going to fight for, who he cares about. that's the kind of person you want in the united states senate -- somebody who doesn't forget where they came from, why they're in this, who they're fighting for. somebody who does not stop fighting, period -- because there's too much at stake right now to give up the fight. so it comes down to this, chicago. there are a lot of folks in the other party who are running today who are the same folks who drove this economy into the ditch. and me and the rest of the democrats here in washington, we climbed down into that ditch. we put on our boots; it was muddy, it was hot. [laughter] there's bugs. [laughter] but we pushed and we pushed and we pushed. and every once in a while we'd look up and see the republicans up there, looking comfortable, fanning themselves --

[laughter] -- sipping on slurpees. [laughter] and we'd say, why don't you come down and help? and they'd say, "no! but you're not pushing hard enough. you're not pushing the right way." [laughter] and we just kept on pushing. and finally we got the -- finally we got the car up on level ground. [applause] finally we got it on level ground. now, it's gone through some trauma, so the fender is all dented, needs a tune-up. [laughter] but it's on level ground, it's pointing in the right direction. and suddenly we feel this tap on our shoulder, and we look back and it's the republicans. and we say, what do you want? they say, "we want the keys back." [laughter] and you tell them, no, you can't have the keys back. you don't know how to drive! [applause] you do not know how to drive. you can join us.

you can hop in the backseat. [laughter] thewe're not giving you keys back. have you ever noticed when you drive, you want to go forward, what do you do? you put the car in "d." if you want to go backwards, you put it in "r." [laughter] that's not a coincidence. [applause] that's not a coincidence. not a coincidence. but whether they get the keys back is ultimately up to you. they see a chance to get back in the driver's seat -- with the special interests riding shotgun. and thanks to a recent supreme court decision, they're being helped along by special interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts of money all on attack ads, and they don't disclose who's behind them. it could be the oil industry,

could be an insurance industry, could be wall street -- you don't know. almost every one of them is run by republican operatives. they're posing as nonprofits, nonpolitical groups. they've got these innocuous- sounding names like americans for prosperity, or the committee for truth in politics. [laughter] or moms for motherhood. [laughter] i made that last one up. [laughter] but you wouldn't know. [laughter] according to one recent report, conservatives -- conservative groups like these have outspent democratic seven to one. right here in illinois, in this senate race, two groups funded and advised by karl rove have outspent the democratic party two to one in an attempt to beat alexi -- two to one.

funded and advised by karl rove. just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources. so the question for the people of illinois is, are you going to let special interests from wall street and washington and maybe places beyond our shores come to this state and tell us who our senator should be? >> no! >> that's not just a threat to democrats. that's a threat to our democracy. [applause] the american people deserve to know who's trying to sway their election. and if we just stand by and allow special interests to silence anybody who's got the guts to stand up against them, our country is going to be a very different place. that's not how our democracy operates. so that's why we've got to work even harder in this election. that's why we need to fight their millions of dollars with millions of voices who are ready

to finish what we started in 2008. because if everybody who fought for change in 2008 shows up to vote in 2010, we will win. [applause] and by the way, most of the polls say the same thing. alexi will win. pat quinn will win. the entire ticket will win. [applause] so they are counting on you staying home and being apathetic. they're counting on your silence. they are counting on your amnesia. that's what they're counting on. so, chicago, prove them wrong. let's show washington one more time change doesn't come from the top -- it doesn't come from millions of dollars of attack ads. [applause] change happens from the bottom up. change happens because of you. [applause] and if you get fired up one more time, if you're knocking on doors and making phone calls and talking to your friends and

going to in the barbershops, going in the beauty shops, i promise you we will have alexi as the next senator from the great state of illinois. [applause] thank you very much. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ ♪

♪

>> now a look at the growth of the tea party movement and tea party candidates running in the house, senate, and gubernatorial races. this is 35 minutes of "washington journal." host: on this friday morning we are pleased to welcome back to our washington -- "washington journal" neil king and his story this week caught our attention. earlier, we had people reporting on the tea party, suggesting that they were proud of their independence and lack of structure. you are suggesting that this is starting to change. guest: i think that they are realizing that to last, they

cannot just be a lot of groups in various cities or counties that are just totally grassroots. because to do that, they have to maintain a certain passion that is just not there. what they're trying to do -- i think virginia is the best ample ofhis. they are building a loose federation across the state that will help them organize and unify and push forward on things that they want to push forward on. and looking toward 2012 on the national front. host: different is virginia from other states? -- howled different is virginia from other state? guest: theare the most mature in terms of inside. i think there are a number of reasons that is the case. they had big election last year that brought a number of conservatives into office. it did some of the purifying the of the office that other states are trying to do. they also have a prominent

