had that not succeeded. >> first of all, the stimulus did not work. it was a failed stimulus. it did not create private-sector jobs. what you supported in august was another stimulus of $26 billion and you took 2 million out of the highway fund. big difference between florida and north dakota. we have a 10 year highway plan. we know what we are 22 and when the iroquois to do it. the federal government has not acted on highway bill -- and been we are going to do it. the federal government has not acted on a highway bill. decisions have not been made. there was a " in the paper the other day -- there was a quote

in the paper the other day. the pomeroy campaign is trying to change the subject while i'm trying to change washington. >> the last word of the conversation. >> the stimulus brought $220 million back for our roads and you try to take state money to make a zero sum game. -- make . . s and infrastructure. in addition -- >> let him finish his last word and then we will move on to social security. >> we are to move forward to get a highway bill in place for it

highway construction will continue. the dollars that we brought back will be for water systems across north dakota there were to have drinking water. -- north dakota. they're going to have drinking water. >> both of you have talked about waste. who ensures so security long- term solvency -- social security long-term solvency? but my dad died when i was a teenager. i know how critical security is for a family. average benefits are $13,000 a year. that is why i am serving as chairman of the so security committee. i am certain to make sure those benefits are secure. don't forget that there are no reductions in the benefit structure for so security. there are a number of ways --

for social security. we do not have an emergency on our hands. after 2037, it pays 75% this is work we can come together. one thing is different about my opponent. but he was in the legislation, he favored putting private accounts and to social security. there are two very bad things about that. it takes money out of social security and jeopardize the system for everybody and those accounts go up and down with the stock market. given the economic what was that we have been through, he would have north dakota try to endorse that. >> we could solve a lot of problems for north dakota if

they were given to us. we do not vote on social security. and that is what you do. the reality is, in 1998, you put -- you were for putting half of security in the stock market's -- of social security in the stock market. if you were to sit here and say we have more going out the we have coming in. if 40 cents of every dollar being borrowed affects benefits for my mom, it is the chinese. you are letting it happen and not balancing the budget. we have to get back getting our economy going. we will get more coming in and we will be able to balance social security. we need to get small business

going again by lowering taxes, encouraging growth, balance the budget and that gives confidence. >> your rebuttal? social security is not in balance. social security is running a surplus. he cast a vote against a resolution for privatization. he speaks so glowingly about these private accounts. he wanted to put the money in national parks. >> you can finish up. >> he is for this said he is for that. he wants to drill and our national parks. this is someone who is not playing responsibly with the program but i believe is the most important program that we

have. 170,000 north dakotans receive a social security check. >> you and i both agree. i am on the foundation for it. i have put my time and money into preserving the badlands. i grew up out west. i would never drill on the surface in the parks. you know that's true. your ads -- what you're ads are saying is false every quarter, -- what you were -- what your ads are saying is false. social security is paying out 40 billion more than is bringing in. it was in the paper. it is true. >> that is a fundamental

misunderstanding. >> 41 million is being paid out, more than is coming in. >> at the moment, we have a period of aplomb or the cash flow has changed. -- . of unemployment where the cash flow has changed. -- a period of unemployment or the cash flow has changed. your suggestion that we can park and oil derrick on the side of -- national park, >> we have to balance so security by getting our economy going. we cannot have another failed stimulus. we cannot bail people out. this takes money out of our economy. the vice president said that the reason the stimulus did not work was because it was not big enough for this is not how to get our economy going.

we solve also secured by getting our economy going. -- social security by getting our economy going. >> and no closing statements, one minute. >> i want to thank you for hosting tonight's debate. this is about cash flow and assets held by social security. we do not have a crisis with social security. it was my pleasure to get some of these issues out in the open. i have worked very hard with north dakota to make certain that we make the most of the wonderful opportunities that we have. they are protecting. the we also need to face problems like we were raised. that is why i am happy to stand shoulder to shoulder to fix in our state what needs fixing. as we build a better state, we build a better country.

it is my pleasure to be part of that. thank you very much. >> a one minute close, rick berg. >> thank you. there is a responsibility for each generation of americans. that is to leave this country better off than we received it. today, too many americans believe that their sons and daughters are not better off and will not be better off in the future. we have taxpayer funded bailouts. we have record deficits. we have a health care bill that will take over and change -- and create a government run health care. these are debts to our children and it is a mountain of debt that is funded by other countries. it does not have to be this way. we need to get back to the core principle that made this country great.

a free but turbulent market is better than a stagnant economy in a government run state. whether you are talking about health care or business, government needs to be tolerated with limited power. >> time is up. that gentleman, thank you for an extremely lively debate. good luck in the election. thank you for joining election 2010. ♪ >> c-span's local content the

goals are traveling the country as we look at the most contested house races leading up to the midterm elections. >> are you doing? >> good to see you. how are you? >> i want to tell you the spirit we have to stop president obama's agenda. whatever he comes out with, they to polizzi and her people will -- nancy pelosi and her people will represent it. she may vote against one or two items, but in the end, those so- called blue dog democrats are delivering each and every vote that she needs to pass the obama/pelosi agenda. >> i do not think there are lucid about -- they are lucid about -- our goal in this -- i do not think they are realistic. our obligation to this generation is not to pass a crushing debt to the next generation. i think the physical stimulus

