpart in front of the world media. in other words, in this way, the bowl clearly is for the iranian side to gain respect, to gain status without worrying much about the content and the process of engagement.

>> search for common ground. i have heard a lot of people say i really wish people would stop going to these dinners in new york and why are the meeting with him? i have been at the dinner for the third year now. i am curious to know why you decided to go and what did you say to people who discourage you from going? >> sonya, it is nice to see you here. i hope i was not too far off and what i hope you recognized we were at the same event. actually, no one tried to discourage me.

including former colleagues from the government, from the department of state. they never said, do not go. they said, though, it sounds interesting. i went because my wife told me to go and i always do what my wife tells me to do. [laughter] again, it is the whole thing. we and the iranians have not spoken to each other. we have not listened to each other. i am reminded a little bit of an interview some of you may have heard that senator ron newman gave a few weeks ago about afghanistan. the reporter asked him, "how do you deal with president karzai? how did you deal with someone as difficult as president karzai?" he said, "i listened to him." what a revolutionary idea, to

listen to what the other side says. not that we agree with it, not that we necessarily accept it or like it, but at least listen. if we are not listening to people -- we can always talk to our friends, of course, but if we do not listen to people who disagree with us, we will end up in a very bad place. >> let me thank our two speakers for a wonderful presentation. they were very candid in answering the questions. please join us for lunch. [applause]

>> president obama signed into law that makes communication technologies more excess of all to people with disabilities. from the white house east room, this is 10 minutes. [applause] >> hello, everybody. it is good to see you. everybody, please, have a seat. it is wonderful to see all of you here today, to be with all of you. i want to make some special acknowledgments. we have some legislators here

who have been fighting on behalf of the disabilities community for a very long time. we are so proud of the legislation i am signing today and the legislation weakside earlier this week. i want to acknowledge all of them. first of all, responsible in large part for getting this process through the senate is senator mark pryor of arkansas, representative ed markey, democrat from massachusetts. we also heard from senator jay rockefeller of west virginia, from barbara mikulski the democrat of maryland. we have kent conrad as well as byron dorgan, the boys from north dakota. we have henry waxman who has, on so many pieces -- who has worked on some pieces of important legislation this year.

we're thankful for him. we have julias, the chairman of the fcc. and finally, we have this guy -- [laughter] some of you may know him. i happened to be listening to him this morning when i woke up. he is what i work out too. [laughter] he is what i sweet talk michelle to. [laughter] mr. stevie wonder is in the house. [cheers and applause] i was doing a little rendition of some of his music to him and he was kind enough not to laugh. [laughter] earlier this year, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the

americans with disabilities act right here in the white house. many of you were here. it was a moment for every american to reflect not just on one of the most comprehensive civil rights bills in our history, but what that bill meant to so many people. it was a victory won by countless americans who refused to accept the world as it is and against great odds waged quite struggles and there is crusades until, finally, change was one. the story of the disability rights movement is enriched because it is intertwined with the story of america's progress. americans with disabilities are americans first and foremost. by calling americans, they are entitled to not only full participation in our society, but also full opportunity in our society.

so we have come a long way. but even today, after all the problems we have made, too many americans with disabilities are still measured by what folks think they cannot do instead of what we know they can do. the fight for progress is not about sympathy, but away. it is about opportunity. that is why we share the opportunity -- the responsibility of the work that came before us, one live, one law, one step at a time. so here, we are here to take two more steps. i was able to signed rose law. this is a 9-year-old girl. she is right there. wave. [applause] that is some good waiting there,

rosa. no, sheremarcelin is one of many americans with down syndrome. she had the word "retarded" officially removed from the language in her stead. it is removed from the federal health, education, and family law and instead referred to americans living with an intellectual disability. this may seem to some people like a minor change, but i think rose's brother nick put it best. where is neck? are you there? you can wave to. go ahead. [laughter]

i want everyone to hear his wisdom. what you call people is how you treat them. if we change the words, maybe it will be the start of a new attitude toward people with disabilities. that is a little -- that is a lot of wisdom from nic. [applause] a their parents are choking up because they're really proud of their kids and appropriately so. the bill i am signing today into law will better ensure full participation in our democracy and our economy for americans with disabilities. the 21st century communications and video for disabilities act will make it easier for people who are deaf, blind, or live with a visual impairment to do what many of us take for granted, from navigating a television or dvd menu, to

sending a menu on smartphone. it sends new standards so that americans with disabilities can have the necessary skills to compete for the jobs of the future. together, these changes are about having equal access, it equal opportunity, and equal respect for every american. they have built on the progress we have already made all the last 20 months. together, we put in place one of the most important updates to the aba in 20 years by prohibiting disability pay by private entities. i issued an executive order to establish the federal government as a model employer of americans with disabilities. we passed the customer and dinner reeves paralysis at, the first piece of pop -- we passed

the christopher and dina reeves paralysis act. and the affordable care act we passed will give every american more control over their health care and will do more to give people with disabilities more control over their lives since ada. living up to these principles is an obligation we have as americans and to one another. in the end, each of us has a role to play in our economy. each of us has something to contribute to the american story. and each of us must do our part to continue on this never-ending journey towards building a more perfect union. i am so proud of the legislators here today.

i want to thank all the advocates who helped bring this legislation about. now i am very proud to sign the bill. [applause] >> there you go. done. [cheers and applause]

>> our campaign coverage continues at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight with the second debate between connecticut's u.s. senate candidates followed by live coverage of the first debate between senate candidates in wisconsin. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, a debate by a reserve between oral pomeroy -- a debate between girl pomeroy and rick deberg. and a reminder that we have debates and campaign rallies available for you to watch any time on line. visit our website at c-span.org /politics. >> most generals, their greatness is what they do on the

battlefield. washington's greatness was as much what he did between battles, holding the continental army together. >> our part to in view of ron turnout. it is the first large-scale single volume biography of our first president. >> supreme court justices posed for their first ever photographed it. many returned this week with new justice elena kagan. the first -- next, they have oral arguments. they are one hour.

>> we will hear arguments today on snyder vs phelps. mr. summers. >> mr. chief justice, if it please the court, we're talking about a funeral. if justice will ever matter, it has to matter the context of a funeral. mr. schneider only wanted to bury his son. >> are we just talking about a funeral? that is one of the problems i have with the case. there was video that your client watched, after the video. >> there was a fire sent out prior to the video. we have the funeral and what they describe as the ethics which was put on the internet afterwards. >> what does that have to do with the funeral?

the ethic was a recap of the funeral protest itself. >> that is fine. but that does not intrude upon the funeral. you either have two separate causes and action. one is the harm at the funeral and the other is the harm caused by viewing this posting on the internet. but i do not see how they >> we had the flyer that was submitted that was sent out before the funeral. we had the facts of the funeral, and we focused on the person who targeted thomas in the epic. would that have supported the cause of action?

>> i think that is a closer call. >> yes or no? >> i would say yes, because you had the personal targeted epithets directed at the snyder family. >> it was his choice to watch, but if he chooses to watch he has a cause of action because it causes him distress. >> he has a cause of action. that does not mean he is going to win. >> what does he have a claim? as tatarstan, after this case arose, maryland passed a statute -- as i understand, i read the statute and it seems to me that there was nothing unlawful, nothing out of compliance with that statute that was done here.

there was no importuning anyone going to the funeral, stop before the service began? m.r.i., under the current statute, this conduct was not unlawful -- am i right? >> the statue was in place at the time, but it is a complicated answer to the question because they were positioned about 30 feet from the main entrance to the funeral. with the they stand police told them to? >> they told police where they wanted to stand and the police said ok. >> they were there with the knowledge of the police and with the permission of the police. >> it is true they did not violate any criminal statutes. >> is there is anything to suggest that the maryland legislature intended to occupy the field of regulations of

events that occur at funerals? >> i believe the maryland legislature made it clear they did not want people to protest minerals in general. >> but they did not prohibit it. >> they did prohibited under certain circumstances. >> for statutory enforcement, what we are dealing with here is tort law. >> that statue of christ in protest at funerals. protesting the vietnam war or protesting whatever -- this statute applies to protest at the rules. the protest of a dead soldier whose parents are going to hell and whose parents have raised him to go to hell. simply to say you can have a protest within a certain distance is not to say you can have a protest within a certain distance that defames the corpse. that is a different issue, isn't

it? >> that is our position, it yes, justice scalia. >> wasn't at the very same day that picketed at annapolis and at the state capital? >> yes, they picketed those three locations. >> could they have gotten an injunction, do you suppose, against this protests crushed or >> i don't think they could have before hand, because although you said we knew what the suns were going to be, generally from their pattern, you can guess what the signs are going to be but you don't know until they show up. they had a sign that said god hates you, you are going to hell. >> you could go into court and say the signs saying this at the other think we are at the state

capital. the same suns are in annapolis and they are going to use the same signs at this protest. >> from merck -- the sons referred directly to matthew schneider saying you are going to hell. if this was done at a public park in montana, logically i think you could conclude it was not directed at a family. but when you show up at a 20- year-old marines funeral and say you are going to hell -- >> did they have the going to hell sign at the state capitol in annapolis? >> the majority of the signs were the same. >> the particular one you mentioned, did they have those at the other two? >> yes, the only one they change was for each branch of the service.

if we are forced to accept their view, that is what they testified to. mr. snyder's you in the view of the fourth circuit was that the got hate you and you are going to hell sign specifically referred to matthew snyder, and that they got four dead soldiers, mr. schneider certainly interpreted that as referring to his son. matthew schneider was the only deceased marines older. -- deceased marine soldier. they were the signs that the fourth circuit said they could avoid that issue because they can simply say this was hyperbolic and protected, pursuant to its interpretation under defamation law. >> do you think that the epic is

relevant as an explanation of some of these arguably ambiguous signs that were displayed at the funeral? for example, you are going to hell, god hates you? if you read the epic, perhaps that sheds light on a who"you" is. >> if you put this in the context of a funeral gore, it was a typical funeral. >> but this signed sayyou, and the arguments -- the sign say you. the epic is directed directly at matthew scudder. does that not shed light on what "you" meant in the signs? >> it specifically referenced

matthew's parents by name. in our judgment, and the defendant testified that the epic sort of explained their explanation of the book funeral protest itself. >> this is about the funeral. -- this is not about a funeral. the first amendment seems to be a broader and different question. did your client see the signs? i gather that he did not see what the signs said, so he did not read anything on the signs. is that right? >> he did not read the content. >> how did your client find out that the signs, the tops of which he saw at the funeral, when the demonstrators were standing with the approval of the police, 300 feet away, how did he find out what they said? >> your honor, to days in advance they sent out a flier

saying they were going to protest the funeral. they had matthew snyder's picture there. the claimed they were going to protest at st. john's. >> my question is, how did your client find out these very objectionable printing's on the signs? how did he find out what they said? >> he found out the specifics by going to the family wage immediately fallen and seeing it on the television. >> so now we have two questions. one is, under what circumstances can a group of people broadcast on television something about a private individual that is very obnoxious. because of the funeral, i accept that, from your point of view, that is very obnoxious. the second is, to what extent can they put that on the internet where the victim is likely to see it, either on

television or by looking it up on the internet. those are the two questions. i don't know what the rules ought to be there. do you think a person could put anything on the internet? do you think they can put anything on television, even if it attacks the most private things a private individual? lal actionnd's league prohibits that? what should the rules be there? >> right now, the rule we are stuck with is falwell. >> falwell was a public figure and the snyder family is not. i think what i got from your

brief is, you don't fall under that case because you are not dealing with a public figure. but that is correct, justice ginsberg. >> the more you say about this, the happier i will be. >> the private, targeted nature of the speech, in our judgment, is what makes it unprotected. for example, the epithets directed at the family would be unprotected. if, for example, a person repeatedly put on the website that mr. smith has aids. whether it is true or not, essentially at some point in time, it might rise to the level of an intentional infliction of emotional distress. >> you have no objection if the sign said get out of iraq, an anti-war protests, not directed at this particular individual.

no objection there. >> the constitution would bar that claim from going forward. >> that sun would intrude upon the privacy of the funeral just as much. that is not really what you are complaining about. you are complaining about the personal attacks. >> yes, and i think under certain scenario you could have, regardless of the signs, you could have a scenario where the funeral was disrupted. it was disrupted in this case. >> it was, or it wasn't? >> it was, justice ginsburg. >> i thought when the service started again, the protest was stopped. >> about eight minutes after the funeral started, the protesters left the area. >> is that the the extent of the destruction?

>> according to all of the witnesses, they had to -- a certainly took away, according to the priest that was coordinating the mass, it certainly took away the peaceful experience that all private figures -- >> but you would be used -- but you would not be objecting to that if there were not these nasty signs. >> i hope i said that under the right context -- all we are saying is that if there was a sign out there that's set god hates america, i don't think we would have a claim. but if they disrupted the funeral, i think some set of factors could be a claim. >> i am trying to tease out the importance of where the person is a private person or a public figure. does it make a difference if i am directing public comments to

a public or private figure? >> in the context of defamation, -- >> i am talking about in terms of inflation of emotional distress. if i am talking to you as a marine, if you were a marine, and i was talking about the iran war and saying that you are perpetuating the horrors that america is doing, and said other things that were offensive, would you have a cause of action because you are being called a perpetrator of the american experience? >> i think there have to be a lot more facts involved, harassing type of facts. >> but you are saying yes. so speech on a public matter is directed to a private person should be treated differently

under the law? i think that was part of what dressed as pryor was asking -- what justice brier was asking. is that what your position is? >> public speaking to a private individual should be treated differently than as directed to a public official. >> under what theory of the first amendment would we do that? what case would stand for the proposition that public speech, or speech on a public matter, should be treated differently depending on the recipient of the speech? >> birds of versus welch. >> that was defamation. >> correct, but the problem is, the only other case we have that deals with inflation of emotional stress was hostler

versus falwell. the states have interpreted hustler versus falwell is not applying to private figure. >> but had they done it in the context of differentiating between public and private speech. >> it was specifically said it was a matter of public concern, and they said the plaintiff was not a public figure, therefore it it did not meet the elements of intentional infliction picnics i was talking about a supreme court case that suggested we would treat the first amendment and the right to speak on public matters differently depending on the person to whom it was read. >> going to the context of this speech, do we look at the words on a sign alone or do we look at

the entire context of what all the other signs upset at the demonstration to determine whether or not the speech here was public or private speech? >> i think you have to look at the particular signs. you don't, anyone could come up with the public concern because they could direct any epithets at a person and in the middle they could say i am for taxes or against taxes. >> i am a little concerned at your current acceptance of the proposition that if one comes up to a marine and says you are contributing to it terribly unfair war, that that alone would form the basis for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. what are the requirements for that? i thought it had to be outrageous conduct. >> it does, justice scalia.