center for election this year. it has caused a lot of stfe in a number of other states, like nevada and arizona and delaware. they are ahead of people in some ways and then below the radar in other races. host: i want to put the numbers on the screen and invite you to talk politics 2010 about the two-party movement -- tea party movement and its alignment with the republican party. jamie radtke, who is she? guest: she is an interesting figure. she is the head of the richmond tea party. she is one ofhe driving forces behind this federation of virginia tea party patriot. six or seven folks have come

together around the state to create this federation. they're having a big convention starting today. ms. -- host: ms. radtke, thank you fobeing with us. tellus about your involvement with the tea party. -- tell us about your involvement with the tea party. how long have you been involved in politics in general? caller: i am probably one of the out buyers in the tea party movement -- out fliers in the tea party movement. i have been in politics for about 15 years. when thewo-party came along it was very similar -- the tea party came along he was very similar to what i had already been doing. host: is being a politician your

profession? caller: no, being a mom is. host: how old a you, if you do not mind me asking? caller: i'm 36. host: tell us about the tea party there in virginia. caller: we wanted to maintain our sovereignty, but we knew we needed to work together. i invited some groups into richmond to work on that and we brought everybody in their across the state. and i think we have this federation and to be able to coordinate and collaborate on things across the state has been very effective for us. we have the health care freedom act last year here in virginia that our attorney-general is attempting to sue about. it that has emboldened us here in virginia. at the convention we are

expecting 25,000 people here. it will be the largest tea party convention in the country by a least threer four times the size. we are just hopg to activate the tea party going into the midterm and even into next year. host: and you are also doing a straw poll i have heard. caller: we are, we are doing a presidential straw poll. this will be the first straw poll of just a tea party activists. it will be interesting to see who thtea party like and who they do not. host: are the tea party movement organizers in other states in communication with you to understand what you are doing in virginia and how to apply that in their own states? caller: we have had that conversation with groups. we have a nional tea party that we use just to communicate through e-mail and phone and

share ideas. that is something that we just sort of recently because we found that the interaction that we have in virginia has been very effective and we are trying to get that across the country. host: tell us about, the organizations' focus for the 2010 elections. what are you aiming for and what will be success in your organization? caller: the virginia t. party association is not directly involved in any of the elections. we have focused on conventions, as well as help to support local groups. our focus has been on legislation. but the local tea parties have been involved. there busing people door-to- door, hosting debate. -- they are busing people door- to-door, hosting debates. host: how would you describe -- i know it is a general question, but your relationship with the

gop, and in particular, gop- elected officials? caller: i would say our relationship with the gop- elected officials is pretty much manilnil. we do not have a relationship with elected officials. we meet with our congressman, but we do not how many relationships at the federal level. guest: host: -- host: is that intentional? caller: some of the congressman have had a tendency to be involved. they were not su what we were all about. and then they were focused on the health care bill. some have been more embracing than others. and we have also focused on the state here because we were having not much effect at the

federal level. they were going to pass the health care bill anyway and we started trying to pass legislation in the state to thwart what was going up there. host: mr. king, do you have any of the questions for her? guest: ts is a thing that i think is unprecedented, the governor and attorney general, [unintelligible] just tell me about on the local level what your interactions have been with public officials in the state. caller: we have been proactively meeting with legislators -- state legislators and the eternal -- attorney general and ligious of that we want to -- relationships that we want to nurture. that has been our focus. in that regard, they have been very receptive and we are very encouraged by that.

host: thank you very much for spending time with us as you get ready to host 2500 to 3000 people in richmond va. we look forward to hearing about your straw poll prepare. i want to get to call, but before we do, i do not know if you watched our last session, but we had a very frustrated conservative caller who does not like the fact that the mainstream media can report about the tea party and not get their arms around the story. how you get to the core of it? guest: it is interesting. in this case i went on to virginia for several days and talked to more people, then i could possibly fit in the story. i also taed to people all over the country, a tea party leaders, largely trying to

figure and of these people were trying to do something below the rate are seen and what kind of corollaries there are out there. . . everyone is in their foxholes all little bit. not only do i think i am equipped to go out and figure out what is going on, but in this case i was telling a lot of the tea party elopement people themselves things about their movement that they were not aware of. i would challenge the idea that we're not equipped. host: have you developed the view from 25,000 feet about what this is about in the american electorate today? guest: it is extremely hard, interesting, amorphous, very quintessentially american uprising in a lot of ways.