was appropriate. i did not agree with some of what was in it, but you hardly ever did exactly what you want -- ever did exactly what you want -- ever get exactly what you want in washington. >> the race between incumbent conservative democrat, the challenger in this race, austin from georgia. from rural areas, the south of land suburbs, and the -- south atlanta suburbs, and the metropolitan areas, the southern district. the district is a republican- leaning district. john mccain picked up 57% of the vote in the district here in 2008, so this is a district and john mccain won, that is -- that john mccain one that is -- won the this -- that is represented

by a democrat. about one in four mccain voters most democrats. while he is a reliable democrat in the caucus votes, but he is not terribly reliable when it comes to health insurance. he is not terribly popular with liberals, but he has maintained a very strong connection to people in the middle. perhaps his best asset, his two really good assets -- one is that he has taught himself to -- tied himself to the robins air force base future to keep the base open. there are a lot of folks at the base who see jim marshall as working very hard on their behalf. secondly, he has done a lot of good work in bringing things home. a lot of work in bringing things back to the district, particularly in the rural communities. if you talk to the county commissioners and even some republicans, they will say i do not necessarily like the fact has worked hard for the district. younger than jim marshall. -- austin scott is 20 years

older than jim marshall. -- younger than jim marshall. he has been with the general assembly for three terms now. he really has a lot of confidence and youth. he started the election cycle running for governor. when it looks like jim marshall might be somewhat believable, he -- vulnerable, he switched to the congressional race and is doing quite well. projects a youthful side. both of them are committed to reducing the federal deficit. jim marshall is the chair of the house caucus for a balanced budget amendment. boston -- austin scott talks about balancing the budget on his website. they talk about service and

doing a good job of it. the major issue will be that jim marshall as a democrat, and it -- is a democrat, and yet -- i think this race is becoming republican perspective, particularly because there is a base for republicans. what the republican task is to do is convince republicans, not democrats, that they want to vote for the republican candidate and not for marshall. i have several republican friends who tell me they do not vote for democrats ever, except for jim marshall. contentn's local vehicles are traveling the country. as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to the midterm

lections. for more information on the local content vehicles and what they're up to this election season, isn't our website, c- c- span.org/lcv. >> we're showing you some of the 2010 debates from around the country tonight. next, president obama campaigns in staccato for the democratic candidate. then, the growth of the tea party movement and then a look at candidates running for the u.s. senate in connecticut. >> saturday night, we will show you the 31st annual news and documentary emmy awards ceremony. a special honors went to cbs news hour which received an award for excellence in broadcast journalism 35 years after robert macneil and jim lehrer launched the pbs show. others were also honored. that is tomorrow night at 8:00

p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this weekend, c-span american history tv takes a trip to richmond va for a civil war antique show looking for a historical documents. also, songs that uplifted soldiers' spirits during the time of lincoln and harry truman's containment policy and how it resulted in decades of tension between the u.s. and the soviet union. all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. >> president obama spoke at a rally. the democrat is running for us against republican congressman. he is leaving office at the end of this year. this>> ladies and gentleman, ple

united states senator dick durbin. >> i told you i would be back. six years ago, i told you to send me a senate colleague that would help make a difference in washington. they did our state proud and of our nation proud. in just a few days, illinois will have another chance to elect a united states senator perrault was due to elect a person that will double my votes, not cancelled my votes, a person that will stand up to values that we believe make america and illinois a better place. i want you to help me elect alexi giaoulias! [applause]

>> how is everybody doing? [applause] i am sorry to keep everybody waiting. the helicopter wasovering. [laughter] i want to thank you all for being here. it is great to see so many supporters. i am not obama. [laughter] he is a little better looking than i am. is great to see so many friends and supporters. i want to take a second to thank the finest center in the united states of america senator dick durbin. [applause] someone who has not just been a great friend, a great supporter, but someone who would be the honor of my life to serve in the

united states senate with. i think you senator for everything that you do for this great state and this country. let's have a round of applause for senator dick durbin. [applause] in just 26 days, voters across illinois will head to the polls d cast their ballot that will say a lot about where we are headed as a nation. this race for the united states senate is bigger than me, is bigger than president obama. this is a race about the future of the united states. this seminal moment in this country's history, which passed " -- which path we choose a summation? -- will we choose as a nation? will we leap forward with a renewed commitment to economic opportunity for everyone? [applause]

are we going to send people to washington to get things done or will we elect those whose only objective is to obstruct and deny the achievents of the other party? will be elected leaders that will bring a new energy and commitment to spurring economic growth and giving small businesses incentive to start hiring again or will we send more typical politicians that have forgotten how tough it is for too many struggling americans? that is what this election is all about. that is what it is critically important. we need to move this great country forward. [applause] if i am fortunate enough, we will work harder to gather to fix the mess and it down to us

after a year's of economic policy that doubled our national debt and cost millions of americans their jobs and destroy the american middle class. as your next united states senator, i will work every day to help turn this economy around for the next generation of private-sector jobs right here in illinois. that mea jobs that cannot be outsourced. that means incentives and targeted tax cuts for businesses to create jobs right here at home. it means finally a fast tracking an agenda so that we in our addiction to oil, rescued a planet in peril and create -- in pel, and it means protecting consumers from the recklessness of wall street. it means fighting for equal rights for all amecans. not just when it is easy or when

it is convenient, but especially in the face of political pressure. it means bringing fresh leadership and ideas to the d.c. culture that my opponent is aimed reined in. my opponent has forgotten how tough it is out there for families that are just trying to pay their bills. i need your help to get there. i am proud to be the first candidate for the senate in illinois history, not to take money from lobbyists. [applause] the only way to get out of this method -- this mess -- my opponent is one of the largest fund-raisers because he takes their money and votes their way every single time now, while congressman curt held coral rove rep this country, -- karl rove

wreck this country. with just over three weeks to go in this pivotal election, a choice will be made. will we change the way things are done in washington d.c.? will both parties work together to craft a tradition for this country's future will the help this president lead us forward? will we inspire the next generation of leaders to step up and stand up and to leave? will we successfully righthe next great tractor in america's amazing -- great chapter in amera's amazing story? will we fight for families that, right now, are hanging on just by a thread in fighting just to survive? the decision is in our hands.