>> why accept that as parallel to what your claim in here? >> what i meant to say was there would have to be a lot more of that involved to rise to the level of inflation of emotional distress case than just saying you were not in favor of the war. >> what did you have an instance where the defendant has said on television or on the internet something absolutely outrageous? you show that it was intended to, and did, inflict serious emotional suffering. show that any reasonable person would have known that likelihood, and then the defendant says yes, i did that, but in a cause, and in a cause

that we are trying to demonstrate how awful the war is. in that point, i think the first amendment not leave that alone. there is where we need a rule or we need an approach or we need something to tell us how the first amendment in that instance will begin to enter and force a balancing. is it that you want to say no punitive damages in such a case? or that you have to insist upon a particularly clear or reasonable connection between the private part of this and the public effort. have you thought about that at all? that is where i am thinking and having trouble. >> i think the standard of falwell.usserversus

i think it generally does not apply to a private figure, alleged the defendants can show some compelling connection there. at least reasonable, rational connection. in this case they don't claim there is a connection. the dishes this moment to hijack someone else's private event when they are breathing over a 20-year-old child's funeral. >> hustler seems to be to have one sentence that is key to the whole decision. it says outrageous this in the area of political and social discourse as an inherent subjected this about it that would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors taste or abuse or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. how does that sentence -- how is that less implicated in the case of a private figure than in the case of a public figure? cracks in hustler versus falwell we had an traditional area of

public discourse. hear what we are talking about is a private funeral. i would hope that the first amendment was not enacted to allow people to disrupt and harass people at someone's private funeral. >> going back to the question was asked previously, suppose we had a general statute that just said there will be no disruptions of any kind of private funerals. keep your distance, 500 feet, 1,000 feet, but something that did not refer to content or ideas, but just made it absolutely clear that people cannot disrupt private funerals. what form with that statute not address, in your opinion? >> in tort law, the state's

interest is to provide a remedy for its citizens. mr. snyder has absolutely no remedy, none. he is a private figure, a grieving father, who is left without any remedy whatsoever. >> do we have other instances that meets all that terms of -- yet there is an award of damages? i believe that falwell had several tort claims but there was no criminal statute. i think it with the other way because a public figure status. >> i am asking for an example where a federal case, where the conduct was permitted by the

statute, by the police there, and yet there was a damage award. >> i am not aware of any case, but if someone sue someone for defamation, there probably would not be a statute that was violated. >> i am talking about this intentional infliction of emotional distress. >> other than hustler versus falwell, i do not have any federal cases to cite to you. >> this is a situation in which all conduct that complies with maryland bureau protest is lawful? these are the exclusive regulations that apply here, so that someone came up to mr. phelps at the funeral and spat in his face, that would not be

illegal? >> i don't know whether that -- >> is certainly would be, because of the distance. you'd have to be a lot closer than the maryland statute allows. >> i believe that you could commit a tort and still be in compliance with the criminal code. >> suppose i don't think you have a cause of action for invasion of privacy. these people were at this distance from the funeral, but that was one of the causes of action submitted to the jury. i disagree on the cause of action, i suppose i would have to say [unintelligible] >> you have to support both causes of action here, at intentional infliction of emotional distress and the invasion of privacy. >> we had agreed that the

respondent's waived that issue by not appealing that issue. the element of the invasion of privacy -- they contested the constitutional issue but not whether or not we met the elements of the tort. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. g justice, when members of the westboro baptist church injured an ongoing, extensive public discussion and wide array of expressive activities taking place in direct connection with the debts and funerals of -- the

deaths of its vehicles and soldiers, they did so with great circumspection and with an awareness of the boundaries that have been set by the precedents of this court. >> suppose your group or another group picks a wounded soldier and follows him around, demonstrates at his home, demonstrates at his workplace, it demonstrates at his church, basically saying a lot of the things that were on the signs, or other things. and just follows this person around day to day. is it does that person not have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress? >> inactivity like stocking, being confrontational -- an

activity like stocking. >> outside the person's home, outside the church, saying that you are a war criminal, whatever these signs say or worse. >> my answer is i don't believe that person should have a cause of action. it could not give that cause of action without direct reference to the viewpoint, which is exactly what happened in this case. >> we did have a doctrine of fighting words. you acknowledge that if someone said things such as that to his face, that would not be protected by the first amendment? >> if i may add this, fighting words require proximity and a

lack of those words being part of a broader political -- >> do we know that? isn't the criterion of that fighting words exception to the first amendment that there be an actual fight? certainly not that. is it a requirement that there be a potential for a fight? i doubt its. where did you get the notion that there has to be an imminent fight? >> i get the notion from a series of cases starting within seven years after the gooden case and on down through the brandenburg case. >> which say what? the person was too remote? the fight was not imminent? >> the working definition of fighting words is that they have to be words that by their nature are likely to incite an immediate reach of the peace and not occur in the context of some

social and artistic, education, or political kind of speech. if i may hasten to add, these respondents are not charged with fighting words. the jury was not started to limit this cells to fighting words. the words that were at issue in this case were people from a church delivering a religious viewpoint, commenting not only on the broader public issues that the discussion was under way in this nation about dying soldiers, about the morals of the nation. >> there is no question that these signs and signs like that, we saw during the vietnam war. but you had the demonstrations at the capitol, and had the demonstrations at annapolis.

this is a case about exploiting a private family's grief, and the question is, why should the first amendment tolerate exploiting this bereaved family when you have so many other forms of getting across the message, the very same day you did. >> there are several pieces to that, justice ginsburg. when i hear the language exploiting the bereavement, i'd look for what is the principle of law. as i understand it, the principle of law is without regard to the point, there are some limits on what public places you can go to to deliver words as part of a public debate. if you stay within those bounds, and under these towards even, this notion of exploiting, it has no definition in the principle of law that would guide people as to when they could or could not. if i may --

>> is it your argument that the first amendment never allows of frame for the intentional infliction of emotional distress based on speech unless the speech is such that it can be proven to be false or true? is that your argument? >> yes, and with a little bit more from the cases, if i may. not under an inherently suggested standard in where you are only and claiming that the impact of the speech was adverse emotional impact to >> let me give another example of along the same lines. let's say there is a grandmother who has raised a son who is killed in afghanistan or in a rock built by an itt. she goes to visit her grandson's great and she is waiting to take a bus back to her home. while she is at the bus stop, someone approaches and speaks to

her in a mild tones about her son. he was killed by a ied. do you know what they do? let me describe it for you. i am so happy this happen. i only wish i was there. i only wish i could have taken pictures of it. and on and on. is that protected by the first amendment? there is no false statement in all, and is free speech. b g e is purely speech. exit may give rise to some fighting words, depending on the proximity and the context. >> it is an elderly person. she is probably not really in a position to punish this person in the nose. >> she is a quaker, too. [laughter] >> let us assume that the grandmother had not done what mr. snyder did in this case.

mr. slaughter, from the moment he learned of his son's death, went to the public airways in multiple times in the days immediately before and immediately after. >> what is your answer to justice alito question? do you think the first amendment would bar that cause of action or not? >> it would have to be a very narrow circumstances. texted you think there are situations where the court -- intentional infliction of emotional distress is allowed, even for a matter of public debate? >> not public debate, mr. chief justice. that is not the way i understood the hypothetical. >> the person disagree with the war in iraq and the sending of troops there. >> and if they knew that this grandmother was that grandmother of a soldier in iraq --

>> person selects the grandmother because he thinks it will get maximum publicity to his views. does the first amendment or that cause of action or not? >> if the grandmother into the public discussion, the first amendment bars it. >> grandmother was returning to the grave of our grandson. i am anxious to determine whether in those circumstances you think the first amendment allows the cause of action or not. >> i am reluctant to say that it does not. >> but it gave the answer before about stalking. is this not comparable to stalking? >> that is what i was trying to liken it to. >> i would not file that claim for that person, for that elderly grandmother. i am not prepared, without knowing more, to say absolutely

there could be no cause of action. what i am prepared to say is there was absolutely much more than that. >> what distinguishes them from this case if there is a possibility that there is a claim there? i thought you were beginning to say that my hypothetical is different because mr. snyder made his son into a public figure. the question i wanted to ask in that connection is whether every greek family member who provides information to a local newspaper for an obituary, thereby makes the deceased person a public figure. >> not the deceased person, justice alito. we don't allege that the young man dead was a public figure. >> is the grandmother called a local paper and said let me tell you something about my grandson who was killed in iraq. he likes football and camping. that makes her public figure?

>> if she went on then to say, and how many more parents like me and my family will have to suffer this way, and when will this suffering in? i have gotten the congressman on the phone and talk about this situation. if i repeated that question repeatedly, then a little -- little charge for the servants of god are found -- a little church where they say we have an answer to your question. >> your response is dwelling on the facts of this particular case. i am interested in knowing what your position is on the broader question. can you imagine a circumstance where the same type of discussion is directed at an individual and yet would give rise to a cause of emotional

distress. i cannot imagine that there could be a circumstance, a hypothetical where there was not this level of involvement and it was out of the blue and it was up close. >> if you recognize that there can be a quota of a moment -- emotional distress in that circumstance, it is whether it rises to that level. rexene had now taken an apparently subjective standard with the absence of any of these non speech misbehaviors, and now you are back to the only barrier between a person and their first amendment right to robust public debate, including outrageous statements, which is that subjectively inherent standard. this court has said repeatedly

-- >> does it make a difference, which seems to me to be the case here, that mr. snyder was selected not because of who he was, but because it was a way to get maximum publicity for your clients particular message? >> that is not accurate, mr. chief justice, with due respect to >> assuming it is accurate, does that make a difference? >> the motive of the speaker to get maximum exposure, which every public speaker strives for and is entitled to, does not change the legal principle at play. >> it might affect whether or not the selection in flics emotional distress or is connected with the individual who is the subject of emotional distress. if the person is elected because it gives madden from publicity, rather than because of a particular connection to the matter of public debate, i

wonder if that makes a difference. >> i think it makes a difference when you are looking at what role the plaintiff had in that public discussion and how tied the words that they seek to punish or to his role in that public discussion. i think that is how you get to the point -- >> let's say we disagree with you as to whether mr. snyder had injected himself into this controversy. of a fallene father soldier had not injected himself and not called newspapers or said anything to anybody. but if a group knew that this fuel was taking place and was there -- knew that this vehicle was taking place and was there with the same signs, are you saying is that that makes a difference, that there would be a claim? >> i am saying it would make a difference, but no, there would

not be a claim there, in my opinion. there's a difference that matters in some measure. i believe that the umbrella of protection under the first amendment that this court has established firmly is speech on public issues. sometimes you get under that umbrella because it is a public official or public figure, but the umbrella that you give the protection for is speech on public issues. when appointed comes to court and says i want $11 million from a little church because they came forth with some preaching i did not like, i think it does make a difference for the court to look closely at what role did that man have in that public discussion? >> your argument depends on the proposition that this is speech on a matter of public concern, is that correct restore greg's absolutely. >> let me give you this example. let's say someone believes that

african-americans are inherently inferior and they are really a bad influence on this country, and so a person comes up to an african-american and starts b rating that person with racial hatred. this is just any old person on the streets. is that a matter of public concern? >> i think the issue of race is a matter of public concern. approaching an individual up close and individual is racism that issue out of it that don't add up protection, and we would never do that. >> all of us in a pluralistic society have components to our identity. we are republicans and democrats, christians are atheists, we are single or married, old or young. in any one of those things, you could turn it into a public issue and follow a particular person around, making that

person the target of your comments, and in your view, because this gives you maximum publicity, the more innocent, the war remove the person is, the greater the impact. i think republicans are issue may not be -- i think you are public concern issue may not be a limiting factor in cases where there is outrageous conduct and where there should be a torch. >> given substantial longstanding protection to speak on public issues, and how could it be gainsaid that the dying soldier is not on the lives of everyone in this country, and it is a matter of great public interest, and how god is dealing with this nation. at the very same funeral right

outside the front door of the church, where people with flags and signs are articulating their viewpoint. >> your position is you could take this and follow any citizen around at any point. it seems to me you should help us in finding some line there. >> i am pleased to do that. we don't follow route in this church. we were 1,000 feet away. seven bidders, 1,000 feet away, picketers.ht -- 7 picture >> there can be an infection of emotional distress for harassing contact. text not for public speech. >> but towards and crimes are committed with words -- courts

and crimes. >> there has never been any allegation that the words of the westboro baptist church where in any category of less suggested speech. >> surely the fighting words -- that is a very subjective call, isn't it? >> i believe your case has shed some good light on that. there may be in some people's mind an element of subjectivity. >> de think that is solid? what is an outrageous statement is very much different from what is fighting words? i don't see the difference. isn't it the case that in order to recover for the tort of intentional infliction, you have to substantiate the injury with

some physical manifestation, which the plaintiff here had? for fighting words, you don't even need that. you just say these words anchored need to the degree that i would have been inclined to fight. at least for this port, you have to have a physical manifestation. why isn't that a very objective standard? >> because the court said it was inherently subjective. i think there are few more paragraphs that follow, identify why it is inherently subjective, and the way the case was tried, where two sons and then three were identified as actionable by a strange reading of those words, all of the preachments of westboro baptist church, all of the signs at that pitt and other -- >> dewpoint depends on the

proposition that what is outrageous is more subjective than what is fighting words. >> i must hasten to say this. i am not a fan of the fighting words doctrine. i don't think it applies in this case. >> that is a very narrow category. use a that to me and i immediately going to punch in the nose, that is an extreme reaction. >> not to where it is just emotional injury. it had not gone that way in any of the cases, and again i have to reiterate army have required .mmediacy and intenst

intent that your purpose is to mix it up with somebody, not to go out and say nation, here is this little church. if you want them to stop buying, stopped sinning. that is the only point of this little of church. 1,000 feet away could not be fighting words. >> i am trying to get the same answer from you always trying from your colleague. brandeis said the right to be let alone is the most important. he must have been thinking there could be a tort there for interference in privacy. the first amendment does not stop state tort laws inappropriate circumstances. emotional industry deliberately inflicted could be one and i think it is one. i see in some instances that could be abused to prevent

somebody from getting out a public message. therefore i am looking for a line. that may suggest a couple and see what you think. you could have a judge make a decision, since the first amendment is involved, not the jury. the judge could say whether in this instance, it was reasonable for the defendant to think that it was important to either fear with the emotional life of that individual. you could say there will be no kidding damages, there could be ordinary damages. you could remove all protection from the defendant in an instance where the defendant nonetheless knew, actually knew that they were going to cause an individual who was private severe injury, emotional injury, irrespective of their message. i am suggesting a number of faults, of ways of trying to do

what i am trying to accomplish, to allow this tort to exist, but not allow the existence of it to interfere with an important public message where that is a reasonable thing to do. maybe this is impossible, this task, but i would like your thoughts on it. >> i am taking we are speaking out of the intrusion claims. i believe i could offer you a comparison that may help us here. you have a body block -- a body of law and you could read all those cases in one sitting, from which you would conclude that it is very narrow, very limited, and there must be some actual physical, sound, sight intrusion, if you are talking about invasion of privacy. at the other extreme is what they seek in this case, what the trial judge gave them in this case, which is in an unspecified

period of time that each individual would call their morning. , no one anytime, anyplace, in any manner, may say any word that would cause me emotional distress. >> why a aren't the members of the family of the deceased a captive audience at the funeral? >> if we were right at the door, they might have been. your body of law about captive audience, that line of case is recently taking the picketing, but this is not about content. i will use the colloquial term, up in your grill. the term the court used was confrontational. you cannot be a captive audience to someone -- >> you argue that picketing at a

person's house -- >> id can be regulated. >> what is the difference between that and picketing around the snyder sterol? >> proximity. the abortion picketing cases, what you are looking at is it was impractical for the person to avoid it without having to run a gauntlet? you can get up and close the blinds. >> it does not have anything to do with what you characterize as a public funeral as opposed to a private funeral? that is not the distinction we are relying on any more. >> i am primarily relied on proximity. you can have a public event where there is not an element of boehner ability.

>> i am following your arguments about the bulk of your speech, and even the bulk of your signs in all public speech. you have not explained to me how your speech directed at the snyders constituted public speech. or speech about a public matter, but you are talking about a man racing madly for the devil, teaching him to defy the creator and to commit adultery. at what point and how we take personal attacks and permit those as opposed to -- i fully accept your entitled in some circumstances to speak about any political issue you want. what is the line between doing that and personalized get and creating hardship to an individual? >> i believe that the line is where it was in this case and

the father is the occasion of to put him outs in public. >> the thing as a private figure, is that enough to meet your argument question or >> if you assume that the father of matthew is a private figure -- >> explained to me how you are protected by the first amendment. >> without regard to what label is put on a person who steps into the public discussion -- >> you want to st. -- change my assumption. we assume he is a private figure. we have now met a public statement and directed personal comments at an individual who is a private figure. is that actionable? >> i don't know that i can give you a definitive answer as you

frame it. what i can tell you is that i hope the court would have great difficulty making a ruling law that whether you call yourself private, public, ltd., whatever, you, not the person you are mad at over the words, but you have entered a public discussion and made some public statements, and then somebody wants to answer you. >> did mr. snyder, the father, become a public figure simply because his son was killed in iraq? >> no, mr. chief justice. >> if he did not take out the usual obituary notice, then this case should come out the other way? >> it is not the obituary. he went far beyond that. >> let's say he does nothing other than very his son. he is then not a public figure? >> then we do not pick him.