they just want there to be less of everything, basically. there has been a lot of confusion, i think, by the word party in their title. we all know that this goes back to the so-called satirical " party" in boston a long time ago that had nothing to do with a political party. ave the word party suggests to people that they should be aolitical party and put their own candidates forward. but they're much more of an advocacy group. and in talking to the fellow in ohio, he said in a lot of ways we're more like the chamber of commerce or like an environmental group that is pushing for certain basic principles and not necessarily expecting to havor wanting to have kind of the whole panoply of platforms and what not that a political party would have. so i think there's still a lot of misunderstanding. i think the evolution of the movement itself is still under way. but the evolution of reporters

understanding and the public's understanding is still a work in progress. host: david, democrat's line. good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. in the first place, a party or anything else is just a union because it is a group of people advocating for their benefit. so we could call them a union as well as a party. second of all, i can't understand the candidates that they are putting up are so radical. take, for instance, rand paul. he wants to go ahead and put a $2,000 deductible on senior citizens. he alswants to go back to repeal part of the -- i can't think of the name. but he -- the things that he

wants to do are not in the mainstream, they are radical. second of all, we have a candidate up in alaska that wants to do away wi money that's being spent -- sent to alaska that is far more than they send in, and he wants to go ahead and change education and everything else. we have other candidates that are looking at doing away with the school board. host: so what's your bottom line with these observations? caller: i don't think they're anywhere close to being mainstream. they are very, very conservative, and they don't reflect the working man's view of what should be done.

host: ok. guest: i would challenge that they are the same as any group or union going out for their benefit. the thing there is they're really true to their word. they want less government. and a lot of these candidates, even talking about rand paul are talking about adjustments to social security that would in the end deprive people of certain things. including the people that are pushing for this. when it comes to the candidates, inet interesting. there's been this spontaneous eruption of support for certain candides in certain areas. the tea party movement both locally and nationally, they came in and made a difference. i'm not sure necessarily whether that's the perfect reflection of what this is all about. the various people that have popped up and been supported among this wave of people that have pushed them forward as the nominees.

i think in the end we'll probably be a better judge in the next cycle because in a lot of ways, jamie down in virginia talked about this. in virginia they talked about the candidates that were there that were holding up the banner themselves as the tea party banner. so there's no doubt that there have been some unusual candidates that have stepped forward anoneshat may not be elected. that's one of the main things that they're pushing right now is if you all vote for republicans, you're going to be promoting some of these agend that is you may find scary. the polling, though, on the other hand, has been interesting because we did a poll a week ago that showed that something like 70% of all republicans identified with the tea party movement, not that they were card-carrying tea party people. but that they sympathized and shared a lot of ideals. so to the extent that e republican party is mainstream, and 70% identified with the movement, it appears it's

fairly mainstream. host: we have seen a lot of organizations such as freedom work and the like. but when you dig into the finances of these statewide movements or even more local, where are the dollars coming from? guest: there are these big organizations which have sort of curious roots and in some cases the tea party express is a good example of, which i a big nationwide thing. they moved into alaska, they had a big effect in delaware. it's itself affected with the political advertising group. they make a lot of money out of doing that sort of stuff. freedomworks is doing that nationally. but again, if you look at an organization like the one that jamie has in virginia, they have a tiny budget and are receiving very limited, if any, help from the outside. what's interesting about these local groups is they're being run by people who almost in all

cases have day jobs and are doing all these things in odd hours, well into the night. which is another thing that causes worry in their camp to what extent they can keep these thgs alive. jamie is not only a stay at home mom but a home schooler who has three children and teachers her kids until 1:00 in the afternoon and while she's trying to organize these huge conventions. and again, there's like the big national groups and then much more grass roots local thing. and they don't necessarily connect or in some ways even have all that much to do with one another in a lot of ways. host: ann, republican line. good morning. caller: i'd like to talk about california a little bit, because we always seem to get labeled as being a democrat state. and a lot of people don't realize that there's like three different californias. northern california, southern california, and i'm from the central valley. and it's a very conservative

area. lots of farmers and families and a lot of people here are conservative. they do believe in family values and think like the tea party does. and we sort of get lost in the shuffle tre, that california is not that conservative. but there are a lot of conservative people here. i gss what bothers me is that people who are conservativere busy out there working and doing with their families and so forth so they're not really vocal. they don't make a lot of noise. and unfortunately the people that make a lot of noise and carry plaque ets and on the street corners and so forth tend to be those who are progressive liberals, whatever they call themselves. so sometimes it gets me upset when i hear people speak for