we must vote. we must get energized and moved and engad and we must educate everyone that we know about the very stark choice in this election. and we must send a fighter to washington d.c. to help president obama to do the job that we sent him there to do. [applause] speaking of fighters, it is a tremendous honor for me to introduce my friend, mentor, one ofhe greatest fighters i have ever encountered, our esident of the united states of america, president barack obama. [applause]

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

[applause] i love loretta durbin more -- [laughter] but dick durbin i love. we also -- if i'm not mistaken, we've got the junior senator from illinois, roland burris, in the house. where's roland? there he is right there. [applause] appreciate roland for his outanding service. we've got the next lieutenant govern of the great state of illinois -- sheila simon. [applause] who, by the way, knows a little bit about good senators. congressman danny davis is in the house. [applause] congresswoman jan schakowsky is here. [applause] love jan. attorney general lisa madigan is here.

[applause] comptroller dan hynes is here. [applause] senator president john cullerton is here. [applause] the next treasurer, robin kelly is in the house. [alause] the next comptroller, david miller is in the house. [applause] now, i see everybody else here. aughter] but if i started naming everybody i know i'm in trouble. so i've just got to stop. [laughter] except to say that it's also nice to be standing here with the next senator from the great statof illinois, alexi giannoulias. [applause] alexi is my friend. i know his character. i know how much he loves this country. i know how committed he is to public service. he has been a great advocate on behalf of the people of

illinois, and he's in this for the right reasons. special in it for the interests; he's in it for your interests. you may not always agree with him, but you always know where he stands. he's comfortable in his own skin. he doesn't shift with the wind. he doesn't pretend to be mething that he'not. you know that who he is today and who he'll be tomorrow -- and that's important. you can trust him. you can count on him. and let me just also say -- because i play basketball with him -- [laughter] -- and i have still some sore ribs to prove it -- he's a competitor. and we've seen that in this campaign. he just keeps on plowing ahead because he knows that he wants to serve. in some very tough circumstances, in a tough political season, he has not

wavered. and that's the kind of person that you want. that's the kind of person that you know when the going gets tough in washingtowill be fighting for you. [applause] so i hope you're fired up in these last few weeks. [applause] i need you to be fired up. fired up and ready to go. i need it. [applause] i need that because there is an election -- there is an election -- in case you were curious -- [laughter] -- on november 2nd -- an election -- you can begin voting next week -- that's going to say a lot about the future -- your future and the future of our countr y've got to be fired up. now, this is chicago, so i know politics is -- this sport right here.

[laughter] i mean, i know everybody is paying attention. by the way, have you seen my chief of staff? [laughter] i was like, looking around, it's like, what happened? [laughter.] two years ago, you defied the conventional wisdom in washington -- because they said you couldn't overcome the cynicismf our politics. thecouldn't overcome special interests. you can't make big progress on big issues. can't happen. they said, no, you can't. what did you say? >> yes, we can! >> you said, yes, we can. but sometimes i feel as if we had such a high on election night and then there was the

inauguration and bono was singing and beyoncé and [laughter] -- everybody from chicago went to washington and was having a big party. but i have to remind you that the victory in that campaign didn't deliver the change that we needed. it just gave us the chance to make change happen. that was the start, not the finish, of the journey. [applause] and it made each of you a shareholder in the mission of rebuilding our country and reclaiming our future. twoi'm back today because years later, the success of that mission is at stake. after that last election, it was my hope that we could pull together, democrats and republicans, and start dealing with the worst crisis we had seen since the great depression. that was my fervent hope because we may be proud democrats,ut we're prouder to

be americans. and there are republans across the country who feel the same way. but the republans in washington, they had a different idea. they knew it was going to take more than two years to climb out of this mess that they had created. they knew that by the time of this election, the midterm election, that there would still be people out of work; that people would be frustrated. and they figured if they just sat on the sidelines and just said no, opposed every idea i offered, or dick offered, or jan offered, or danny offered -- if they spent all their time attacking democrats instead of attacking our problems, then they'd have a chance to prosper at the polls. that was their calculation. and they just spent the last 20 months saying no -- even to policies that they had supported in the past. they said no to middle-class tax cuts.