>> the new did not get the maximum publicity that your clients are looking for. my question is, if he simply buried his son, is he a public figure open to this protest or not? >> i don't know if i can give a definitive answer to that. it was not an answer of seeking maximum publicity. it was an issue of using an existing public platform to bring of viewpoint that was not being articulated. >> after he could send the obituary and he is called by the local obituary, and she says i am proud of my son because he was in service of his country. is he stepping into a public debate because of that? >> a church or anybody has the right to ensure that public comment. that is our position.

-- to ensure that public comment. >> can i ask you to go back to an answer he gave when you last up there? you said that the the more standard anti-war demonstration, get out of iraq, war is immoral, at this funeral, saying the same signs at nomura standard anti-work demonstration would be protected from an inflation of emotional distress suit. i am wondering why that is. if you think that what causes the lack of protection here is the kind of glom onto a private funeral, the exploitation of a private persons brief, the appearance for no other reason than to gain publicity at a private event, if that is the problem, why doesn't that also apply to a standard get out of iraq, war is wrong, kind of demonstration?

>> that is a much closer call, and i would look to the facts of the case to see if the funeral itself was disrupted. that is not the facts of our case. our case was disrupted, and it was a personal targeted assault on mr. snyder. mexico's is not disrupted -- suppose it is not disrupted and that they stopped when you started, that they were a sufficient number of feet away from the fuel and so forth. we are just talking about the fact there are people who are appropriating and taking advantage of a private funeral in order to express their views, and they are in compliance with all the content neutral rules. >> i would say that is a much closer call. >> why is it a closer call? >> because it is not a personal

targeted nature of the attack on the spider family that happened in this case -- on the snyder family. >> does that mean we have to story read each sign and saying one falls on one side of the line and another false on the other side of the line? >> i think that generally speaking, yes. the district court would have to look at the signs. the district court did in this case, and determine which one he believes were directed at the family and which ones were not. there was a comment earlier that all the signs were presented. all the sons were presented by the respondents, not by mr. snyder. -- all the signs were presented. >> i guess that call is always necessary under the toward you are relying on. the comment has to be outrageous. it always requires that kind of

call unless it is unconstitutional as applied to all harm inflicted by words. >> the elements of inflation of emotional distress requires outrageous this. >> i was assuming a situation in which the jury found that -- a jury finds that outrageous. are we going to reduce the jury verdict because the first amendment prohibited that? >> that is a closer call, and i would say yes if the general statement does not disrupt the funeral or target the family, i would say it is a much closer call and is more likely the constitution would prevent that claim from going forward. >> thank you, mr. summers. the case is submitted. >> the supreme court has started its new term.

you can learn more about the nation's highest court in c- span's new book. reporters who cover the court, and attorneys to argue cases there, revealing unique insights about the court. available in hardcover wherever you buy books, and also as an e- book >> next, we will hear from the senate candidates in connecticut. after that, the wisconsin senate debate. after that, and north dakota at- large debate. then, president obama campaigning in chicago for the democratic candidate. now, the second debate between connecticut u.s. senate candidate dick blumenthal and republican linda mcmahon, running to replace retiring democratic senator christopher dodd. the place to place -- the debate

took place yesterday. it is courtesy of news 12 connecticut. this is one hour. >> this is connecticut votes 2010 -- the debates. >> welcome to today's's debate between the candidates for senate in connecticut'. the post are the business council of fairfield county, the greater business council, the bridgeport regional business council, and news 12. each candidate will have 26 minutes to see -- as they see fit -- to use as they see fit. the candidates will field questions from our panel. they can also converse with each other.

they cannot ask questions of each other, but they can talk to each other. each candidate will have two minutes for closing statements. our panelists are the editor for hearst connecticut papers, the managing editor of the norwalk hour, and ebong udoma, a senior political reporter for the radio. our candidates -- linda mcmahon, the democrats and dick blumenthal, the republican. >> good morning. president bush enacted cap and trade measures to control rain pollution. you have said you are opposed to that legislation. could you explain what steps you would take to reduce fossil fuel emissions? >> let me thank everyone who is here this morning.

for those in attendance and those watching as electronically. i would like to say that, first of all, i think all of us want to make sure that we protect our environment. we want to make sure that we have clean air, clean water to pass along to generations to come. that is certainly our goal. i also believe that we need to balance our economic needs with our environmental needs to make sure that we keep that where it needs to be. i'm opposed to cap and trade, otherwise known as the national energy tax, with my opponent has supported, because it is just what i said -- and national- energy tax. it is absolutely going to cause our families -- are middle class more money. it will cause families -- cost families in connecticut about $1,000 more per year for electricity, raised the price of gasoline by about 68 cents per

gallon, and, at that time when we have so many families that are our of work and during a recession, it is not the time to receive -- to increase taxes. i believe we need a national- energy policy to protect the environment. i believe we should move toward wind, solar, geothermal, and fuel-cell technologies. connecticut is the world's capital in fuel-cells. i think we should increase nuclear production. all of these would be cleaner ways to produce our electricity in our country. i think that those are prudent and we should move in that direction. in order to get there, i believe we should incentivize our businesses. i think that companies who will move toward a cleaner technology should receive, during the time of movement and change for that technology -- they should get 100% tax credits for that development.

once the technology is in place and that you'll is burning cleaner, they should have a preferred tax rate for getting there. it is a way to incentivize businesses to move from carbon- burning fuels to clean technology. however, currently, our country is still 85% dependent on carbon fuels. i do think, at this time, we need to continue to environmentally and safely and plot -- environmentally-safely explore our own resources, both oil and natural gas, we should do in the offshore drilling in a safe and prudent way. we should continue to explore for natural gas. we will be less dependent on foreign countries, some of whom are today our allies, but whom we cannot always count on being allies. while we have a movement to move

to clean-burning fuels, i think we should continue to explore our own natural resources here to be economically independent from our foreign sources and also because it is cheaper. we have great resources year. we have enough natural gas that is projected to take over the next 100 years. it will need to be done in an economically-sound way. what we have seen with our offshore drilling, with bp's disaster, we saw that the company clearly bypass safety regulations and took short cuts. we must ensure that does not happen. i do not think the moratorium that has been placed is prudent because it is costing jobs and sending jobs outside of the united states. i think the states that are involved with the offshore drilling need to have their -- >> can you let mr. blumenthal --

>> one second. we will move toward an economic and environmentally-prudent way to develop those. >> mr. blumenthal. >> thank you. >> could ask are enthusiastic supporters to save their enthusiasm for the end of the debate? >> thank you to you all for being here today and channels will for hosting us and all of our panelists and artisans. we need a national-energy policy. that policy must create jobs, cut utility costs, in effect, makes polluters pay, and reward connecticut for being a relatively clean fuel-burning state. we should be belly proud -- very proud that we're one of the cleanest-burning fuel states and the country -- in the country.

as attorney general, i have pursued a national-energy policy to make polluters in other states, whether it is co2 or other forms of emissions, pay for contaminating our air. we can create new jobs. for example, at the fuel energy company that i visited yesterday, there are eight projects waiting in the state of connecticut. they're not going forward because there is insufficient financing. we can provide incentives and support and financing to create green jobs in our state and cut utility costs. the cost of utilities and energy in connecticut are just too hi for ordinary consumers, small businesses, and other businesses. we are one of the highest electric the -- electricity cost states in the entire country.

over the course of my two decades as attorney general, i have fought those energy interests. i have helped to cut $2 billion from rate hike that otherwise would have gone into effect. -- rate hikes that otherwise would have gone into effect. we must continue to battle the interests that would create co2 pollution and also raised our utility costs. cap and trade is dead. tappan trade died in the last congress. let's be clear. i wrote a letter to the congress supporting a bill that inc. cap and trade concepts. i also advocated changes in the bill that would have made it better for connecticut. it is not an energy tax. i oppose a national energy tax and will continue to steadfastly opposed the national energy tax. the claim that cap and trade is

a national energy tax is based on phony numbers from a right- wing group designed to scare people and protect the energy interests -- special interests that i have fought relentlessly over the years. my opponent and i have a very different view on drilling. many of you probably received an mailer from her during the height of the bp crisis. he received a lot of mailers from her so you may not remember this one. it essentially advocated more drilling and continued drilling, even in the midst of that in mind i submit -- even in the midst of that environmental crisis. i support a moratorium until we determine what the causes are. >> ms. mcmahon, would you like to drill deeper on this? >> thank you very much.

in connecticut, i think we have made progress toward clean energy. at what cost? an egghead has a second-highest energy costs in the country. -- connecticut as the second- highest energy costs in the country. we need to balance economic and environmental causes. mr. blumenthal, you said cap and trade is dead. you might need to check with president obama, because he has certainly said it will be one of his primary focus is next year, to make sure that cap and trade is put back in place. he will focus on it. you took a position -- first you sent a letter supporting cap and trade. when you were asked in the media if you supported cap and trade, you said no. then you said it was dead. i think we need to know where you stand on that particular issue.

for you to say that these are right-wing think tank members, check with president obama. he is the one who said, when he first talked about cap and trade, we will necessaries -- necessarily see electricity costs skyrocket. but the numbers aside. we're going to see increase costs -- increased costs. .et's incentivize companies let them develop their technology for cleaner-burning, give them tax breaks ones that technology is in place. we all benefit from that. punitive measures and lawsuits, i do not think there are the way to go. lawsuits do not create jobs. they drive jobs out of our state. i am absolutely not a proponent of raising any kind of tax on our families here in connecticut.

>> mr. blumenthal? >> and national-energy policy passed to provide for the future, not look back to the past -- a national-energy policy has to provide for the future, not look back to the past. i have been accused of supporting and national-energy tax, but that is misleading. that is the hartford courant's wordsabout my opponent's about me supporting that. my opponent said she would have had a hard time whether -- deciding whether to support a broad water. i fought those projects because they pose an environmental threat and also a security danger and offered no real benefit to connecticut. we do need to use more natural gas in the short-term. we are reliant on national gas

-- natural gas for much of our energy needs. we need to be honest about the compatibility of the environment and energy if we have -- energy. if we have a national energy policy. i would just say one more thing about energy. right now, we're providing $40 billion in subsidies -- tax breaks, loopholes to special- energy interests. i would shut them. my opponent has sided with the energy interest on that score. i can assure the people of connecticut, first and foremost, i will stand for them against those special interests. energy companies that i have fought over the years for their benefit. to cut electricity costs and make sure they do not dominate the public interest. i will fight for the people of connecticut, stand for them against those special interests

in washington, d.c. we have seen that washington is dominated by those special interests. >> i want to make sure energy does not dominate the entire debate. i want to move on to the next question. your question for mr. blumenthal, please. >> good morning. i think we would all agree that our transportation infrastructure needs serious improvement. there was a recent proposal that seems to be about 30 years away. what, on the federal level, as senator, would you do to improve mass transit in this part of the country? >> mass transit is a serious need for the connecticut and northeastern region of the country. it is very important for environmental and energy interests, as well as security concerns. mass transit, high-speed rail, can be promoted, encouraged, and supported by the federal government. i would strongly advocate and

fight for more transportation , forng for connecticut' the 95 corridor, for the hartford-springfield-new haven route. we can not only transport people, but more goods and provide more services, and promote economic revival. investment in our infrastructure is absolutely critical. we ought to be encouraging back kind of it -- that kind of investment in infrastructure through those kinds of federal projects and federal grants and other forms of federal support, but also through a tax policy that makes sense. i support a middle-income tax cut now, without holding it hostage for a tax cut to the wealthy, combined with an infrastructure program which will help revive our economy.

i would not hold that middle- income tax cut hostage to the tax cut for the wealthiest 2%. >> mrs. mcmahon. >> if you have traveled on 95, we know there is a need to get cars off the road and improve our transportation system. in stamford, conn., we have one of the biggest projects going on in the country. we have our transportation- oriented development running right into the long island sound. it is of -- a full community where you can live, work, and play. it will be an incredible development. i think we need to see more of that. a similar building is gone on in new haven. if we look to increase mass- transit, we can also certainly development more -- develop more of these work-play-living areas which are going to be very

environmentally sound and get more traffic off the roads. federal dollars can be used to support those. as a senator, i would look to bring those dollars into the state in terms of grants, with full preparation in transparency. and i certainly want to say to everyone here that -- with full appropriation and transparency. and i certainly want to say to everyone here that we should not raise taxes on anyone. there is no disagreement on that. we would not raise taxes on anyone. why would you let the bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year and have a negative impact on small business? they create 70% of the jobs in this country. 72% of the revenue that is earned by these small businesses would be affected by this tax increase. my opponent wants to increase taxes on a greater area.

let me tell you what will happen. $12.5 billion would leave the state, primarily throughout fairfield county. $12.5 billion would go to washington to be spent. i would rather leave the money here in connecticut, in the hands of our families and people who create jobs. until we create jobs in the private sector in this country, we're not going to have a sustained recovery. when mr. been and always talking about special interests, -- mr. blumenthal was talking about special interests, i would like to know what they were the same special interests that are bankrolling his campaign. >> mr. blumenthal? >> transportation, properly spent, can encourage small businesses. i am very much in favor of encouraging small businesses through transportation and infrastructure investment, road- building, and also, most

important, mass transit and railroads. but we also need to provide targeted tax cuts to small businesses, not by extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% and blocking a middle-class tax cut as my opponent would do, which violates principles of fairness and economic wisdom. targeted tax cuts, for example, deductions for startup costs ar4 e indeed tax credits -- tax cuts for new hires, payroll tax exemptions, very specific kinds of aid that will make possible the creation of new jobs and preservation of existing ones. absolutely, small business is the engine of new job creation, but targeted tax cuts are the way to provide the support that small businesses need, combined with financing.

right now, small businesses tell me they cannot borrow because the banks will not lend. the government can help enable better financing through direct loans from the sba and other names, the buy america program, to make sure that our federal tax dollars are used to buy products made in the united states. my opponent actually buys through wwe most of her products that are manufactured overseas. she sends jobs overseas through wwe. we need to close another tax people -- tax loophole that rewards companies for sending jobs overseas. it cost us $200 billion over time. i will fight for the people of connecticut against those special interests. the people of connecticut know

me. no matter who contributes to my campaign, no matter the amount, i want to stand for them. they know it not for my words, but from my record of action over 20 years. standing strong against the special interest is what we need to do. washington is just not listening. >> ms. mcmahon? >> wwe does not make toys. mattel makes toys. wwe licenses mattel toys to distribute them around the world. i have no doubt, mr. blumenthal, you have bought mattel toys for children over time. what we need to do to encourage our businesses to grow and develop is to make sure we have the right kind of environment. businesses leave our country because we of a 35% corporate tax rate here. -- we have a 35% corporate tax

rate here. the average world tax rate is 18%. mr. blumenthal has said he does not want to raise taxes on the middle class. he talks about his 20 years as attorney general. maybe some of you here may not know that, i did not at first, that mr. blumenthal also served as the state legislature -- in the state legislature for six years. was he was there, he voted for the largest -- while he was there, he voted for the largest tax increase ever, at that time. he voted to almost double spending in the state of connecticut. i submit to you, this is his record as a legislator. he had six years -- the term of united states senator. i do not think we can send to washington with his tax and spend philosophy -- i do not

think we can send mr. blumenthal to washington with his tax and spend philosophy. >> i think we will benefit from both sides been quiet during the debate, with all due respect. i hope i am not usurping your role. >> go ahead. we get a taste of your leadership skills. [applause] >> when wwe buys products overseas, manufactured abroad, it has deprived our workers of jobs. it is not just toys, not just mattel. it is all kinds of merchandise, manufactured overseas by workers there, when american workers could be making the same product. millions and millions of dollars spent by wwe.