all of california or speak of -- for all the country like your last caller who said that consvatives or tea party people are radical and i see just a whole different view. i see mhers and fathers that are working and have families and are trying to do things in the community and go to soccer games and football games and -- host: let me pick that up and ask to see what y're observing. guest: we are engaged in an endeavor to see whether the country will change. and california is a great example. they've got some big senate races there which could in the end tilt to the republican. that would be a big shift. obviously california has a republican governor at the moment, but both of its senators are democrats. there are other races around the state that could also swing to the other side. and one of the things that we've been picking up in some of our reporting is that both in new england, which is an area that's been pretty much devoid of republicans, at least

in the house f some time, that that uld shift a lotn the election coming up in november and similarly in parts of the northwest. so people think of oregon or washington state, california, massachusetts as being overwhelmingly democratic states and they still by and large are. but this election in november could put some red dots in some of those areas to change that. so i tnk maybe people's perception of california might change a tiny bit. host: susan has this posting in the politics column today. guest: again, there is a lot of

infighting going on out there. some of it kind of pretty humerous. in florida there's a huge fight under way as to who really has the rights to call themselves tea party. in florida there is a tea party that has registered. they are putting forward candidates. up in delaware and new jersey area there's also a fight, there's a candidate who is claiming that he really is the true tea party. in the case of harry reid, sharon engle race in nevada there's a guy running as a tea party candidate. engle's camp is really worried that in the end he may garner just enough votes to tilt the election to reid and deprive her of what she wants to be -- wants to happen. so there's a lot of that in-fighting. some of it is really nothing more than just grudges and there are places where there are actual issues that divide them. there's e issue of nullification. do the states themselves have the right to prohibit a federal

law fromeing imposed. that is running through a number of states where there is disputes. there's one in virginia, in indiana there's a big dispute about whether the tea party should take that up. a lot of people think they shouldn't because going back some connotations. so it's interesting. it's certainly not harmony out there by any means. host: in virginia at least they're recognizing that they need to find their way through internal differences foo guest: this dispute that was highlighted there in south dakota is not the kind of thing that one is seeing in virginia. and there are other states, ohio i would put in that category for sure, pennsylvania to some extent, texas is obviously a huge state with a really vibrant kd of tea party movement but a difficult one to put all into one hopper. and a lot of people don't want that to happen in the first place. host: north carolina, bernard, independent line.

caller: good morning. i -- [inaudible] host: we have a really bad phone connection. can you do anything about that? caller: can you hear me now? host: that's better. caller: first, i'm a black person and i'm offended by the whole tea party movement. first of all, [inaudible] every day, tea party every day. the same like the tea party movement seems to be a white movement that whites don't have an understanding for. also, why didn't they talk about this when bush was president? c-span seems to have like a pro-tea part agenda that seems to be counter productive. no one group owns hate and hate has a tendency to go both ways.

i'm not a hatul person. i was in the military and the -- continued to hear the people [inaudible] wonder why i serves f served in the first place. never talk about the nation of islam. that's not fair because they have their opinion about things too. host: thank you for your call. guest: he has a very good point certainly about the bush era driving up of debt, the encroachment of the federal government into private lives on a lot of fronts. you know, and i think that's one of the real weak points of the movement. they claim that lot of these things started before, their concern started. it only really came together after obama was naugyated. t it's also very clear that the naugation of barack obama and some of the things that were done quickly, the stimulus packages is also just the sheer economic jolt that the country experienced in the year before was itself a big force. and gave people the sense that

something hadone wrong in the country. particularly on the economic front. but, i mean, i also agree with the caller that this whole, we want our country back, has some unfortunate connotations in some ways. i'm not sure really, though -- he used the word hate. i'm not sure it's a hateful movement. some of the rlier impulses that were seen at the early rallies have subsided to some extent. c-span junky tweets. guest: they don't really have too much choice in that regard. there's also been a big debate which we mentioned a little bit earlier about these divisions within certain movements about whether to go the third-party route in the first place. i think there's a consensus across the board among all

these tea party groups that's not the way they want to go. host: going third party? guest: yeah. there's wreckage looking back over the decades of third parties that tried to get movements and fell apart and most had a defining person behind them. if you look at rs perot's attempt to move forward as an independent. one thing that's so striking about this movement, despite the fact that there's people like sara palin and others is it's very much a leaderless movement that wants to remain a leader ls movements. there's strength but also a lot of challenges. host: next, a call florida. caller: good morning. mr. king just answered my question. i was calling to see if he thought that the t party would be a viable third party. that's gd news for me. i'm a democrat up here and there's a lot of noise in