they said no to help for small businesses. they said no to a bipartisan deficit reduction commission that they had cosponsored. and when i was for it, suddenly they were against it. if i said the sky was blue, they said no. [laughter] if i said there were fish in the sea -- no. their calculion was if obama fails, we win. they were very explicit about it. now, they figured that that political game would get them through an election. but i knew it wasn't going to get america through the crisis. so i made a different calculatio i made a different choice. i took whatever steps were necessary to stop the economic freefall -- with the help of people like dick, with the help of people like jan and danny --

even if those measures were not popular, even if they were not easy. because you did not send me to washington to do what was easy. you didn't send me to put my finger out to the wind and measure which way the wind was blowing and try to figure out how to stay in office. you elected me to do what was right. [applause] that's why you sent me. so 20 months later, we no longer face the possibility of a second depression. our economy is growing again. the private sector has created jobs for eight months in a row. there are 3 million americans who wouldn't be workingoday if it weren't for the economic plan we put into place. [applause.] when we came in -- when i flew in on air force one and we landed at o'hare, there were a group of folks greeting us there. and there were a group of folks who had gotten jobs directly as a consequence of the recovery act. and so we know that we did t right thing.

but, look, we've still got a long way to go. because e hole that we're climbing out of is so deep, there are still millions of americans without work. the six months before i was sworn in we had lost 4 million jobs. we lost 750,000 the month i was sworn in, 600,000 the two months subsequent aer that. and so most of the 8 million jobs we lost were before any of our economic plans took effect. and that means we've got a b hole to fill. there are still millions of families who can barely pay the bills or make a mortgage. middle-class families who were struggling to get by before the crisis hit are still treading water. so of course people are

frustrated. of course people are impatient. i'm impatient. but the other side decided, we're just going to try to ride that anger, that frustration, to the ballot box -- without offering any serious ideas about how to solvour problems. and now the pundits are saying, well, the other party's supporters, they're more excited. they say all of you who worked so hd in 2008 might not be as excited this time; you might not be as energized; you might not care as much; that you don't mind if the same politicians and policies that created this mess, lt the economy a shambles, return to washington. that's what the pundits are predicting. they're basically counting on u all having amnesia. [laughter] but i think they're wrong, chicago. and it's up to you to prove

them wrong. the up to you to defy conventional wisdom once again. it's up to you to show the pundits that you love this country too much to let it fall backwards -- you are ready to move forward. you've got to show them that you're ready to fight for our future. because this election is a choice. don't -- no mistaking the situation here. the choice could not be clearer. because it's not as if the republicans, they went off into the desert and meditated after 2008, and they said, boy, what did we do wrong? we got this -- as a consequence of our stewardship, the whole economy is in meltdown. that's not what they did. they didn't come back with a set of new ideas. they haven't changed their agenda since the last time they ran washington. the chairman of one of the campaign committees promised that if republicans take control of congress, they will follow -- and i'm quoting -- "the exact same agenda" they pursued during the last administration. and we know what that agenda was: you cut taxes, mostly for millionaires and billionaires. you cut regulations for special interests. you cut investments in education and clean energy, in

research and development and technology. so basically, you just put blind faith in the market; we let corporations play by their own res; we leave everybody else to fend for themselves, and somehow america is going to prosper. here's the thing, though. we know what happened. it's not as if we didn't try that. we tried it for eight years. it didn't work. it di't work for middle-class families who saw their incomes fall -- wages went down 5 percent between 2001 and 2009 -- when they were in power. that's not according to me; that's according to the wall street journal. job grth was slower during that period than any decade since world war ii. these guys are talking about jobs now? they had eight years and it didn't work.

they took a record surplus left by president bill clinton and it became a record deficit by the time i took office -- a big $1.3 trillion present they left me as i walked in the oval office. they set up a free-for-all on wall street that led to a crisis that we're still grappling with today. now, i bring up all these things not to re-litigate the past. i just don't want to re-live the past. [applause] and i bring this up because that is the philosophy that republicans like alexi's opponent intend to bring back if they win in november. now, they might have a new name for it -- they call it the "the pledge to america." [laughter] the pledge to america -- it's the same stuff they've been peddling for years.

[laughter] they're trying hoodwink you once again. let's take a look at the "pledge to america." some of you may not have examined it. [laughter] now, for starters, it turns out that part of the pledge was actually written by a former lobbyist for aig and exxon- mobil. you cannot -- yes. [laughter] you can't make this stuff up. [laughter] so that gives you a clue of who they're making the pledge to. then the centerpiece of this pledge is a $700 billion tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent of americans. that is their big idea. now, these are the folks who lecture us on fiscal responsibility, so i have to point out we don't have $700 billion. we'd have to borrow $700 billion -- from the chinese or the saudis -- and then use it to provide tax cuts worth an average of $100,000 to millionaires and billionaires. when you ask them, well, where

are you going to find the $700 billion, they don't have an answer. but when you look at the fine print, it turns out that a small portion of the tax cut they want to pay for by cutting education by 20 percent -- 20 percent, which would translate into reduce financial aid for eight million college students. at a time when education is the biggest predictor of a country's economic success, they think it's more important to provide these tax breaks to folks who don't need them, weren't asking for them, than it is to make sure that our young people can get to college -- which makes me want to ask our republan friends, do you think china is cutting back on education? do you think south korea is making it harder for its citizens to get a college education? these countries are not playing for second place. and the united states of americaoes not play for second place.