now, it has a say and a choice in where those products are manufactured. my opponent, as ceo of the company, has a choice about how she would spend those corporate dollars, whether she would do, as many americans do, by america. i say by america. the federal government ought to be doing it. i defended the made in america label when it was want to be diluted. i feel strongly that we have a responsibility to fight for fair trade policy. american workers are the ones who suffer, as well as american businesses, and our entire economy, when the chinese, for example, manipulate our currency -- and their currency to our detriment. when they manipulate their currency and undervalue if, our products are priced higher. we ought to be fighting -- someone has to be there for our middle class, saying we need tax cuts, fairer trade policies so

that made in america works. the example of my opponent buying her products overseas is a very unfortunate one. i voted for that tax increase in 1989 -- more than two decades ago. i also voted for tax cuts when i was in the legislature. if we want to go back to what i was doing in 1989, we can talk about what my opponent was doing around that time when she was tipping off a doctor who worked for her about a federal investigation -- a criminal investigation. she hired the doctor, she tipped him off to the investigation. that is a matter of record. i am running on my record of two decades fighting for the people of connecticut, standing strong for them against those energy interests and special interests that would harm them. >> ms. mcmahon. >> mr. blumenthal, i think you

want to constantly focused on wwe, because it is really difficult for you to focus on the economy and creating jobs. wwe is certainly a company for which i am very proud. of the last 28 years, wwe has averaged creating 20 jobs per year. primarily in this state. i can tell you that we need more of that here in connecticut. we need someone who knows how to create jobs in the private sector so that we can have an economic recovery here in our country. when companies here in the united states by products -- buy products from outside the united states because that is where they are manufactured, what we need to focus on his reading incentive for our country, our corporations -- focus on is creating incentives for our country, our corporations to have the right environment to

grow. they need to have a climate of certainty. they do not know what is coming down the pike at this point -- health care reform, whether this national-energy tax is going to happen, whether card check is going to happen, what the tax creases are going to be -- tax increases are going to be. when people create jobs, they have to manage their downside risk. we have created this perfect storm of uncertainty from washington. i want to be able to change that. i know how to create jobs. i have done that here in connecticut. i would like mr. blumenthal to talk about the jobs that he has created here in connecticut. >> perhaps that will be part of the next question. >> ms. mcmahon, last week, u.s. accepted the endorsement of the national federation of federal

-- of independent business. it includes a freeze in the minimum wage, simplifying the americans with disabilities act, and the family medical leave act, which was authored by chris dodd. do you agree with their agenda? >> certainly, that gave rise last week to whether or not i would consider reducing the minimum wage. i certainly would not. let me be crystal clear about that. i have said that i would absolutely consider whether minimum wage would be increased moving forward. i think are responsible center would do that. i was very pleased to except the endorsement. -- accept the nfib endorsement. the owner of the company said at a press conference and i agree that one of the tenants of how

they want to move forward -- tenets of how they want to move forward is to let government stay out of the way and let the free market and free enterprise system allow business to grow and develop in our country. that is certainly what i support. i think they bring to the table the attitude that we need smaller government, less taxes, less spending by our government. businesses can then have the culture to grow and cooperate. we do not have proper working capital right now because we have so much restriction and regulation on small community banks. i have talked to so many community banks around the state to look, telling me -- around the state to have been telling me that they might have loaned money, but it cannot because bank regulators are saying that his business might become non- performing, therefore you have to have more assets on your books in order to loaned to him. we are freezing capital in the

marketplace. n freezing capital in the marketplace. groups like nfib are helping growth. i am pleased to have their endorsement. >> when my opponent accepted that endorsement, she was axed -- asked whether she would consider reducing minimum wage. she said she would look at it. i would not need to look at it. i would say, absolutely not. the other day, during our debate, she virtually accused me of lying and when i reproduced this exchange. now she says she misunderstood the question. the fact of the matter is, she said she would look at reducing the minimum wage. she talks about creating jobs. many of the jobs she has

created at wwe have no health insurance. they're hired as independent contractors. her company is under investigation now by the state for allegedly miss classifying, illegally mis classifying those workers as independent contractors, and denying them health insurance and dodging taxes on social security, medicare, and other forms of taxation such as unemployment compensation. creating those kinds of jobs without health insurance is certainly not something that i would brag about. as for creating jobs, i believe that we can have public-private partnerships such as have occurred in the fuel-cell industry. when i visited the to-sell energy corp. -- a fuel-cell

energy corp., they describe to me how they had been encouraged and supported in developing new technology and were thereby enable it to build their company with technology that was the result of that public- private partnership. there are other ways that we can encourage and support jobs -- by providing financing, by fighting for fair trade policy, and certainly in the area of green jobs, are public sector can play a vital role. right now, korea, south korea -- they are developing more jobs in fuel cells than the united states. you think our technology -- we ought to be embarrassed and ashamed that a technology developed in this country is actually being developed overseas. as united states senator, i can assure you i will fight for more support for those kinds of jobs that provide good incomes for

our people, good sources of economic revival, and most importantly hope for our children in the future that we can be leaders once again in the united states and the global economy. that kind of vision and courage is what i hope to bring to washington. >> ms. mcmahon? >> let's be clear about the minimum wage issue. just check with the new york times and the connecticut mirror. mr. blumenthal, you always like to attack this audit that is going on with wwe with independent contractors. it is a routine audit going around. monday night, you said it was a criminal investigation. >> no, i did not. >> you said it was criminal.

you said it was a criminal investigation. i would certainly think, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. maybe you just misspoke again when you talked about the criminal investigation, like a time when you talked about how you had served in vietnam, like the time when you talked about you were not going to vancouver for the fund-raiser, like the time, after you apologized for vietnam, you again miss characterized -- mis characterized your draft status. given how you miss a beat in the mist -- you misspeak and you mischaracterize wwe, i think it would be criminal for the united states attorney to accuse the company of criminal activity and then tuesday that it was outside

of your jurisdiction -- and then to state that it was outside of your jurisdiction. you certainly have called for criminal investigations before. i just want to clear that up. we clearly need to -- we clearly need to incentivize and i agree with that. our business is here in our country. for south korea to be using our technology, absolutely agree and that's what i'm talking. we need to incentivize businesses here. we don't need them to drive them offshore by having high tax rates. let's make r&d tax credits permanent here in our country. let's make sure that our corporate tax rates are competitive at least for around the world. tax loopholes exist because companies who produce products outside the united states, or have offshore businesses, they pay the tax to that particular state and that is a credit against tax paid here. but the balance of that money gets taxed if you bring it back here to this country. other countries don't do that. if a company's based here in the united states, it's a french

company, and they pay taxes here in the united states, they don't pay it again in france. so what we're doing is penalize companies. to now say that we're going to close the tax loophole so that that company will have to pay the full tax on that dollar when it is earned outside of the united states? i can tell you what will happen. companies won't have a base here. they'll go offshore completely. we won't have any tax revenue and i think that's backwards, mr. blumenthal, and it gets back to the fact you don't understand business. it's not your fault. you've been in government all your life. [laughter] >> mr. blumenthal? [applause] >> let me assure the it is clear that i'm not involved in the investigation of wwe. i said on monday night of my jurisdiction is civil.

the allegations against wwe are potentially criminal. as for vietnam -- i want to make clear, as i have said again and again, i am proud of my military record. on a few occasions, out of hundreds that i have described, i in accurately -- inaccurately characterize that. it was not intentional. it is no excuse. i take full responsibility and apologize, as i have done before, to the people of connecticut, to our veterans, and will continue to champion the cause of the veterans and continue to fight for program called -- for program called "no veteran left behind," because we have too often kept no faith with our veterans. the tax loopholes that encourage jobs to go overseas cost us more than $200 billion.

my opponent is siding with the special interest that would seek to retain them, just as she has sided with the energy interests in favor of the $40 billion in hidden subsidies and preferences that the energy interests receive and presumably also with the tax loopholes and subsidies that agri-business receives worth billions of dollars and the sweetheart deal that our pharmaceutical drug companies have received under the health care bill. that sweetheart deal costs us $200 billion. it prevents the federal government from negotiating medicare drug prices that would save us that money and other measures that would cut waste and fraud in health care that's absolutely necessary to make health care work. the present bill is simply a good step in the right direction but by no means the end of progress we need to make in our health care program. standing up against special interests is in no way what my

opponent wants to do. she has put profit ahead of people at every turn and that is the kind of united states senator she would be. i have fought for people and i would do so in washington against those special interests, stand strong for the people of connecticut. >> your question for mr. blumenthal. >> mr. blumenthal, some have suggested you have been unnecessarily harsh and litigious as attorney general toward small business. i want to read you something from what a couple of small businesses that use suit had to say about this. if you are a small business owner and mr. blumenthal sues you, life as you know it is over. your bank accounts are seized. liens are placed on property and

assets. even if you win, you will wait another year. you're out of business, you are dead. how do you respond? >> i have stood strong for small businesses and jobs when they were victims of wrongdoing and also stood strong and fought for consumers when they were victims of wrongdoing. my job has been to fight for people who are victims of wrongdoing. and i have stood for a car dealership when it was going to be shut down by general motors. i have stood for stanley works and jobs there when it was threatened with a hostile takeover. and stood with the workers at pratt when they wanted to ship jobs elsewhere. my job is to fight for people. i have saw to fight for people -- sought to fight for people,

using the law to make a difference in their lives, and most particularly and most commonly, in many ways, i have stood for people who were victims of health care insurers. when they were denied health care coverage, i have gone to bat for them, work for them, and made sure that someone was in their corner to get the medical treatment they deserve. again and again, in thousands of cases, whether stem cell transplants, cancer treatment, or other life-saving treatments, we have worked and fought for the people of connecticut and we have used the legal means available to make sure that small businesses are defended against wrongdoing as well as ordinary consumers. i would cite one other example.

when property-casualty insurers in connecticut and around the country fixed prices therig -- and rig bids, we recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for consumers and small businesses here in connecticut. small businesses are often the beneficiaries of what we do. >> ms. mcmahon? >> i have not talked to a single small business around this state that felt they were a beneficiary, mr. blumenthal, of your actions. what are you fighting for now? higher taxes, bigger government, a health care bill that is going to take $500 billion out of medicare spending. i have heard you say that just

goes against medicare advantage. that is going to reduce payments under medicare a and b to hospitals. there is a potential that seniors will not be able to get their care. there will be taxes on manufacturing of medical equipment. what will happen? that cost will get passed on to consumers. it is very definitely want to cost our seniors. this health care bill will raise taxes. you have applauded health care passing. you say it is a good start. i have to say that i think a bill that starts with premiums that are going to go up by double digits, taxes on small businesses, increased premiums to families, we will lose health care coverage rather than gain health care coverage, drive the cost of health care up and i think make it worse, driving doctors of the medicare business -- i do not think that is a good place to start. i believe it ought to be

repealed. we ought to start again. [applause] >> mr. blumenthal. >> if ms. mcmahon wants to talk to small businesses that have benefited from the work i have done, she ought to get out more and talk to other small businesses in connecticut. [applause] as i have done consistently over 20 years -- listening to the people of connecticut is where my best ideas and energy has come from. you know, my opponent would have a little more credibility on fighting taxes if she had not hired washington lobbyists over a decade, paying them more than $1 million to strongarm congress. she claims to be different, but there is nothing different about hiring lobbyists to strongarm

congress to kill legislation, as she has attempted to do put -- kill legislation that would provide protection to children against the marketing of sex and violence. she also lobbied against the steroid investigation -- hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on washington lobbyists. that is no different. that is politics as usual. i have never favored high your taxes, as an energy tax, as my opponent has said -- higher taxes, as an energy tax, as my opponent has said. i believe we should cut the middle-income tax now. at middle-income tax not only inhibits economic growth, it is also unfair if it is held hostage for the wealthiest 2%. i would not block that tax cut and i would also stand strong in

favor of the minimum wage, no questions. we should not look at whether it should be reduced. i would make sure that those tax loopholes are reduced and that we avoid the extension of the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, because they would, not only be unwise and a matter of economic policy -- as a matter of economic policy, but they would not help small businesses. less than 2% of small businesses are affected by those. we need targeted tax relief for those small businesses. we need middle-income tax relief and help for small businesses. we should not alone -- balloon the deficit by extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%. >> ms. mcmahon. >> wwe did hire public-

relations firms to expand our programs. we approached congress relative to having the troops from wwe go to afghanistan and iraq to entertain our men and women there. there were dollars used to fight for first amendment rights for television programmers and also when we at wwe were asked to testify as part of the -- you probably saw that whole business with baseball that took place a couple of years ago -- we hired a law firm. it is the law firm we have had an used for years -- and used for years. you talk about this increase of tax on the wealthy and that small businesses are run the 2%.

that's small 2% 3 its 72% of the revenue -- 2% creates 72% of the revenue. they are the ones who create jobs. if you want to impose a tax when they are already paying 35%, the tax would go up to 39.6%, as would those in the higher-income tax brackets. that is 3.5% or more than walmart will pay as a corporation. i submit to you that taxing small businesses at a higher rate than walmart is getting taxed is unconscionable. we're not going to continue to create jobs in the private sector by doing that. mr. blumenthal, i am really happy that you have fought so hard for small businesses and that you traveled the state. wwe has been in the state for 20 years. you stop by one day and had a cup of tea with me. that is the extent of you

listening to my ideas and how we have 600 people here in the amount of taxes we pay. you're fighting for an increase in taxes. let me remind you, when he was in the legislature, one year, he voted for the $850 million tax increase that affected middle- class americans who are still paying for it today. he almost doubled the state's spending. we cannot afford another tax and spend senator in washington. we cannot afford you, mr. blumenthal, we have enough of you already. >> joe ferrari. >> your against trying terrorists in civilian courts. this recently occurred. did the process change your mind at all? >> i believe you are referring to a terrorist who is also a citizen of the united states. there is a difference.

i think there is a different rule to apply there. when you are talking about collegiate mohammed -- khalid sheik mohammed, 9/11, i do not think those terrorists should be afforded the rights and privileges of view -- of the united states citizen and i believe they are more appropriately tried in a military tribunal. >> i believe the question of where it a terrorist should be tried it depends on the facts. ksm should be tried in a military tribunal. an attack on this country by a person from another country, directed, trained, supplied in a direct attack on the united states, should be tried in a military tribunal, particularly if it would come -- compromise intelligence interests. my attitude and approach as a prosecutor -- as a former

united states attorney -- i want the swiftest and shorts conviction -- surest conviction for anyone who does harm or threatens harm to the united states. i would continue to make decisions based on each case as it came before me. [applause] >> ebong udoma, your question. >> they had just traveled to cuba to discuss with cuban government officials the relations between the two countries. he is an outspoken critic of the embargo. what is your position on cuba and the embargo? >> i think we should be open to normalizing relations with cuba. i think we should consider steps in that direction, but i may not agree completely with

everything that chris dodd or any other member of the otherstates. i want to make clear -- any other member of the senate states. i want to make clear that i want to do what is right for our state, the working and middle- class families. >> ms. mcmahon. >> i, too, think we should take steps to remove this embargo. it has been there for a long, long time. there are probably some people here who would like to have cuban cigars. i also think that we have to look at our free trade agreements. when we export our products that we make here in the united states, we create jobs. i believe it was president obama who said that, for every one% increase in exports, -- 1% increase in exports, we create