florida this year, a couple of new candidates challenging career politicians like allen boyd, for example. and they've got a lot of funding from these people. i'm just real worried about that. i was watching earlier this morning. i just wanted to say that i've listened and watched for over five years now, i'm a college student and first-time calling so i'm a little bit nervous. but i appreciate what you are doing. i don't think you have a tea party agenda. i think you guys show both sides and i want you to keep up the good work. host: thanks. what are you studying in school? caller: i'm a history major. host: what are you going to do with that? caller: i'm going to be a teacher. i'm looking forward to it. i like kids and i want to help people. host: thanks for your call this morning. caller: thank you. guest: it's funny because he said he would be worried as a democrat when they went that

route, when i think if they went the third-party route it would be bad news for the republican party because it would sap support in a lot of places. the movement, dick army of freedom works, uses the word hostile takeover. a lot of people objected to that even within the tea party movement. others a wanting to sort of purify the republican party, bring it back to what they think is its original origins. and doing that not only in this election but well beyond. the question is there how long will that last if it lasts well into 2012 it will be perhaps an enduring movement. host: talking to kneel king of the "wall street journal." next call, louisiana. ellis. caller: good morning. i simply want to make a suggestion and object sion that the party, rather, the

movement as you all call it known as the tea party movement , very similar, if i'm not mistaken, to a movement back in fill mor times, during and post civil war timenown as the know nothing party in the south. and i would recommend that if you're not involved knowing anything about that, you check a book by a former history professor of mine of a college in louisiana by the name ofo verdyke. very similar to the tea rty at ts day and time. simply want to make that suggestion to you. host: appreciate the call. guest: i don't know a lot about the know nothing movement. but what's interesting about the tea party movement is it's steeped in all kinds of nostalgia, which the previous caller before this one brought

up the whole aspect of wanting their country back and allhat sort of thing. a lot of these ads of the tea party people run, varus people fighting during the relutionry war, there's a lot of talk about the founding fathers, all kinds of books that have becom mandatory reading, basically, many of these books being decadesld about the principles of federalism. so maybe for all i know this know nothing book is among that library. host: this viewer on twitter wants to weigh in. guest: i think really there are several events that really caltpoletted this. just the shock of september 2008, the stock market, going down the financial crisis the tarp bill that was then passed

to give so much money to the banks. i think that particular financial bailout was the biggest single thing a lot of people now believe that that is something that happened under obama. of course it didn't. that was to a lot of people the ultimate symbol of the government stepping in, in a place it didn't really belong. and then of course the inauguration of barack obama moved this along, particularly then the democrats pushing forward so swiftly on the stimulus package which underscored the whole theme of federal bailts. so i think it had roots definitely that go back further. there's no doubt about the fact that it really came together in the first month after the democrats took washington. host: we're talking about funding earlier. open secrets.org, one of the sites that tracks money has this statistic.

do you have a comment? >> guest: there's no doubt. there's been huge money thas poured in. there's just a lot of people all over the country who, if they all started contributing $50 can make a big difference. there's money like that has poured into a number of these big races that have drawn national attention. chris tin o'donnell in delaware, she n a primary there, whatever it was, a month ago, had very little money in the bank and within two weeks i think she had brought in almost $3 million almost entirely in these kind of donations. host: oklahoma city, democrat's line. caller: good morning. this is ridiculous and i want to say something else. you mentioned o'donnell. here you have a woman who said

that she worshpped the devil. but then you have these tea baggers who say we're christians. but now they're going to back a woman who said that she used to be a devil worshipper all because she claims to be a member of the tea party. and just like the guy sai what it is is a lack of information, because you have these tea baggers trying to blame my president obama when bush is the one that gave us the bank bailouts, bush is the one that had the jobs being outsourced. bush is the one who got us into a war, two wars that we haven't even paid for, $3 trillion. medicare under bush, homeland security. you talk about more government. he gave us homeland security. he gave us the patriot act. and you guys are worried about barack obama. i mean, this is ridiculous. because if you ask these tea baggers they do not get their