we play for first. that's what this election is about. [applause] that's what this election is about. see, alexi and i have a dierent idea about what the next two years should look like. it's idea rooted in our belief about how this country was built. we know government doesn't have all the answers to all of our problems. we don't believe government's main role is to create jobs or prosperity. we believe government should be lean and efficient and that the private sector should be creating jobs. we want to reduce the deficit, which is why we've proposed a three-year spending freeze and we set up that bipartisan fiscal commission to deal with our deficit that the other side voted agains but we also believe in america we reward hard work and responsibility. we believe this is a country where we look after one

another; that we are our brother's keeper, our sister's keeper. that's the america i know. [applause] that's the choice in this electi. [applause] so instead of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, weant to make permanent tax cuts for middle-class americans -- because folks who work hard every day, they deserve a break. [applause] instead of the republican plan to keep tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas, we want to give tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the united states of america. [applause] to small businesses and american manufacturers and clean energy companies. [applause] i don't want solar panels and wind turbines and electric cars made in europe and asia. i want them built here, in the united states, by american workers. [applause] if republicans take back congress, they will try their hardest to give back power to the same special interests that me and dick and jan and danny

have been fighting for the last 20 months. we can't let them do that. we can't go back to the days when insurance companies could drop your health insurance when you got sick. we can't go back to the day when credit cards could jack up your rates for nreason. we can't go back to the days of taxpayer-funded bailouts. we can't allow special interests take free rein again. that's why i'm proud to be stding next to ale. he's made it clear he'll fight for you in the united states senate. [applause] he's not funding his campaign with federal pacs or lobbyist money. on his first day in office, he enacted the most sweeping ethics reforms of any illinois state treasurer, ensuring that contractors and banks couldn't pay-to-play for state business. he took on credit card companies and banned them from

aggressively marketing on college campuses, so that our kids don't graduate with credit card debt on top of tuition debt. [applause] and a lot of you know -- a lot of you know what he did for hartmarx -- which, by the way, made this suit. [applause] it's a company that's employed people in thistate for more than a hundred years. and when it fell on hard times, and a big bank threatened to pull its credit, risking more than 600 jobs, alexi stepped in. he told that bank if they did that they'd no longer manage the money of illinois taxpayers. he helped save that company, those jobs. they can testify about who he's 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 fe 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 "" 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 unlited 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 may 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 me from the top -- it doesn't come from millions of dollars of attack ads. [alause] 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, the look of the growth of the tea party movement and he

carted candidates running in house, senate and governor's races. this is 35 minutes. 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 example of this. 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: they are the most mature in terms of inside. i think there are a number of reasons that is the case. they had a 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 strife 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 -- a 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 of the 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 for being 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 the two-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 are 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 three or four times the size. we are just hoping 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 the tea 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 national 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 sure 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: this 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 religious 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 talked 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. . .

guest: it's extremely hard. it's an amazingly interesting, very amore fs, very american uprising in a lot of ways. and it's at heart something that is extremely simple. they just want there to be less of everything, basically. there's been a lot of confusion i think created by the word party in their title. we know this goes back to the so-called party in boston a long time ago that had nothing to do with the political party.

and the fact that a lot of these groups have the word party suggests to people that they should be a political 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 have or 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 also wants 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 with 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 candidates 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 and ones that 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 agenda 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 the 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 is 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 things 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 there, that california

is not that conservative. but there are a lot of conservative people here. i guess what bothers me is that people who are conservative are 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 conservatives or tea party people are radical and i see just a whole different view. i see mothers 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 you'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 for some time, that that could shift a lot in 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 think 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 the issue of nullification. do the states themselves have the right to prohibit a federal law from being 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 kind 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 party 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 hateful 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 a lot of these things started before, their concern started. it only really came together after obama was naugyated. but 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 had gone 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 earlier 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 ross 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 tea party would be a viable third party. that's good 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 are 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 vasion 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 time known 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 party at this 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 all that sort of thing. a lot of these ads of the tea party people run, various people fighting during the relutionry war, there's a lot of talk about the founding fathers, all kinds of books that have become mandatory

reading, basically, many of these books being decades old 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 bailouts. 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 that's 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 won 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 said, 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, that's interesting because there'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 it'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 meeting this weekend? guest: i think it will be somewhat interesting. i think these straw polls to be kind of indicative of -- but of no particular consequence. no one would have voted for barack obama in a democratic 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 their 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

connecticut. this is one hour. >> this is connecticut votes 2010 -- the debates. >> welcome to toda's's debate between the candidates for senate in connecticut'. the post are the business council of fairfield county, the greater business council, the

bridgeport regional business council, and news 12. each candidate will have 26 minutes to see -- as they see fit -- to use as they see fit. the candidates will field questions from our panel. they can also converse with each other. they cannot ask questions of each other, but they can talk to each other. each candidate will have two minutes for closing statements. our panelists are the editor for hearst connecticut papers, the managing editor of the norwalk hour, and ebong udoma, a senior political reporter for the radio. our candidates -- linda mcmahon, the democrats and dick blumenthal, the republican. >> good morning. prident bush enacted cap and

trade measures to control rain pollution. you have said you are opposed to that legislation. could you explain what steps you would take to reduce fossil fuel emissions? >> let me thank everyone who is here this morning. for those in attendance and those watching as electronically. i would like to say that, first of all, i think all of us want to make sure that we protect our environment. we want to make sure that we have clean air, clean water to pass along to generations to come. that is certainly our goal. i also believe that we need to balance our enomic 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 causeamilies -- cost families in connecticut about $1,000 more per year for electricity,aised t price of gasoline by about 68 nts 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 tt 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 utily 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 insufficien nancing. 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 t -- 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 utily 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 energyax 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. blumentha 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 nt 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. th 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 presidentbama. he is the one who said, when he first talked about cap and trade, we will necessaries -- necessaril see electricity costs skyrocket. but the numbers aside. we're going to see increase sts -- increased costs. .et's incentivize companies let them develop their technology for cleaner-burning, give them taxreaks ones that