250,000 jobs. america does still manufacture. i think we're still the largest country for manufacturing and exporting goods. we need markets for those goods. free-trade agreements are necessary. there are pending free-trade agreements in congress now. as we open those doors and have opportunities to export, we absolutely create more jobs in our country. >> panelist, thank you very much. candidates, it is time for final remarks. by the cost of the queen, -- the coin, ms. mcmahon, you go first. two minutes. >> again, i would like to thank everyone who is here today. i am running for the united states senate because our economy is in shambles, people are out of work, our families are hurting, nest eggs have been devastated, and they're not

enough people in washington -- there are not enough people in washington who understand how to create jobs. i want the american dream to be there for my grandchildren and for that next generation. my opponent has made a convincing case today, but he has extensive government experience and i do not disagree with that, because he has spent a lifelong career in government and on the government payroll. i am the wife, mother, grandmother, and i'm a businesswoman who has doubled in building a business at the same time -- juggled with building a business and raising a family. he their job was easy. i have known lean times and prosperity. i have had to make tough decisions. the twist in this election in november is absolutely clear -- choice in this election in november is absolutely clear. we have a career politician versus someone who knows to a

-- knows how to create jobs. i want to keep money in the hands of the families and the job creators here in connecticut. we have to change the direction of our government. we have to create jobs in the private sector by incentivizing small businesses. we have to not raise taxes to cover spending. i want to reduce spending and balance the budget. over the past year, i have spent almost every day around our state, meeting with many of you, talking with you, listening to you. as a senator, i want that young, single mom who has lost her job to be able to know she has a champion. i want that veteran that i talked to after he has been up at rocky hill to know that he has a champion. i wanted teacher struggling for

innovation to know that she has a champion in the senate. i would like to leave you with this thought. he picked up the phone and call your senator, wouldn't you feel better connecting with someone who has walked in your shoes? i would. thank you very much. it would be my privilege to be your next united states senator. >> hold your applause, please. [applause] mr. blumenthal? >> thank you to everyone for joining us today and to the people who are listening for giving us your attention. elections are about choices. this election prevents -- presents the stark, clear choice. my opponent says she is different. she has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on washington lobbyists to stop a measure that would protect children from sex and violence.

she has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her investigation or involvement in an investigation conducted by the government into steroid use in her company. she is different from me. she has spent her life building her fortune. i have spent my life helping people build their futures. i am proud of standing for the people of connecticut, working for them, advocating for them. we worked with cathy and her family to keep her small business open and preserve those jobs. was denied's baby health insurance coverage for a formula that she desperately needed. for billy clark who works at

pratt-whitney-- >> we are out of time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [no audio]

>> the president and ceo of the women's campaign for and looks set women running in 2010 and impressions of candidates. a former drug enforcement administrator and executive director of the national order -- national organization of the reform of marijuana laws. now, the wisconsin senate debate.

t >> now the debate between democratic senator russ feingold and republican ron johnson. this takes place in milwaukee. this is live coverage on c-span. >> we present a live statewide broadcast debate between republican channel bolger ron johnson and and come but russ feingold, candidates for the u.s. senate in wisconsin. the president of the wisconsin broadcasting association. >> good evening. the wisconsin broadcasters association foundation and the wisconsin radio and television

broadcasters are pleased to be able to continue our public affairs broadcasts tradition sponsoring widely broadcast debates in major wisconsin campaigns. this evening but the debate will engage the two leading candidates for the senate. the democratic candidate russ feingold and republican candidate ron johnson. this debate was made place by a generous grant from the wisconsin association of independent colleges and universities. >> good evening, everyone. i am president of the wisconsin association of independent colleges and universities. on behalf of wisconsin's nonprofit colleges and universities, i would like to welcome you to this debate between u.s. senate candidates russ feingold and ron johnson. the base or an up important part of our democratic process.

-- debates or an important process -- it debase our and important part of our democratic process. the future of our state and nation depend on expanding educational opportunity. wisconsin's colleges are committed to excellence and education. there are many issues in this campaign. the economy, health care, the environment -- we need to be educated about all of them. to learn more about wisconsin's private colleges, please visit privatecollegezone.org. i invite you to join me over the next hour for what will be an enlightening debate. the last step is up to you. on behalf of our more than 60,000 students, i encourage you to make your voice heard by

voting on tuesday, november 2. thank you. >> the moderators will allow the candidates to make opening statements and respond to questions from a panel of journalists. is panelists will be given -- each candidate will be given a closing student -- each candidate will be given a closing statement. we have also traditionally asked the candidates to agree not to use any sound or pictures from our debates in advertisements. in past years both candidates have agreed. the johnson campaign has agreed this year. the fine gold campaign has a few -- has refused to agree. our panelists include the news director in fond du lac. the news director at w gb a green bay. and the news director of the d a radio.

>> i want to thank the wisconsin broadcasters association for holding this important debate. i have had the good fortune to be born in wisconsin, to be raised here. this has always been my home. one of the things that happens when you do that is when you hear it -- is your the word independence all the time -- particularly, political independence. when i had the honor of becoming a united states senator, i knew that would be a big part of what i would try to do. when people said it would be a bright idea to pass on fair trade agreements to send our jobs overseas, i thought that did not make sense. i opposed this trade agreements that were so damaging to wisconsin's manufacturing jobs. it happened again when both new york and washington wanted to let wall street make their own rules. i thought that was a bad idea.

i was one of the few senators who voted no. when they did the wall street bailout, i also but did know. it did not do the job. it did not make sure that this would happen again. i went to everyone of wisconsin's counties every year to hear what people have to say. do you know what they are talking about? they are talking about jobs. they are talking about doing something about federal spending. my opponent has chosen not to be specific about try to solve these problems. i would like to continue working for the people of wisconsin all those issues. >> thank you, mr. by gold. mr. johnson, your opening statement. >> i would like to thank the broadcasters' association at tonight's viewers. i managed a company i built for the last 21 years. i never had political aspirations. this is not my life's ambition.

when russ feingold, contrary to the wishes of wisconsin voters, he cast the deciding vote on health care reform. i cannot stand on the sidelines any longer. our country is headed in the wrong direction. people are out of work. families are struggling and they are worried. russ feingold's response has been ineffective and expensive. our nation's debt is jeopardized in the economic future of america. wisconsin voters had a very clear choice. they can vote for a career politician, someone who voted in washington to expand the size of the federal government -- or they can vote for someone u.s. private sector experience producing jobs and balancing a budget. our founding fathers had a vision. i have raised a family and am willing to apply that experience to our difficult problems.

that is what i have to offer. that is what i would like to talk about tonight. thank you. >> if they do, mr. johnson. barber's question is directed to mr. johnson. >> democrats say the wall street meltdown and the recession began before president obama was elected president and the reasons why he was elected. the president and democrats have said that health care reform was a key part to the economic recovery, that an economic stimulus was necessary to jump- start the economy. republicans argue that the democrats' plan has not worked, that the federal deficit has ballooned, that unemployment is still in consumer confidence is low. what do you think -- what specifically do you think should be done to create more jobs and to further job-start what is still a sluggish economic

recovery? >> the first thing is, the stimulus did not work. we are down 2.6 million jobs since that was enacted. senator feingold cast the deciding vote for that stimulus. three days before he cast that vote, he issued a press release and said that within one year it would create 2.4 million jobs that after three years it would create 9 million jobs. senator feingold does not have a clue how to create jobs. why would he? he has been in politics all his life. he is never created a job. i have. they should have come in the first day in office and said this tax cuts that are about to expire in 2011, we are going to continue those permanently. that would create a great deal of confidence in the american economy and businesses would have started investing and consumers would have started spending. >> thank you, mr. johnson.

mr. feingold? >> i am palpable we have died to create jobs. what i already have done is help to pass the hire act. if someone is hired the has been out of work for more than 60 days, they get a tax credit. that will create cuts in taxes for small businesses next year. mr. johnson said he was wiped out the whole obama agenda. the stimulus bill provided tax cuts for 95% of all families in america. mr. johnson says he would wipe out the whole obama accomplishments. he would have to wipe that out. mr. johnson has ignored the fact that i have talked every day about capping a further tax credit. every employer in the state would get a 50% tax credit for

hiring new employees or giving more hours or wages to their current employees. this is what we need to do now after the success we have had with the stimulus package. we have to do more. that is a specific answer about what i would actually do. >> our next question will be directed first to mr. fine gold. >> the congressional budget office predicts that the federal deficit will be about $1.30 trillion in 2010. we put that into perspective, that is enough money to send every man, woman, and child in wisconsin to college for 27 years. what are we going to do to fix this financial crisis? republicans criticized democrats for spending too much stimulus packages, which drives up government spending, while democrats criticized republicans for wanting tax cuts which drawdown government revenue. if elected, what types of

solutions would you prefer an allergy work the president on the solutions knowing that he has to sign any new measures into law? >> this is the fundamental question. on this issue, we have to attack in two ways. we have to eliminate or stop the earmarks of these bad spending bills. i have been the leader on that. we propose a line-item veto. i also propose a specific plan -- often caught -- i called a control spending now at. it would cut about a half a trillion dollars. its other members of congress did the real -- did the same thing, which could make real kong -- we could make real progress. i have worked with both parties to cut deficits. under the clinton years, we completely eliminated the deficit. i know how to do it. that is the kind of experience i have. i work on it every day and i

cannot wait to get back to congress next year and get rid of some of these wasteful programs. >> mr. johnson. >> we do not have a tax problem in this country, we had a spending problem. in the year 2000, the budget was $1.80 trillion. this year is $3.60 million. the first thing we have to do is establish a very hard spending cut. we need a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. it would limit spending to 20% of gdp. once you have that established, then you establish basic business principles -- budgeting principles. make every agency justify every dollar spent every year. we will take a look at hiring freezes, spending freezes, spending rollbacks. we have to establish that initial spending cap. there are specific things we can

do. to the extent we have not spent stimulus funds, it has not worked. do not spend them. we must repeal this health care bill. it will be a huge budget buster. in the first 10 years it will be really huge. any tarp money that gets sent back, make sure that money is not spent, but to establish for deficit reduction. we'll also have to eliminate your marks. the corrupt our process. >> our next question will be directed first to mr. johnson. >> the stock about the health care reform legislation that was passed this year in congress. after just a few months, it has been widely criticized for a number of reasons. are you for a repeal or repair of that legislation or should we wait until be long has fully

taken effect in see how it plays out? >> i believe the health care bill is incredibly expensive. there is no reason for us to have the federal government tried to take over one sixth of our economy. we had the finest health care system in the world. it is not perfect. but we could have done a very modest reforms. portability -- allow people to buy insurance across state lines. from my standpoint, this is the main reason i got into this race. i am so concerned that this health care system will destroy the finest health care in the world. my own personal experiences with my daughter. my daughter was born with a congenital heart defect. her first day of life, she was rushed to the hospital where a wonderful man saved her life. eight months later when her heart was the size of a plum,

another man reconstructed the upper chambers of her heart. she is 27-years old. she is in an intensive care unit. she is taking care of babies. that is because we do have the finest health care system in the world. this health care bill is designed for government health care -- for government takeover of the health-care system. that is exactly what senator feinberg once. he was a system that will result in rationing and low-quality care. >> mr. vital? >> mr. johnson just a speech about something other demos what in the legislation. that is not what this bill does. he has called it one of the greatest invasion of his freedom that he has ever known. does it really engages freedom to make sure that over 1 million wisconsin residents are not diagnosed -- are not denied coverage because of a pre- existing condition?

is it an invasion of freedom if people cannot be cut off of their insurance? does it hurt his freedom that kids under 26 be covered under their parent's policy? the bill requires a tax credits to small businesses in wisconsin. he would repeal that. he would take that away from all of the wisconsin small businesses. does it really hurt his freedom that finally older people who cannot afford their prescription drugs will have some coverage and a plan to cover that know the whole, that gap in coverage in medicare. he would wipe them all out. he would put the insurance industry back in control. he is against what the people of wisconsin what. >> thank you. our next question will be directed, first, to senator fine gold. >> question about global warming -- mr. johnson has said that

global warming is an unproven science that should not dictate u.s. policy. senator feingold, and you have said your opponent is out of touch with reality. my question to both of you, ken bode did you tell the voters if you -- can both of you tell the voters if global warming israel, is the imagined, is a man-made, where is it a national -- a natural occurrence and what should your policy be? >> i do not claim to be an expert, but i do know the vast majority of scientists think there is climate change. i can sort of observed it by myself, but the scientists say that, too. i believe that the vast body of scientific opinion is a man-made activity as of the to do with it. mr. johnson has said that he believes, even though it is a very small view, that that is wrong. he attributes it to sunspots.

he has said specifically that it would be a fool's errand to do anything about it. he says we should do absolutely nothing. i cannot disagree more. it is for our economy, our grain jobs, and for our children and grandchildren, we need to make sure we do everything we can to limit the kind of thing. how do we solve it? i did not like the cap and trade bill. i thought it was too harsh. it was too nice to the big nuclear industry. i am not prepared to vote for that bill, but we do have to do something. there has to be some other approach that make sure wisconsin people do not writ -- do not get ripped off, but we make sure we do not laugh this off. that is irresponsible with regard to the future of this planet and our children. >> mr. johnson. >> i do not believe it is a

proven science. because it is not settled science, it would be incredibly damaging to our economy to try to tax energy. some people say the capping trade with tax our economy for another $3 billion. that would destroy the economy. i have seen average family energy bills rise by $64,000 per family. because it is not subtle science, let's face it, the son is a pretty important component of our client. to deny that is ignoring the obvious. one thing senator feingold says this he would not support capping trade. >> our next question is directed

to mr. johnson. >> right now in green bay, we are paying about 34 cents more for a gallon of gasoline compared to this time last year. we have untapped oil fields in the united states, and yet we import more than half of our crude oil from foreign countries. mr. fine gold and mr. johnson, u.s. said this is a threat to our national security. what specifically do you propose or support to move america toward energy independence and make sure consumers are not balanced at the gas pump. >> i am paul all of above energy policy. -- i am 4 and all of above energy policy. i would see uses come full screen with research and development. the u.s. gets about 7% of its power from nuclear. japan and china gets about 80%. that would be a huge job

creator. we have been getting those jobs away to foreign countries because we are not producing nuclear plants in this country. we also need to drill responsibly where oil is available in this country. i would take the moratorium off of the gulf was we had established we can drill there safely. we need to some -- we need to exploit our resources as well. >> i agree that there has to be a wide range of sources of energy to get this right. we will still need some oil, will still be some foreign oil. we still the so called. -- we still need some coal. right down the road from mr. johnson's business is a place called renewegy. they do wind turbines. they will create smaller turbines that will provide a turbine for a car dealership or

a firm. it will produce jobs and produce a cleaner energy situation. have they put their financing together? parts of the stimulus package. if it were not for the stimulus package, that company, in your town, would not be doing this. that is the exact kind of innovation we are promoting to the stimulus package to try to have a diverse energy policy. i think it is very exciting. >> our next question will be directed to senator feingold. >> the key role of the u.s. senate is to advise and -- advice. all when bills away for months and months to be voted on. there have been hundreds of appointments that were left into their final week in office. what does this happen and what is or what will be your philosophy on approving presidential appointments? >> this is terrible that this

happened to our country where political parties have decided to prevent new presidents from getting any of their agenda and, specifically, not getting nominations. what i have done over the years, and this is where the independence come from, i get a lot of the and democrats about this -- i worked for appointments in many cases it i think they are qualified. i do not apply partisanship. i did for chief justice roberts. i did for john ashcroft for attorney general. a lot of democrats were mad at me for that. it turned out that he actually stood up for the rule of law. you can ask any republican about this, i have been one of the most bipartisan people in the senate in try to break this logjam. as a general rule, you should not vote against a bill on a

partisan basis. that is what mr. johnson is a i should have done. we need more bipartisanship in washington, not less. i am afraid my opponent gives every indication that he would be a down the line, a straight republican vote. >> i have no idea where senator feingold is those comments from our midst those assumptions. i take my responsibility very seriously. in terms of my idea to get along with people, all you got to do is talk about my current experience. i have been a business co-chair for the chamber. when they ask me to be that business cochair, the history had been that he would be a business person and head of the superintendent of schools would be the co-chair. i ask the head of the teachers' union to be my cochair. politically, i can guarantee you, we are very far apart.