information from anybody but fox news. they need to educate themselves. ask -- and this is it. how many get their information from the computer? how -- host: i'm going to stop you. we've got your point. thank you for your call. guest: a loot of these folks are really -- lot of these folks are pretty educated on a lot of things, i agree fox news informs a lot of their thinking, and there's a lot of people who tune into that. when it comes to the religious issue, thas interesting cause the's a divide where there are those who are very much libertarians, government off our back, less federal government, that whole thing. and then there are those which are more religious in orientation if you look at the glenn beck rally that he had last month, which was basically a big church pick nick, primarily overwhelmingly a religious event, these are people i'm sure identified

largely with the tea party movement but were themselves kind of standard social consoytist. so that's a whole area of the movement that is yet to kind of figure itself out as to what extent of the tea party movement is going to be religious in context and to what extent 's going to be mainly about limited government. host: as we close here, what will you be watching? how interesting is this straw poll from the virginia meetg this weekend? guest: i think it will be somewhat interesting. i think these straw polls to be kind of indicive of -- but of no particular consequence. no one would have voted for barack obama in a demratic straw poll. he was beyond being an outliar for the race at that time. i think there are a lot of people who could step forward in the republican race, somebody like mitch daniel who may not even be on their list today or tomorrow when they do

thr straw poll. still, as jamie was saying, there wasn't anything quite similar to this. so i'm sure people will take note of it. host: you will be out listening to voters between now and election day? guest: i will be out there. host: thank you for being at this desk this mhr >> tomorrow, timothy homan, siobhan bennett, and asa hutchinson of the -- formerly of the dea, and allen st. pierre discussing california's proposition 19 which would allow adults to own up to 1 ounce of

cannabis. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on "washington journal." >> we're showing you some of the 2010 campaign debates and events from around the country tonight. next, we will hear from the candidates running for senate in connecticut. then, a debate between the wisconsin senate candidates. after that, a debate in north dakota for the u.s. senate at- large house seat. >> listen to a landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> what we're arguing is that you may not publicly desecrate the flag, regardless of the motivation for your action. >> flag-burning and freedom of speech -- texas v. johnson on saturday. c-span radio and online.

the supreme court has begun its new term and you can learn more about the nation's highest court with c-span's latest book -- "the supreme court, ." it reveals unique insight about the court. it is available in hardcover and also as an e-book. >> now, the second debate between connecticut u.s. senate candidate dick blumenthal, democrat, and republican linda mcmahon, running to replace retiring democratic senator christopher dodd. 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 debate between the candidates for senate in connecticut. the hosts include 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 use as they see fit. after three minutes, i will ask that the opposing candidate have an opportunity to add is order to since -- add his or her two cents. 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 jerrod ferrari, the editor for hearst connecticut papers, the managing editor of the norwalk hour, and ebong udoma, a senior political reporter at a radio station.

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 our candidates -- linda mcmahon, democrat. >> 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? isank everyone who 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]

prison >> obama campaigns in chicago. >> tomorrow, on washington journal, timothy homan held steady a 9.6%. the president and ceo of the women's campaign forum looks at women running in 2010. and at asa hutcheson and alan st. pierre discussed california's proposition 19 which would allow adults over the age of 21 to possess over of -- of 2 an ounce of cannabis.

-- up to an ounce of cannabis. >> most generals greatness is what they do on the battlefield. washington's graciousness was what he did between battles. >> sunday, part two of our interview with ron chernow his biography of george washington. that is on c-span's q&a. >> now, the first debate between candidates in wisconsin. russ feingold and ron johnson. the event is taking place in milwaukee, hosted by the wisconsin broadcasters' association. this is one hour. >> this is connecticut votes>>

welcome to today's's debate between the candidates for senate in connecticut. >> and now, the president of the wisconsin broadcasters association condition >> the wisconsin broadcasters association foundation is pleased to continue our public affairs broadcasts tradition, sponsoring debates in political campaigns. this evening's debate will engage the two leading candidates for the u.s. senate for wisconsin. 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.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> we are showing you some of the 2010 campaign events from around the country. next, a debate for north dakota for the u.s. house seat. then president obama in illinois. then a discussion of the growth

of the tea party movement. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a bloomberg reporter reduce the september employment figures. the president of the women's campaign form looks at women running in 2010 and perceptions of women candidates. and then a discussion on the california proposition 19 which would allow adults over the age of 21 to possess over an ounce of cannabis. >> these labor politicians in nearly bankrupted our country who left a legacy in debt and they are in denial about the disaster they created, they must never be allowed anywhere near our economy again. >> the british prime minister

and conservative party leader david cameron from their annual party conference. now a debate between the democratic congressman pomeroy and his challenger to are debating for the north dakota house seat. 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