technology is in place. we a 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 x 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 rd 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 tose 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 compibility 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, loooles 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 deba. 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 transits 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 cnecticut' 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 encouragingack 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 ca 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 lonisland 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- transi, 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 privatsector 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 interts 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 creion, but targeted tax cuts are the way to provide the support that small business 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 th. 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 sd 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 votedor 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, mafactured 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 out 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 ia 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 inhe 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 toave a climate of certainty. they dnot know what is coming down the pike at this point -- health care reform, wther this national-engy 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 conneccut. i would like mr. blumenthal to

talk about the jobs that he has created here in connecticut. >> perps 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 t 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 dohat. i was very pleased to except the endorsement. -- accept the nfib endorsement. the owner of the company said at a press conference and i agr 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 iour 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 sh 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 vised 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 wh 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

fuelells than the united states. you think our technology -- we ought to be embarrassed and ashamed that a tenology 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 vanuver for the fund-raiser, like the time, after you apologized for vietnam, you again miss characterized -- mis characterized your draft status.

givenow you miss a beat in the mist -- you misspeak and you mischaracterize wwe, i think it would be criminal for the uted 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

tside 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 back re 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 theight 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 peopl 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 om 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, a made sure that someone was in their corner to get the medical treatmt they deserve. again and again, in thousands of cases, whether stem cell transplants, cancer treatnt,

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 hospits. 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,axes 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 thahave 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 shington 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 lobbyis 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, asn 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 fo 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 taon 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 thatou he 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 d 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 ta 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 propriately 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 stateattorney -- 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, 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 famies 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 betteronnecting 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]

broadcast debate between republican channel bolger ron johnson and and come but russ feingold, candidates for the u.s. senate in wisconsin. the president of the wisconsin broadcasting association. >> good evening. the wisconsin broadcasters association foundation and the wisconsin radio a television broadcasters are pleased to be able to continue our public affairs broaasts tradition sponsoring widely broadcast debates in major wisconsin campaigns. this evening but the debate will engage the two leading candidates for the senate. the democratic candidate russ feingold and republican

candidate ron johnson. this debate was made place by a generous grant from the wisconsin association of independent colleges and universities. >> good evening, everyone. i am president of the wisconsin association of independent colleges and universities. on behalf of wisconsin's nonprofit colleges and universities, i would like to welcome you to this debate between u.s. senate candidates russ feingold and ron johnson. the base or an up important part of our democratic process. -- debates or an important process -- it debase our a 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 aut 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 rais 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. 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 chose 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.ohnson, your opening statement. >> i would like to thank the broadcasters' assiation 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 russeingold, contrary to the wishes of wisconsin voters, he cast the deciding vote on health care reform. i cannot stand on the sidelines any loer. our country is headed in the wrong direction. people are out of work. families are struggling and they are woied.

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 t 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 defic 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 n 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 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 lpable 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 forore 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 c 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 busiss 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 tablish 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 tt 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 heth 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 s 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 hasver known. does it really engages freedom to make sure that over 1 million wisconsin residents are not diagnosed --re not denied coverage because of a pre- existing condition? is it annvasion 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 i 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 youken 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,ut 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, d for ourhildren 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. 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 ces 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 suprt to movemerica 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 tse 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 beour 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 ofhe 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 at 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 he a record of it and i have every capability of going to washington and working with people to solve these very serious prlems. 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 sator 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 acro 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 r 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 movent. 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 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. johnsondmits he just read it this year. even though he made some

comments about the paycheck at, he fell in line with the 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. against the wall street scams since day one. i tell you something, since you mentioned the average citizen should be able to process -- ould 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 scrat?

>> 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 toork 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 w 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 specic 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 ama. 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 conern 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. there clear and present danger? i do not see thentelligence reports. president obama does. he sees something where he believes we need to search 30,000 troops. iill 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 wor 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 fegold did. i would not propose a resolution to cut all funding what our troops are in a rack. i would talk to the adminiration 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,merican 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 be on the table to prevent that. i am working every opportunity i an to either indirectly or directly to make sure iran does not become that kind of teat. the combination of al qaeda and iran together has toe our top priority. >> this questiois 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 feral 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 wted 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 d 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. 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 immration 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 overhe 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,ut the my parents grew up on farms. all 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. 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 frly. >> 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 vo 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 wconsin are the world's leaders in stem cell research. we depend more than any other

state on the funng 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 wt 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 bause 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 havit 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 rhetic 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 statemt.

. 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 mavick 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 ndidate 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 wld 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 andee 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 nht.