that never affected our judgment in terms of how we were trying to improve education for our kids. i have a record of it and i have every capability of going to washington and working with people to solve these very serious problems. washington is extremely broken. career politicians cannot get the job done. we are talking about $1.50 treen deficits. we're talking about a health care bill that would destroy our health-care system. i say -- i have a hard time seeing how senator feingold says that is a bipartisan effort. >> our next question is directed first to mr. johnson. >> mr. johnson, the tea party movement may have a big impact on a lot of races across the country this year. it is a conservative group that claims not to be about party labels, they hate deficits, they

hate higher taxes, they are strongly pro-kind -- second amendment rights, they say they support citizen access to public office, and they are strongly against government intrusion in our lives. i want to know where both of you stand on this key issues that are part of the tea party movement. >> i sprung out of the tea party movement. the first political thing i ever did was give a speech in oshkosh in 2009. they ask me as a business person to speak about effective government regulation of business. i gave a speech in told the story about my daughter and the attending doctors. what i see in terms of the tea party, you described accurately. people are incredibly concerned about the out of control spending and debt in this country. i share that concern. that is why i am doing this.

they are also concerned about government control of our lives, government intrusion, the size of government. i think this election really is about governing philosophy. i do believe in a small, limited government and less tenement -- and less government control in our lives. senator riegle's record has been clear. he was government control of our life. -- control of our lives. he is voted for higher taxes. he likes higher spending. since his party has taken control of congress our deficit has exploded -- $450 billion the first year. this year, the congress did not have the guts to pass a budget. they did not want their fingerprints on another budget that would exceed the deficit. what he particles are concerned about, i share this exact same concerns. >> i have been looking for a

chance to talk to the tea party people about where we agree and where mr. johnson disagrees. the people in the tea party value the constitution. i think they read the constitution before there were 65-years old. mr. johnson admits he just read it this year. even though he made some comments about the paycheck at, he fell in line with the boat -- with the republican view. i was the only senator who voted against the patriots at. -- the patriot act. mr. johnson disagrees. he called the trade agreements and what they did to us pre- empted destruction. it destroyed wisconsin families, including the families of the party people. t party people know i stood against the wall street scams since day one.

i tell you something, since you mentioned the average citizen should be able to process -- should be put to participate in the political process, the party people need to remember that mr. johnson will be the 70th millionaire in the u.s. senate. there is nothing wrong with being millionaires, but there must be some economic diversity in the senate. i try to provide it. eingold. you, mr. fine >> to and get your thoughts on second amendment rights? >> the second and then the and the right to bear arms has been part of -- the second amendment and the right to bear arms has been part of my life. i am pleased to fight all my adult life for that.

i have no confusion about this. i strongly oppose gun registration and gun licensing. mr. johnson said he would support licensing and registration of guns although he changed his mind later. >> first of all, i will be a staunch defender of the second amendment. my endorsement of the nra proves that. i need to correct the record here. i have read the constitution repeatedly through my life. i carry around a pocket constitution. the comment i made that he is probably referring to is that i said i read it five or six times to get ready for this race. it is a false statement. >> thank you, mr. johnson. our next question will be for mr. johnson. >> we have heard for years that

the social security system is broken, it is on the verge of bankruptcy. baby boomers expected to trigger its collapse in the next 20 to 30 years leaving their children, their grandchildren to with little to no benefits at all. can the system be fixed or do we need to start over from scratch? >> all -- the first thing we have to say, we have made promises to seniors, people who are retired, and people who are about to retire. we have every capability in this country to honor the promises. the fiscal problems in social security have been known for decades. during senator riegle's tenure, we have taken into $0.20 trillion in social security financing and spent it. the money is gone. it was spent on other programs. i will go to washington and i will protect social security. i would try to work to make a sustainable for future generations.

i taught to young people in wisconsin. i ask them about social security. i have not had one young person tell me they think it will be there for them. that is not fair. they are paying the system. there will be a receptive and government for real reform. from my standpoint, all options should be on the table except for a job killing tax, or federal income tax decrease. i would never meant a privatization. -- i would never mandate privatization. >> the sad thing about this is that the promise was not dismayed to people already on social chit security. the promises made to people when they start paying into the system. mr. johnson has this way that will cut me out. he is in his '40's. i am 857. it would cut me out. the working people are relying

on this act. security will continue as it is. mr. johnson repeated its here tonight. he said for those who are not already on social security, everything is on the table. that may speak supports some form of private is asian. -- privatization. if somebody decides to go that route and invest the money in wall street and the stock market collapses, they have nothing. i do not think we can just a tough luck to somebody in that position. i am committed to stopping any form of privatization. i am very specific in raising the fica level about -- level so we can save more money and make sure the fund is solvent in the future. the fund is solvent for many years to come if we have that kind of condition appointed. many to make sure we make the changes now.

i will not do what mr. johnson will do, which is taking away from the current promise. that promise is sacred and must be kept. >> our next question is directed, first, to mr. fine gold. >> the united states is continuing in afghanistan for 10 years. when and under what circumstances should we and our combat activity in afghanistan and are we destined to have a military presence in the middle east for generations to come? >> this is where i am strongly in disagreement with president obama. i regretted his decision to -- the al in afghanistan. i think we need a flexible timetable to bring our troops out of there. that is what we need here. the threat is much greater in places like pakistan. the leadership of allocate that

is in pakistan and somalia. it is a mistake to send money to afghanistan in a situation that is not at the core of the problem. my opponent said that after eight war started, he would never publicly talk about the war. he would not debate it on the floor. he would not attend hearings. he would not talk to his constituents. he would only make his concern is now privately. that is not our system of government. we have to under our constitution, we have to have a check and balance. if he is not going to do the job of a senator and question on weiss military action, you not be getting a senator doing the entire job. >> mr. johnson. >> first of all, i look at any kind of military incursion in terms of what is in the best interest of america. is there clear and present

danger? i do not see the intelligence reports. president obama does. he sees something where he believes we need to search 30,000 troops. i will give them the benefit of the doubt. i am somewhat optimistic for the standpoint that we have general david petraeus. he is about the finest general we have operated the army today. he is a general that senator feingold decided to vote to call have a general betray us. senator feingold has been a lot of words into my mouth. the people who have stepped up to the plate to defend our freedom of the finest among us. they deserve our total support. when they are in doubt, i would never grandstand. i would never undermine their efforts. i would not do what senator feingold did. i would not propose a resolution

to cut all funding what our troops are in a rack. i would talk to the administration until i developed a consensus, obtain a majority, and daunted the american people to say we need to reverse course. i would never play politics with war. >> our next question is directed to mr. johnson. >> cents 9/11, american residents have lived under the threat of another terrorist attack. my question to both of you is, is the government doing everything it can to protect our homeland and have we come up to this point, done the right thing to avoid another attack? >> the proof is somewhere in the pudding. we have limited the number of attacks. i did not want to see the patriots act.

we have it because we are under threat of terrorism. we need to take that very seriously. i want to make sure we have a very good intelligence service. that is something sinister fine gold has -- senator feingold has voted against. he removed the defense shield in the czech republic of poland. yet another rogue nation like north korea that also has a possible nuclear capabilities and missile capabilities. we need a strong missile defense as well. >> mr. feingold? >> it is interesting to hear mr. johnson said he trusted president obama's judgment when it comes to afghanistan, but not on health care or missile defense.

which is it? we have not been focusing says 9/11 on the real issue. the real issue is allocated is an international syndicate that operates in many countries. -- al qaeda is an international syndicate that operates in many countries. almost every nation in the world was to get these guys. it is absolutely essential. we have to have a global vision of this. you'll not get it by just talking privately to congressman. he had to talk to other people. you have to talk to your constituents. the people in wisconsin actually have something to offer you and me about what we should do to protect their country. the same thing goes for making sure that iran does not become a nuclear power. that is not something we can consider. all actions have to be on the table to prevent that. i am working every opportunity i can to either indirectly or directly to make sure iran does

not become that kind of threat. the combination of al qaeda and iran together has to be our top priority. >> this question is directed to mr. fine gold. >> 60% of americans say they support some kind of proper haitian -- comprehension immigration reform. some states do not believe the federal government is doing enough. the federal government is suing the state of arizona over its new controversial immigration law. would you work for stronger federal reforms in the senate and should the federal government be working with the states rather than suing them? >> i have been working on this issue for years. both president bush and president obama wanted to get this done years ago. it was prevented by a filibuster. it was essentially a republican

filibuster that would not let us bring the issue up even though president bush wanted comprehensive immigration reform. he wanted to do the right thing, which is be tough on the border, beat-up on employers to abuse the -- be tough on employers who hire illegal immigrants. the answer is not having the states do this. i understand why arizona did it. it was because the federal government has failed to act. we cannot have a state-by-state immigration policy. it is the responsibility of the federal government. i told the president that we needed a jobs tax credit for the next two years and we need to take up immigration reform right now. it is our job, not the job with

the states. >> mr. johnson. >> the issue of immigration is relatively simple. step one, we have to secure the borders. i do not agree with comprehensive immigration reform because it has to be a two-step process. we granted amnesty in the '80s. i was opposed to amnesty. senator feingold voted for amnesty twice. we do need to enforce the laws of the books against employers who are enticing people to come over the borders. the one thing we should not be doing is pass legislation that attracts people from across the border. senator feingold has voted for social security benefits for illegal immigrants. the budget for food stamps. the budget for sanctuary cities. those are things that attract people from across the border. that is very harmful. it is a two solution. if we have to secure the border and we have to enforce our laws. once that happens, then we can

take a look at how we handle the people that are here. >> our next question will be directed first to mr. johnson. >> that is made. >> what will you support regarding marketing policies? >> my own background in terms of forming, but the my parents grew up on farms. all my aunts and uncles are farmers. i had baled hay. i understand the farming tradition. i understand how difficult dairy farming is. i also understand that in the state of wisconsin, farming is part of our economy. it is $60 billion. it is 12% of our total economy. i have been shelling around the state talking to farmers and

learning about the as a real jerk business. -- the agriculture business. farmers rely on exports. we need to make sure that we maintain free and fair trade. i will always fight for fair trade. exports are 20% of our product in my business. the largest export market is actually china. i think we need to look at a pricing mechanism that is not so archaic. most farmers do not find out what their pricing is for two weeks after they deliver the product. that has to change. there have been instances where wisconsin farmers have not been treated fairly. >> we do have to change the marketing order. the problem is it has been based

on proximity to wisconsin over the years. it has been one of the toughest battles we have had because the region's art fighting each other. i have fought as hard as i can to try to get it changed. it is much deeper than that. the real problem we have which barry is that the money is be made in the middle. the consumer is basically pay the same thing for the cheese and milk and the farmers get less. there is making the money? it is some combination of the retailers, the processors, and the co-op. we need to strengthen enforcement. we just have an excellent for men in -- a forum in wisconsin. the most important thing is to make sure we do not have these bad trade agreements. mr. johnson supports every trade agreement that has come out. there is going to be a proposed new zealand trade agreement on dairy.

that you want to see creative destruction, it will be the creative destruction of wisconsin dairy farms. i bet you anything you would vote for it in a new york minute. >> our next question is directed at mr. fine goleingold. >> my question is about embryonic stem cell research. do you oppose or support government funding of the embryonic stem cell research or do you believe the president's guidelines violate the federal funding? >> i support stem cell research. this is where my opponent and i disagree. the only cut in spending he has talked about is cutting back funding. that creates a real problem for families in this state that what a cure for alzheimer's disease

or parkinson's. it is bad for wisconsin's economy. you say you are all about jobs for wisconsin? the united the medical college of wisconsin are the world's leaders in stem cell research. we depend more than any other state on the funding for every audit stem cell research. it would destroy one of the biggest job creators in this state. we are out of touch with the business committee in this state. i know exactly what they want. they want the stem cell research. >> mr. johnson. >> my biggest concern with the health care bill is that it will destroy medical innovation. obviously my family has benefited wonderfully from medical innovation. i am totally supportive of stem cell research. because we have a free market system and we had advances in medicine, the advances in stem

cell research have come from umbilical stem cells. 99% of all years, from adults themselves or umbilical stem cells. i do not think we should clone. i do not think we should create life for the purpose of destroying it. we need to advance medicine on all avenues. i am a big supporter of stem cell research. >> our final question is directed first to mr. johnson. >> what is the single promise that voters can't hold you to in six years for the term -- when the term you are running for is finished. >> mr. johnson? >> when guarantee i made on knight convention speech is that i will never vote with reelection in mind.

i am doing this because we have serious problems facing this nation. out-of-control spending, $1.30 trade deficit this year. we have got to start solving these problems. we have to get our federal debt under control. that would be my guarantee. i am not doing this because ron johnson was to be a u.s. senator. i am doing this because ron johnson was to go to washington, represent the state of wisconsin, and start to address these problems. my opponent has been there for 18 years. >> mr. fine gold? one minute. >> i will not try to have it both ways. mr. johnson was to have it both ways. he says big spending and deficit is bad. but he was $700 billion in tax cuts for the next 10 years. if the task gets dry but the deficit and use up all the rhetoric for cutting the deficit. i have specifically opposed half

a trillion dollars in deficit cuts. i will work every day as i have in the past to cut wasteful federal spending. >> thank you, mr. feingold. that concludes the question and answer portion of our debate. each candidate will now have the opportunity to make a 1.5 minute closing statement. mr. johnson, you are first. >> once again, the key to the wisconsin broadcasters association and to the viewers. you have a very clear choice. during his nearly 30 years in politics, senator feingold has worked hard to create an image as a independent maverick and a deficit hawk. i do not think he is anymore. wisconsin and america could have used a deficit hawk and date merit -- and a maverick. he voted for the last three budgets, which have added almost $3 trillion to our national debt. we simply cannot afford this

failed policies any more. i offer a different direction. i have been building a manufacturing business for the last 31 years. creating products, exported products creating real jobs. i know what it is like to live under the rules and regulations of taxes. i would like to use that lifetime of experience to help our economy grow so we can create jobs and we can actually get our federal spending get under control. the idea and promise of america is something incredibly precious. america is exceptional. it is our job to make sure it not only survives for future generations, but that it drives. that is why i am running for senate. that is exactly what i would like to do. thank you and good night. >> mr. feingold? doing this debate. as people make the decision for

u.s. senator, i would advise you ask a few questions. which of the two of us do you think will be independent, bipartisan, and will visit every county in the state to listen to people? the answer is obvious. he will not. i will. which candidate is serious about talking about exactly what they would do to create jobs, to create job tax credits, and to make sure we do something about this federal deficit? i have been specific about these matters. mr. johnson has essentially punted on these matters. the recently said that he would not say what his specific cuts work because he might be attacked. finally, ask yourself is on your side? the manufacturer who would vote to send manufacturing jobs overseas and call it creative structure, or the guy who was recently named the no. 1 enemy of the washington lobbyist?

i think the choice is obvious. it is now your decision. i would like to keep working for you. >> thank you, mr. feingold. that concludes the debate between wisconsin u.s. senate candidate republican, ron johnson, a democrat, russ feingold. this debate has been sponsored by the wisconsin broadcasters association foundation to a generous grant from the wisconsin independent colleges and universities. we thank you, candidates. mr. ron johnson and mr. russ feingold for their participation, and we thank our panelists. over 80 wisconsin radio and television stations to broadcast this debate to ensure that every citizen of wisconsin has had an

opportunity to hear and see the two leading candidates for the u.s. senate in wisconsin in 2010. in the traditional spirit of service to their communities, the hopes of bringing you this political event as a public service will continue positively to this campaign and eight wisconsin voters as they approach their duty to elect wisconsin's next u.s. senator on november 2. on behalf of these candidates, ron johnson and russ feingold, thank you for listening and watching. good night. >> c-span's local content

vehicles are traveling the country. we are looking at the races leading up to the midterm election. >> how are you doing. good to see you. >> i want to tell you this, we have to stop president obama's agenda. whatever he says, nancy pelosi will rubber-stamp. in the end, the so-called adult democrats are going to give her every vote she needs to pass her agenda. >> every -- i do not think they are realistic. our obligation is not to pass a

crushing debt to the next generation. i think the fiscal stimulus was appropriate. i did not agree with some of what was in it. you can never get exactly what you want in washington. >> the race against the incumbent democrat, jim marshall, and the conservative democrat -- the district is eight republican leaning district. they picked up 57% of the vote in the district in 2008. if you look at the numbers, one in four mccain voters voted for marshall in that race.

he runs to the right of most democrats. he is a reliable democrat, but he is not terribly reliable when it comes to things like health insurance. he is not terrible popular with liberals, but he has maintained a very strong connection to people in the middle. perhaps there are two assets in this district. he spent a lot of time with the province and air force abate committee to keep the base open. they were successful. they expanded. a lot of people see jim marshall as having worked hard on their behalf. secondly, he has done a lot of good work in bringing things back to the district. if you talk to a lot of county commissioners they will say that

they do not like the fact he is a democrat, but he works very hard to the district and for his reputation. austin scott is a state representative from tifton. he has been in the general assembly for three terms now. he started out this election cycle running for governor. there was a crowded republican field for governor. it looks like jim marshall might be somewhat believable. he is doing quite well but into the district. he has a lot of enthusiasm and he projects a youthful vibe. both of them are committed to reducing the federal deficit. jim marshall is the share of the house process for a balanced budget amendment. austin scott has a balanced

budget amendment on his website. they talk about the air force base being a major employer. they talk about doing a good job of it. i think the major issue is going to be that jim marshall is a democrat. i think republicans are looking at this race as a tipping point for the house. i think that this race is becoming more and more favorable from the republicans perspective particularly because there is a base of republicans. republicans have to convince republicans, not democrats, that they want to vote in the republican candidate, not vote for marshall. i have several republican friends that said that they never vote for democrats up for martial. content vehicles are

traveling the country as we look at the most closely contested house races leading up to the midterm elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are to come visit our web site, c- span.org/lcv. >> we are showing you some of the 2010 campaign debates tonight. next, the debate at the north dakota house at large debate. then president obama in chicago for the democratic candidate. after that, a discussion on the growth of the tea party movement and in a look at the can against running in the senate in connecticut. -- candidates running against -- candidates running in the senate in connecticut.

as a hutchinson, the former drug enforcement agency the minister in balancing the year -- alan st. pierre. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> these politicians that nearly bankrupted our country, the left a legacy of cuts and debts and are still in denial about what they have created. they must never be allowed anywhere near our economy again. [applause] >> british prime minister and conservative party leader david care men from their leadership conference on c-span. >> now, perot pomeroy and rick berg for north dakota is at large house seat. this took place at the prairie

public broadcasting studios in fargo. this is about 30 minutes. >> welcome to prairie public's continue in coverage. this is the debate for north dakota as long congressional seat. our guests are the democratic nominee, congressman for earl pomeroy and republican nominee, state rep rick berg of fargo. each candidate will have an opening statement and we will have a variety of issues selected by myself and our co- sponsored, aarp of north dakota. berg your first. >> i am excited to be here. i was drawn into this race

because i watch washington and what i saw coming was a taxpayer funded bailout. it was a deficit hitting record levels that resulted in a massive new bill that my opponent voted for without holding one town hall debate. that is unacceptable. our country has problems. we are going down the wrong direction. it is time for people to step up. that is what i and in this race. i stepped up because i have the tools and the ability to help put america back on track. in north dakota, we have a strong economy. we are creating jobs. we have a balanced budget and we have a reserve for when times are tough. we did this for north dakota and we can do it for america. i want to talk about that tonight. >> congressman pomeroy? >> you do not waste any time getting to those washington talking points. they are not founded.

for my opening, i want to observe how privileged it has been to work with citizens across the state to grow our economy and make north dakota a great place to live and growing family. we have had some important wins, like the farm bill that i helped write. when our farmers bring in this terrific crop, it is great to know that we have this form program to back them up. energy resources are incredible. coal and oil and now wind and biofuels. i am in the thick of the fight to make the most of our energy resources. our nation needs our energy and we need economic opportunity. in the middle of this growth, i am going to stand by those who got us here, the seniors and, our veterans, and those that defended our freedom. i can continue to fight for

north dakota in the next congress and that is why i am seeking your vote. >> let's start with health care. it is a huge issue. we know that mr. pomeroy voted for it and mr. byrd, you are not a fan. what are the issues that you think should be we peeled, rick berg? >> i held dozens of dozen -- i held dozens and dozens of committees. people had all kinds of views. the facts are clear. we had 150,000 voters lose 10% of their income. with health-care costs going up and doing nothing to cover tens of thousands of additional north dakotans. there is a strong consensus that action needs to be done and this is from the front line of health

care. north dakota doctors, nurses, hospitals. i am pleased that the north dakota medical association supported this bill clearly -- this bill. doctors support this bill in this election. we had problems that we need to address. we need to address them. >> there is no issue that defines this campaign more than the health care bill. york one to hear a lot of facts and twisted things. there are three things that concern me with this health care bill. first, over 7% of the people in north dakota did not -- 70% of the people in north dakota did not support this bill. second, the way we do things in north dakota, we have public hearings, public input, and we encourage the other party to be part of that debate. you said that this is one of the

biggest successes that you had and you were intimately involved in this bill. but what this did was show us what is wrong with washington. it was run through in the 11th hour without public input. that is why there are flaws in it. that is why it is a challenge. this has an impact on north dakota over $1 billion. it will not lower the deficit, it will increase the deficit. what this bill does will increase costs. my wife is a family practice doctor. one of the first things that we talked about that put us into this race was the debate on that. she said that this is the first time in my life where i feel that government is directly between me and my patient. i feel it is going to threaten our in the been the business. >> i do not know anything about your wife's practice.

but the medical association supported this bill, as did the nurses and hospitals, the cancer society's, the heart association. we knew that north dakotans were being deprived of coverage. it does not increase the deficit, it reduces the debt over 20 years. you have been in the legislature during this period of time. you have opposed the governor's effort to extend coverage to uninsured children. you stood with insurance companies when the question was if it covered mammograms. early detection of breast cancer saves lives. you thought that they should not have to cover that. even allowed north dakota to stand in that shameful list of eight states that allow the domestic violence victims to be

screened out of getting health care coverage. that is your record on health care. this needs to be addressed and i work with the experts. >> i would love to debate -- we have a balanced budget and we have great access. you know it. i know it. the problem is that this is a government takeover. you look at europe and you look at britain and you look at their health care system, and breast cancer is much more prevalent in those areas. you know that. the problem is, in my opinion, this is what i have heard across the nation. a woman came to our office right after the health care vote and said that she talked to senator pomeroy three weeks before the vote and he became chairman of the social security bill and that he would support the health care bill. i called his office every day

and the she was so frustrated when you voted for that health care bill because she felt that you have not been straight with her and that this was a deal that was cut like so many other deals to pass the health care bill. she said she would never support congressman pomeroy. >> a one minute rebuttal and then rick will finish. >> i have a file folder of north dakota health care experts including the north dakota medical association did you tell me that the medical association is one to support the government takeover of health care? of course not. they will get $650 million more. it will help us recruit physicians we need to keep health care strong. and the seniors, you would roll back the coverage that we will able to put in place and extend their protection under drug coverage. i believe it was wrong for you

to stand up continuously in the legislature, stopping coverage for mammograms and prostate exams and allowing the underwriting of those that have been victims of domestic violence. you think that health insurance companies should be able to have their way and that is the fundamental difference. >> the last word goes to dick -- to rick berg. >> this is the way it goes in washington. you did not talk to the people. they were not included. there are 17% of the doctors involved in the medical association and i was at the north dakota medical association and you have been out there too. let's talk about the facts. let's not talk about who was coming along. this is an increased cost. it will lower access. took $500 billion out of medicare. it is a $500 billion tax.

that is not right. >> we need to move onto the national debt. you will get the last word on the next one, congressman pomeroy. for the last 30 years, we have carried debt under the national debt. what would you both favor cutting? are there any tax rates you like to see adjusted to reduce debt? and let's talk about farm subsidies. is anything cuttable with farm subsidies? national debt, your thoughts. rick berger -- rick berg, you go first. >> this was one of the reasons i got in this race. in north dakota, we had a deficit in 2002. you were the only station in the nation that had not gone back into debt. we encouraged small businesses and private sector growth. we did this by showing, from the governor's perspective, that we

have one of the tightest budgets and our history. we did not increase taxes and to encourage private sector growth. this has made north dakota the envy of the nation. we have had record growth in income. that is how we solve america's problems. rather than do what is doing -- being done now, which is to kick the can down the road. on jittery first, we do not know what our tax cuts will be. on the health care vote, we had a 26 year high in unemployment. if you understood business and understood how important it was for small business to grow, you would not have voted for the health care when we had unemployment. >> your administration cut taxes once. the cut taxes twice. they started not one more, but to wars and didn't pay for the

the russian. -- for any of them. we need to get back to a balanced budget. that is what i am pleased that congress passed a bill that i co-sponsored, pay as you go. you spend money some place and you have to find where you can offset it so you do not have a deficit. we also passed some very important military procurement reforms. 70 percent of the weapon systems have cost overruns that are unacceptable. secretary dates is for to help us save hundreds of billions of dollars. i favored discretionary fees. i hope that the bipartisan deficit reduction commission comes up with proposals that we can move forward. i get a kick out of hearing you talk about the state legislature in north dakota. there is one thing that happened

in north dakota. we found that 6 billion barrels of recoverable oil -- you have not given one word of credit to the men and women who risk their capital, worked day and night and all kinds of weather, all kinds of difficulty. >> that is absolutely ridiculous. >> you have not given credit to the oil development in north dakota that has made these surplus as possible and you voted against providing those western counties the resources they need to deal with that oil. >> that is an absolute distortion. i was a leader of that. the deficit stays in our country. this is the difference between me and represented pomeroy. i do not think that there should be allowed to balance the budget.

-- a lot to balance the budget. this deficit -- a law to balance the dbudget. you voted to increase the debt limit to 14 trillion dollars -- 24 $2 trillion. how can you say that you want to reduce the deficit, but over the last 22 months, you have voted for more spending, billions and billions of dollars of bailout money for this health care bill , and bonuses for aig. how can you do that? told me in north dakota that we needed to keep the economy from going into a depression and we needed to get our hands around this deficit. i was part of the effort to get us to a balanced budget in the 1990's. there have been to tax cuts

which you say should be continued into the future forever. i favor continuing all the tax cuts while we find a way to pay for them. but let's come back to the oil. he voted against having that oil. explain why you did not give our northwestern town is what they needed? you voted against highway to to become a four-lane highway. >> he knows i am sorry because he wants to interrupt. we would be in a world of hurt had that not succeeded. >> first of all, the stimulus did not work. it was a failed stimulus. it did not create private-sector jobs. what you supported in august was

another stimulus of $26 billion and you took 2 million out of the highway fund. big difference between florida and north dakota. we have a 10 year highway plan. we know what we are 22 and when the iroquois to do it. the federal government has not acted on highway bill -- and been we are going to do it. the federal government has not acted on a highway bill. decisions have not been made. there was a " in the paper the other day -- there was a quote in the paper the other day. the pomeroy campaign is trying to change the subject while i'm trying to change washington. >> the last word of the conversation.

>> the stimulus brought $220 million back for our roads and you try to take state money to make a zero sum game. -- make it a zero sum game. we had $220 million to help our roads and infrastructure. in addition -- >> let him finish his last word and then we will move on to social security. >> we are to move forward to get a highway bill in place for it highway construction will continue. the dollars that we brought back will be for water systems across north dakota there were to have drinking water. -- north dakota. they're going to have drinking water. >> both of you have talked about

waste. who ensures so security long- term solvency -- social security long-term solvency? but my dad died when i was a teenager. i know how critical security is for a family. average benefits are $13,000 a year. that is why i am serving as chairman of the so security committee. i am certain to make sure those benefits are secure. don't forget that there are no reductions in the benefit structure for so security. there are a number of ways -- for social security. we do not have an emergency on our hands. after 2037, it pays 75% this is work we can come together.

one thing is different about my opponent. but he was in the legislation, he favored putting private accounts and to social security. there are two very bad things about that. it takes money out of social security and jeopardize the system for everybody and those accounts go up and down with the stock market. given the economic what was that we have been through, he would have north dakota try to endorse that. >> we could solve a lot of problems for north dakota if they were given to us. we do not vote on social security. and that is what you do. the reality is, in 1998, you put -- you were for putting half of security in the stock

market's -- of social security in the stock market. if you were to sit here and say we have more going out the we have coming in. if 40 cents of every dollar being borrowed affects benefits for my mom, it is the chinese. you are letting it happen and not balancing the budget. we have to get back getting our economy going. we will get more coming in and we will be able to balance social security. we need to get small business going again by lowering taxes, encouraging growth, balance the budget and that gives confidence. >> your rebuttal? social security is not in balance. social security is running a

surplus. he cast a vote against a resolution for privatization. he speaks so glowingly about these private accounts. he wanted to put the money in national parks. >> you can finish up. >> he is for this said he is for that. he wants to drill and our national parks. this is someone who is not playing responsibly with the program but i believe is the most important program that we have. 170,000 north dakotans receive a social security check. >> you and i both agree. i am on the foundation for it.

i have put my time and money into preserving the badlands. i grew up out west. i would never drill on the surface in the parks. you know that's true. your ads -- what you're ads are saying is false every quarter, -- what you were -- what your ads are saying is false. social security is paying out 40 billion more than is bringing in. it was in the paper. it is true. >> that is a fundamental misunderstanding. >> 41 million is being paid out, more than is coming in. >> at the moment, we have a period of aplomb or the cash flow has changed. -- .

of unemployment where the cash flow has changed. -- a period of unemployment or the cash flow has changed. your suggestion that we can park and oil derrick on the side of -- national park, >> we have to balance so security by getting our economy going. we cannot have another failed stimulus. we cannot bail people out. this takes money out of our economy. the vice president said that the reason the stimulus did not work was because it was not big enough for this is not how to get our economy going. we solve also secured by getting our economy going. -- social security by getting our economy going. >> and no closing statements, one minute. >> i want to thank you for hosting tonight's debate.

this is about cash flow and assets held by social security. we do not have a crisis with social security. it was my pleasure to get some of these issues out in the open. i have worked very hard with north dakota to make certain that we make the most of the wonderful opportunities that we have. they are protecting. the we also need to face problems like we were raised. that is why i am happy to stand shoulder to shoulder to fix in our state what needs fixing. as we build a better state, we build a better country. it is my pleasure to be part of that. thank you very much. >> a one minute close, rick berg. >> thank you. there is a responsibility for each generation of americans.