>> center blanche likened appears to be trapped -- appears to be trailing her challenger. lincoln is behind by more than 19%. she may be hoping to harness the popularity of former president bill clinton. for more political news and campaign coverage, the to our web site at cspan.org/politics. >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country. we are looking at the races leading up to the midterm election.

in the end, the so-called blue- dog democrats are going to give her every vote she needs to pass her agenda. >> i do not think they are realistic. our obligation is not to pass a crushing debt to the next generation. i think the fiscal stimulus was appropriate. i did not agree with some of what was in it. you can never get exactly what you want in washington. >> the race against the incumbent democrat, jim marshall, and the conservative

democrat -- the district is a republican leaning district. they picked up 57% of the vote in the district in 2008. if you look at the numbers, one in four mccain voters voted for marshall in that race. he runs to the right of most democrats. he is a reliable democrat, but he is not terribly reliable when it comes to things like health insurance. he is not terribly popular with liberals, but he has maintained a very strong connection to people in the middle. perhaps there are two assets in

this district. he spent a lot of time with the air force base committee to keep the base open. they were successful. they expanded. a lot of people see jim marshall as having worked hard on their behalf. secondly, he has done a lot of good work in bringing things back to the district. if you talk to a lot of county commissioners they will say that they do not like the fact he is a democrat, but he works very hard for the district and for his reputation. austin scott is a state representative from tifton. he has been in the general assembly for three terms now. he started out this election

cycle running for governor. there was a crowded republican field for governor. it looks like jim marshall might be somewhat believable. he is doing quite well but into the district. he has a lot of enthusiasm and he projects a youthful vibe. both of them are committed to reducing the federal deficit. jim marshall is the share of the house process for a balanced budget amendment. austin scott has a balanced budget amendment on his website. they talk about the air force base being a major employer. they talk about doing a good job of it. i think the major issue is going to be that jim marshall is a democrat. maybe enough to make austin scott have a successful race.

what the republicans task is to do is to convince republicans that they want to vote for the republican candidate and not for marshall. i have several republican friends who say they do not vote for rep -- do not vote for democrats ever. >> the local content vehicle is traveling the country. we are looking at the races leading up to the midterm election in november. for more information of the local content vehicle, visit our web site cspan.org/lcv.

>> here is a quick look at some campaign news. according to the wall street journal, republican leaders in florida or worried that a deal may be in the works to get the democrat represented to drop out of the senate race. you can check out the political water on line for details. for more political news and campaign coverage, good to our web site at cspan.org/politics. >> the next, the supreme court oral argument. after that, president obama and john boehner, met on september employment figures. live at 7:00 a.m., and your calls and comments on "washington journal." >> despite the uprising and

state crackdown that followed last year's irani an election, many influential erroneous still believe in the republic. by this weekend's complete schedule of nonfiction books and authors at booktv.org. >> make 8528 minute video on this year's theme, washington d.c. through might wince. talk about issues, events, or topics that help you understand the role of the federal government in your life a community. download york dealer to c-span by january 20. you have a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 in total prize is. the competition is open to all students in grades 6 through 12.

for more details, go online at studentcam.org. >> the supreme court justices posed for their first group wrote on friday. -- first group photograph on friday. the court is looking at first amendment issues. next, the oral argument. this is an hour.

mr. syder wanted to bury his son in a private, dignified manner. he was entitled to turn to the tort law in the state of maryland. >> this is for the problems i have in this case. >> there was a flier sent out prior to the peril. we have the funeral. >> what does that have to do with the funeral? >> as the district court explained, the essay was 8 recap of the bureau protests. >> it is not -- it does not intrude upon the the general. you either have to the haute

separate causes of action. one is the funeral, the other is the harm caused by of viewing this posting of the internet. i do not see how they both relate to intrusion of the general. >> they were just submitted to the jury in one big lump. we had the facts of the funeral. we focused on the personal, comics in the x-ray. -- comments in the essay. >> with that have supported the cause of action? >> i would say yes. we had the personal, targeted at the jets' directed at the family. >> even though you do not have

to watch them. they are posted on the internet. it is that his choice to watch. it the chooses to watch he has a cause of action because it causes some distress. >> we still have the pleading standards, the summary judgment standards, and the motion to dismiss. >> as i understand it, maryland passed a statute. i read the statute. it seems there was nothing or out of compliance with that statute. there was a considerable distance. it stopped before the funeral service began. am i right? under the current statute, this conduct calls not unlawful?

>> the statute was not in place at the time, but the complicated to it -- it is a complicated answer to the question. they were positioned about 30 feet from the church. >> did they not stand with the police told them to? >> they told the police were they wanted to stand and the police said ok. >> they were there with the knowledge and permission of the police? >> if they did not violate any criminal statutes. >> is anything to suggest that the merrill lynch assembly wanted to occupy the field? >> the maryland legislature made it clear that they did not want people to vote -- did not want people to protest funerals in general.

>> your case involves the protest of a dead soldier to is going to hell and these parents have raised him to go to hell. simply to say you can have a protest within a certain distance is not to say you can have a protest within a certain distance that defames the corpse. that is a different issue is it not? >> yes. >> you knew what was going on. this has been done before. wasn't this the same day they picketed at annapolis and the

state capital? >> yes. those three locations. >> could they have gotten an injunction? >> i do not think they could have. although he said we knew what the signs were going to be, generally the pattern is to guess what the science could have been. you do not know what the signs will be until they show up. in this case they had a sign that said, "god hates you. l." are going to help her ">> >> there the same size they used at the capitol and in annapolis. >> the signs referred directly to matthew snyder.

we would hope and believe that the district court could show they were a specific epithet. but this was done at a public park, i think you could conclude it was not directed at the family. when you show up at a 20-year- old marine's funeral and say you're going to help -- >> did they had the sign at the state capitol at annapolis? >> the majority of the size or the same. >> the specific ones you mentioned, did they have those? >> if we are forced to accept their view, that is what they testified to. viewed that asr's specifics in specifically referred to his son.

mr. schneider interpreted that as referring to his son's death. that was the only deceased soldier. >> use a the fourth circuit found that those signs were directed at the family rather than the whole united states society? >> the god hates you and the you are going to help signs -- they say it was hyperbolic and protected. it did not fall under the defamation law. >> do you think that the ethic is relevant as an explanation of some of these arguably ambiguous signs that were displayed at this funeral, for example, you are going to hell?