that is to leave this country better off than we received it. today, too many americans believe that their sons and daughters are not better off and will not be better off in the future. we have taxpayer funded bailouts. we have record deficits. we have a health care bill that will take over and change -- and create a government run health care. these are debts to our children and it is a mountain of debt that is funded by other countries. it does not have to be this way. we need to get back to the core principle that made this country great. a free but turbulent market is better than a stagnant economy in a government run state. whether you are talking about health care or business, government needs to be tolerated with limited power. >> time is up. that gentleman, thank you for an

extremely lively debate. good luck in the election. thank you for joining election 2010. ♪ >> we are showing you some of the 2010 campaign debates and the fans from all around the country tonight. next, president obama campaigns in chicago for the democratic senate candidate. then the discussion on the growth of the tea party movement and then later we will hear from the candidates for the senate and connecticut. saturday night, we will show you the 31st annual news and

documentary emmy awards ceremony. a special honors went pbs' "newshour." 35 years after the debut of the show. that is tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, c-span3, " american history tv," and from the national archives, songs that uplifted soldiers' spirits during the time of lincoln. and how harry truman's policy helped tensions between us. >> president obama spoke at a campaign fund-raiser for alexi

giannoulias. this is about 35 minutes. >> ladies and gentleman, please welcome united states senator dick durbin. >> i told you i would be back. six years ago, i told you to send me a senate colleague that would help make a difference in washington. they did our state proud and of our nation proud. in just a few days, illinois will have another chance to elect a united states senator perrault was due to elect a person that will double my votes, not cancelled my votes, a person that will stand up to values that we believe make

america and illinois a better place. i want you to help me elect alexi giannoulias! [applause] >> how is everybody doing? [applause] i am sorry to keep everybody waiting. the helicopter was hovering. [laughter] i want to thank you all for being here. it is great to see so many supporters. i am not obama. [laughter] he is a little better looking than i am. it is great to see so many friends and supporters. i want to take a second to thank

the finest center in the united states of america senator dick durbin. [applause] someone who has not just been a great friend, a great supporter, but someone who would be the honor of my life to serve in the united states senate with. i think you senator for everything that you do for this great state and this country. let's have a round of applause for senator dick durbin. [applause] in just 26 days, voters across illinois will head to the polls and cast their ballot that will say a lot about where we are headed as a nation. this race for the united states senate is bigger than me, is bigger than president obama. this is a race about the future of the united states. at this seminal moment in this country's history, which passed

" -- which path we choose a summation? -- will we choose as a nation? will we leap forward with a renewed commitment to economic opportunity for everyone? [applause] are we going to send people to washington to get things done or will we elect those whose only objective is to obstruct and deny the achievements of the other party? will be elected leaders that will bring a new energy and commitment to spurring economic growth and giving small businesses incentive to start hiring again or will we send more typical politicians that have forgotten how tough it is for too many struggling americans? that is what this election is all about. that is what it is critically important.

we need to move this great country forward. [applause] if i am fortunate enough, we will work harder to gather to fix the mess and it down to us after a year's of economic policy that doubled our national debt and cost millions of americans their jobs and destroy the american middle class. as your next united states senator, i will work every day to help turn this economy around for the next generation of private-sector jobs right here in illinois. that means jobs that cannot be outsourced. that means incentives and targeted tax cuts for businesses to create jobs right here at home. it means finally a fast tracking an agenda so that we in our addiction to oil, rescued a planet in peril and create -- in

peril, and it means protecting consumers from the recklessness of wall street. it means fighting for equal rights for all americans. not just when it is easy or when it is convenient, but especially in the face of political pressure. it means bringing fresh leadership and ideas to the d.c. culture that my opponent is aimed reined in. my opponent has forgotten how tough it is out there for families that are just trying to pay their bills. i need your help to get there. i am proud to be the first candidate for the senate in illinois history, not to take money from lobbyists. [applause] the only way to get out of this method -- this mess -- my

opponent is one of the largest fund-raisers because he takes their money and votes their way every single time now, while congressman curt held coral rove rep this country, -- karl rove wreck this country. with just over three weeks to go in this pivotal election, a choice will be made. will we change the way things are done in washington d.c.? will both parties work together to craft a tradition for this country's future? will the help this president lead us forward? will we inspire the next generation of leaders to step up and stand up and to leave? will we successfully right the next great tractor in america's

amazing -- great chapter in america's amazing story? will we fight for families that, right now, are hanging on just by a thread in fighting just to survive? the decision is in our hands. we must vote. we must get energized and moved and engaged and we must educate everyone that we know about the very stark choice in this election. and we must send a fighter to washington d.c. to help president obama to do the job that we sent him there to do. [applause] speaking of fighters, it is a tremendous honor for me to introduce my friend, mentor, one of the greatest fighters i have ever encountered, our president of the united states of america, president barack obama.

[applause] >> hello, chicago! [applause] oh, it's good to be home! [applause] it is good to be home. got all my friends -- all my friends in the house. [applause] long time no see. it is wonderful to see -- i see so many familiar faces here. just a couple of people i've got to make mention of. first of all, he may be in my remarks, but i just want to say that there is nobody who was a better partner to me when i was in the united states senate, nobody who is a better friend to working families here in illinois, and nobody who is a

better debater on the floor of the united states senate than the man to my left -- dick durbin. [applause] so love dick durbin. love dick durbin. [applause] i love loretta durbin more -- [laughter] but dick durbin i love. we also -- if i'm not mistaken, we've got the junior senator from illinois, roland burris, in the house. where's roland? there he is right there. [applause] appreciate roland for his outstanding service. we've got the next lieutenant governor of the great state of illinois -- sheila simon. [applause] who, by the way, knows a little bit about good senators. congressman danny davis is in the house. [applause]

congresswoman jan schakowsky is here. [applause] love jan. attorney general lisa madigan is here. [applause] comptroller dan hynes is here. [applause] senator president john cullerton is here. [applause] the next treasurer, robin kelly is in the house. [applause] the next comptroller, david miller is in the house. [applause] now, i see everybody else here. [laughter] but if i started naming everybody i know i'm in trouble. so i've just got to stop. [laughter] except to say that it's also nice to be standing here with the next senator from the great state of illinois, alexi giannoulias. [applause] alexi is my friend. i know his character.

i know how much he loves this country. i know how committed he is to public service. he has been a great advocate on behalf of the people of illinois, and he's in this for the right reasons. special in it for the interests; he's in it for your interests. you may not always agree with him, but you always know where he stands. he's comfortable in his own skin. he doesn't shift with the wind. he doesn't pretend to be something that he's not. you know that who he is today and who he'll be tomorrow -- and that's important. you can trust him. you can count on him. and let me just also say -- because i play basketball with him -- [laughter] -- and i have still some sore ribs to prove it -- he's a competitor. and we've seen that in this

campaign. he just keeps on plowing ahead because he knows that he wants to serve. in some very tough circumstances, in a tough political season, he has not wavered. and that's the kind of person that you want. that's the kind of person that you know when the going gets tough in washington will be fighting for you. [applause] so i hope you're fired up in these last few weeks. [applause] i need you to be fired up. fired up and ready to go. i need it. [applause] i need that because there is an election -- there is an election -- in case you were curious -- [laughter] -- on november 2nd -- an

election -- you can begin voting next week -- that's going to say a lot about the future -- your future and the future of our country. so you've got to be fired up. now, this is chicago, so i know politics is -- this is sport right here. [laughter] i mean, i know everybody is paying attention. by the way, have you seen my chief of staff? [laughter] i was like, looking around, it's like, what happened? [laughter.] two years ago, you defied the conventional wisdom in washington -- because they said you couldn't overcome the cynicism of our politics. thecouldn't overcome

special interests. you can't make big progress on big issues. can't happen. they said, no, you can't. what did you say? >> yes, we can! >> you said, yes, we can. but sometimes i feel as if we had such a high on election night and then there was the inauguration and bono was singing and beyoncé and [laughter] -- everybody from chicago went to washington and was having a big party. but i have to remind you that the victory in that campaign didn't deliver the change that we needed. it just gave us the chance to make change happen. that was the start, not the finish, of the journey. [applause] and it made each of you a shareholder in the mission of rebuilding our country and reclaiming our future. twoi'm back today because years later, the success of

that mission is at stake. after that last election, it was my hope that we could pull together, democrats and republicans, and start dealing with the worst crisis we had seen since the great depression. that was my fervent hope because we may be proud democrats, but we're prouder to be americans. and there are republicans across the country who feel the same way. but the republicans in washington, they had a different idea. they knew it was going to take more than two years to climb out of this mess that they had created. they knew that by the time of this election, the midterm election, that there would still be people out of work; that people would be frustrated. and they figured if they just sat on the sidelines and just said no, opposed every idea i offered, or dick offered, or jan offered, or danny offered -- if they spent all their time attacking democrats instead of attacking our problems, then they'd have a chance to prosper

at the polls. that was their calculation. and they just spent the last 20 months saying no -- even to policies that they had supported in the past. they said no to middle-class tax cuts. they said no to help for small businesses. they said no to a bipartisan deficit reduction commission that they had cosponsored. and when i was for it, suddenly they were against it. if i said the sky was blue, they said no. [laughter] if i said there were fish in the sea -- no. their calculation was if obama fails, we win. they were very explicit about it. now, they figured that that political game would get them through an election. but i knew it wasn't going to get america through the crisis. so i made a different calculation.

i made a different choice. i took whatever steps were necessary to stop the economic freefall -- with the help of people like dick, with the help of people like jan and danny -- even if those measures were not popular, even if they were not easy. because you did not send me to washington to do what was easy. you didn't send me to put my finger out to the wind and measure which way the wind was blowing and try to figure out how to stay in office. you elected me to do what was right. [applause] that's why you sent me. so 20 months later, we no longer face the possibility of a second depression. our economy is growing again. the private sector has created jobs for eight months in a row. there are 3 million americans who wouldn't be working today if it weren't for the economic

plan we put into place. [applause.] when we came in -- when i flew in on air force one and we landed at o'hare, there were a group of folks greeting us there. and there were a group of folks who had gotten jobs directly as a consequence of the recovery act. and so we know that we did the right thing. but, look, we've still got a long way to go. because the hole that we're climbing out of is so deep, there are still millions of americans without work. the six months before i was sworn in we had lost 4 million jobs. we lost 750,000 the month i was sworn in, 600,000 the two months subsequent after that. and so most of the 8 million jobs we lost were before any of our economic plans took effect. and that means we've got a big hole to fill. there are still millions of

families who can barely pay the bills or make a mortgage. middle-class families who were struggling to get by before the crisis hit are still treading water. so of course people are frustrated. of course people are impatient. i'm impatient. but the other side decided, we're just going to try to ride that anger, that frustration, to the ballot box -- without offering any serious ideas about how to solve our problems. and now the pundits are saying, well, the other party's supporters, they're more excited. they say all of you who worked so hard in 2008 might not be as excited this time; you might not be as energized; you might not care as much; that you don't mind if the same

politicians and policies that created this mess, left the economy in a shambles, return to washington. that's what the pundits are predicting. they're basically counting on you all having amnesia. [laughter] but i think they're wrong, chicago. and it's up to you to prove them wrong. the up to you to defy conventional wisdom once again. it's up to you to show the pundits that you love this country too much to let it fall backwards -- you are ready to move forward. you've got to show them that you're ready to fight for our future. because this election is a choice. don't -- no mistaking the situation here. the choice could not be clearer. because it's not as if the republicans, they went off into the desert and meditated after 2008, and they said, boy, what did we do wrong? we got this -- as a consequence of our stewardship, the whole economy is in meltdown. that's not what they did. they didn't come back with a set of new ideas. they haven't changed their agenda since the last time they ran washington. the chairman of one of their campaign committees promised that if republicans take control of congress, they will

follow -- and i'm quoting -- "the exact same agenda" they pursued during the last administration. and we know what that agenda was: you cut taxes, mostly for millionaires and billionaires. you cut regulations for special interests. you cut investments in education and clean energy, in research and development and technology. so basically, you just put blind faith in the market; we let corporations play by their own rules; we leave everybody else to fend for themselves, and somehow america is going to prosper. here's the thing, though. we know what happened. it's not as if we didn't try that. we tried it for eight years. it didn't work. it didn't work for middle-class families who saw their incomes fall -- wages went down 5

percent between 2001 and 2009 -- when they were in power. that's not according to me; that's according to the wall street journal. job growth was slower during that period than any decade since world war ii. these guys are talking about jobs now? they had eight years and it didn't work. they took a record surplus left by president bill clinton and it became a record deficit by the time i took office -- a big $1.3 trillion present they left me as i walked in the oval office. they set up a free-for-all on wall street that led to a crisis that we're still grappling with today. now, i bring up all these things not to re-litigate the past. i just don't want to re-live the past. [applause] and i bring this up because that is the philosophy that republicans like alexi's opponent intend to bring back if they win in november.

now, they might have a new name for it -- they call it the "the pledge to america." [laughter] the pledge to america -- it's the same stuff they've been peddling for years. [laughter] they're trying to hoodwink you once again. let's take a look at the "pledge to america." some of you may not have examined it. [laughter] now, for starters, it turns out that part of the pledge was actually written by a former lobbyist for aig and exxon- mobil. you cannot -- yes. [laughter] you can't make this stuff up. [laughter] so that gives you a clue of who they're making the pledge to. then the centerpiece of this pledge is a $700 billion tax cut

for the wealthiest 2 percent of americans. that is their big idea. now, these are the folks who lecture us on fiscal responsibility, so i have to point out we don't have $700 billion. we'd have to borrow $700 billion -- from the chinese or the saudis -- and then use it to provide tax cuts worth an average of $100,000 to millionaires and billionaires. when you ask them, well, where are you going to find the $700 billion, they don't have an answer. but when you look at the fine print, it turns out that a small portion of the tax cut they want to pay for by cutting education by 20 percent -- 20 percent, which would translate into reduce financial aid for eight million college students. at a time when education is the biggest predictor of a country's economic success, they think it's more important to provide these tax breaks to folks who don't need them, weren't asking for them, than it is to make sure that our young people can get to college --

which makes me want to ask our republican friends, do you think china is cutting back on education? do you think south korea is making it harder for its citizens to get a college education? these countries are not playing for second place. and the united states of america does not play for second place. we play for first. that's what this election is about. [applause] that's what this election is about. see, alexi and i have a different idea about what the next two years should look like. it's an idea rooted in our belief about how this country was built. we know government doesn't have all the answers to all of our problems. we don't believe government's main role is to create jobs or prosperity. we believe government should be lean and efficient and that the private sector should be creating jobs. we want to reduce the deficit, which is why we've proposed a

three-year spending freeze and we set up that bipartisan fiscal commission to deal with our deficit that the other side voted against. but we also believe in america we reward hard work and responsibility. we believe this is a country where we look after one another; that we are our brother's keeper, our sister's keeper. that's the america i know. [applause] that's the choice in this election. [applause] so instead of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, we want to make permanent tax cuts for middle-class americans -- because folks who work hard every day, they deserve a break. [applause] instead of the republican plan to keep tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas, we want to give tax breaks to companies that are investing

here in the united states of america. [applause] to small businesses and american manufacturers and clean energy companies. [applause] i don't want solar panels and wind turbines and electric cars made in europe and asia. i want them built here, in the united states, by american workers. [applause] if republicans take back congress, they will try their hardest to give back power to the same special interests that me and dick and jan and danny have been fighting for the last 20 months. we can't let them do that. we can't go back to the days when insurance companies could drop your health insurance when you got sick. we can't go back to the day when credit cards could jack up your rates for no reason. we can't go back to the days of taxpayer-funded bailouts. we can't allow special interests to take free rein again. that's why i'm proud to be standing next to alexi. he's made it clear he'll fight for you in the united states senate. [applause] he's not funding his campaign with federal pacs or lobbyist money.

on his first day in office, he enacted the most sweeping ethics reforms of any illinois state treasurer, ensuring that contractors and banks couldn't pay-to-play for state business. he took on credit card companies and banned them from aggressively marketing on college campuses, so that our kids don't graduate with credit card debt on top of tuition debt. [applause] and a lot of you know -- a lot of you know what he did for hartmarx -- which, by the way, made this suit. [applause] it's a company that's employed people in this state for more than a hundred years. and when it fell on hard times, and a big bank threatened to pull its credit, risking more than 600 jobs, alexi stepped in. he told that bank if they did that they'd no longer manage the money of illinois taxpayers. he helped save that company, those jobs. they can testify about who he's