>> it can shed light, but if you put this in the context of a funeral, what you have is a typical darrelle. >> the signs say "you." that does not mean matthew snyder, it means a larger group. does that not show -- shed light on what "you" net on that side? >> the ethics specifically referenced matthew snyder by name and specifically reference to his parents by name. in our judgment, the ethics sort of explains the funeral protest itself. >> this is about a funeral.

the first amendment question seems to be a broader and deeper question. did your client see the signs? i gather that he did not see the signs or the aegis of the tops of science and he did not read anything of the signs. >> he did not read the contents. >> how did your client bind alps that the -- how did your client find out about the signs and what they said? >> your honor, they set out a flier saying they were going to protest the federal and had his picture there. they claimed he was going -- >> my question is how did your client buying out the very

objectionable scenes on the science? how did he find out what they said? >> he found out about the specifics by going to the family wake. >> now we have two questions. one is under what circumstances can a group of people broadcast on television something about a private individual that is very obnoxious? i accept it is very obnoxious. those are the two questions i am bothered about. i do not know what the rules ought to be there. do you think a person can put anything on the internet?

do you think they can put anything on television and even if it attacks a private individual? >> does marilyn's law prohibit that? what should the role be there? i set that out to give you talking. [laughter] >> we are stuck with intentional infliction of emotional distress. >> your claim it is that falwell was a public figure and the snyder family is not. you do not fall on that case because he is not a public figure. >> that is correct. >> could you finish answering justice breyer?

describe the targeted nature of the speech. in our judgment, that is what makes it unprotected. for example, the epithet directed at the family would be unprotected. if, for example, a person repeatedly put on the website that mr. smith has aids. it is true or not, it might rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional stress. >> so you have no objection if the sign said, "get out of iraq?" >> correct. i do not think there is a constitutional impediment. >> said the intrusion of the privacy of the bureau -- of the

funeral -- you are complaining about personal attacks are you not? >> yes. under a certain scenario you could have a scenario where the tyrol was disrupted. it was disrupted in this case. >> it was or it was not? >> if it was. >> out of the protesters stopped before the protesters began. >> it was eight minutes after the funeral started when the protesters left the area. >> is that the extent of the destruction? >> according to all of the witnesses, they took away, according to the priest who was coordinating the mass, they certainly took away the peaceful experience.

>> but you have not objected to that. >> under the right context -- there is a sign out there that says god hates america. i do not think we would have a claim there. if it disrupted the darrelle, i do think it could be explained. >> i am trying to tease out the importance of whether the person is a private person or a public figure. does it make a difference if i am directing public comments to a public or private figure? >> in the context of defamation , -- >> i am talking about

intellection of emotional distress. if i am talking to you as a marine and i was talking about the war and saying that you are perpetuating the horrors that america is doing and said other things that were offensive, which you have a cause of action because you are being called the perpetrator of the american experience? >> i think there would have to be a lot more facts and balt. cts involved. >> speech on a public matter if directed to a private person should beat treated differently under the law? that is what justice breyer was asking. is that your position? >> public speech directed to a private figure should be treated differently than as directed

towards a public official. >> under what theory of the first amendment would we do that? public speech or speech on a public matter should be treated differently depending on the speech? >> that was treated differently. >> the problem is the only other case of we have that deals with this from this court is hustler vs. falwell. the states say it does not apply to a public figure. >> there is a illinois case that

we studied in a brief where it was said it was a matter of public concern. they said the plaintiff was not a public figure, their four, it did not meet the balance of intentional inflation. >> you have to look at the context of the situation. >> going to the context of this speech, do we look at the words on the sign alone or we did it or do we look at -- or do we look at the entire context of the demonstration to determine whether or not the speech here was bad? >> if you do not, anyone could

come up with a public concern. they could direct an epithet a person. >> i am a little concerned of your current acceptance of the proposition if one comes up to eight marine and says that you are courage to begin to a terribly unfair war. that that alone would form the basis for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. i thought it had to be outrageous conduct. >> it does. >> how is that parallel to what you are claiming here? >> there would have to be a lot more packs involved to rise to that level.

>> you have an instance where the defendant has said on television or on the internet something absolutely outrageous. you showed that it was intended to and did and late serious emotional suffering. you show that any reasonable person would have no of that likelihood. did the defendant says, yes i did that, but it was a cause. now because we are trying to demonstrate how old the war is. then it might not leave this alone. it is not going to leave this alone, there is going to be eight rule were we need a approach to tell us how the

first amendment will begin to enter into the balance. there would be no punitive damages in such a case. you have to have a clear or reasonable connection between the private part of this and the public effort. have you tell about that at all? that is what i am seeking an having trouble with. >> hustler vs. falwell was defamation. >> i thought it was intentional inflation? it generally does not apply to a private figure unless the defendant can show a compelling connection there. it has to be a rational connection. in this