you about this morning. the hot line posts a discussion on the midterm elections with members of the house and senate democratic and republican campaign kist on c-span 2 at 8:30 eastern. just after that at 9 eastern, the atlantic council hosts a forum on transatlantic missile defense. that's live on c-span 3. >> every weekend on c-span 3, experience american history tv starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. hear historic speeches by national leaders and eyewitness accounts of eventses that shaped our nation. . coverage, here on c-span.

>> good evening. from the university conference center on the campus of indiana university, indianapolis. on behalf of the indiana debate commission, welcome to the first of three debates. i am your moderator. this is the central indiana debate. the northern indiana debate will be held on october 22 in fort wayne. this southern indiana debate will be held on october 25. as part of our mission to put to voters first, you can still submit your questions for the

remaining two debates by logging onto our website. the three u.s. senate candidates will answer questions from voters for the next hour. the jurors will consider the candid answers. the candidates -- immediately next to meet this democrats brad ellsworth. in the middle is libertarian candidate rebecca sink-burris. on the end is a republican dan coates. they have agreed to the rules of the debates. candidates will have one minute and 30 seconds to answer most questions. in announce that one answers length will carry to allow canada it's enough time to answer. as moderator, they cut off a

candidate who exceeds the time or call for additional time to fully answer a question. it is important to note that all of the questions that will be opposed to might come from hoosier of voters and were reviewed by a committee of the indiana debate commission. the candidate note to use only small notes and no props. we reminded members of our live audience of our house rules as well. now the candidates will each have 30 seconds to introduce themselves and we will start with brad ellsworth. >> thank you. thank you for sponsoring this for a tonight. the decision to run for the united states and it was very serious. it should be serious to the people watching this debate tonight. my career was in law enforcement, 25 years. i think there are two things in

this debate that are important. who will work tirelessly to bring jobs back to indiana and who will fight against the special interest in washington d.c. >> in politics this year, there is been a strong sentiment. the old parties have not listened. instead of new voices, they have given us voices from the past. boyce is favored by party leadership, not by the voters. as your libertarian candidate, i am an ordinary citizen running for office. i represent a change that people have been asking for. i represent the ideals that this country was founded on a. >> thank you. i was -- i am an alumni of this institution. i graduated from law school.

this is a serious time and it deserves serious consideration. i am glad we are having this debate. i got into this race because i was distressed about the country -- about the direction our country was heading into. meet the first person who will ask the question of the candidate. she is an attorney in indianapolis. thank you so much for coming tonight. what is your question? >> good evening. indiana's public schools are in a serious state of crisis. what are your specific ideas about how to help indiana's public schools at the national level? including your thoughts on it no child left behind? >> thank you very much. i think of all the things that we will talk about tonight and all the things that we review,

it all goes back to our children's education. that -- there is not a more important investment we can make. when we look at our kids and how they are, it is not all one test one day. i think we need to invest in charter schools, public schools and promoting private institutions. to answer your question about no child left behind, the idea is good. the goal that is good. but it does not work the same way across our country for every child. we need to look at that legislation. surely, we should not even a child behind. the investments we make are very important trade my daughter is a 30-year educator. we should not be having teachers by the tens and papers, protractors, chairs and filing cabinets to help educate our kids. we need to make every effort to make sure that our children get the education they need.

>> my background is in teaching. i have taught in both the public schools and in private schools. i believe that education is much too important to be left in the hands of a government monopoly. like all monopolies, and they do not serve their constituents well. you do not get choice, availability, innovation. it is just a shame and a crime that low income students are trapped in failing schools. that is absolutely -- that absolutely must change. the federal department of education has not been successful. no child left behind is the last of many programs that have not improved education. i think we need to face the department of education out.

surely, there are people in each state who can figure out how to service every child and not leave any child behind. the important thing we must add to education is choice. we have to empower parents to be able to make educational choices for their children. this means allowing the money to follow the child and allowing the parents to choose what school their child gets to go to. one size does not fit all. even children in the same family need a different type of school and education. >> thank you. our constitution states that those powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government should be left to the states. that is our 10th amendment. education is primarily -- primarily falls in the category of state involvement and state

control. the federal government has created a huge bureaucracy in the department of education, which has done little to improve the scores and to improve the education of children and the public school system. states have the flexibility to promote choice, to let parents make those decisions, and to give low-income students the opportunity to escape a feeling school and have the opportunity to gain an education. that flexibility is critical, i believe, in proving our education -- and improving our education system. if we allow the federal government to dictate our children are educated, you get one size fits all. every state is different. every community is different. states are in a much better position to decide what is best for children. cox our next question was

submitted by john thompson, a utility worker who lives in hartsdale. he would like to know, what are the facts, negative or positive, of the obama health care plant and how will hoosiers' be affected? how would you change the plan and why? >> as you know, i voted for the health care plan that came before us. it was important -- when i first started to run for congress, my first meetings were constituents that if you get elected, please do something about the rising cost of healthcare in this country. i am proud that we took it on. i think that it does some great things. it eliminates pre-existing conditions for children and eventually, adults. it closes the doughnut hole for seniors so that when they get to a certain point of using medication, they do not have to go into bankruptcy or stop taking medicine. eliminates the cap so that if

you get sick and -- you do not spend your whole entire savings on your health care. it gives tax breaks to small businesses. that is a very important first step. is the bill perfect? absolutely not. will it be added to and deleted from? it well. but it was a good first step. >> health care is the same as any other service or commodity. it is best provided by the free market. make no mistake, we have not had a free market in health care for quite a while. that is the main problem of why our health care is gone so expensive. when we look at the causes of this expense, we find that government is involved in almost every case. the recent health care bill has done nothing to lower-cost. in fact, it is going to raise costs dramatically. there are unintended

consequences. it sounds great to allow children to not have -- be denied insurance for pre- existing condition, but in real life what happens is that insurance companies stopped offering policies for children. that is happening in our state today. we need to think very carefully. the person we need to change is having it linked to employment. this is left over from world war ii when there was price control and wage control. if everyone got a tax deduction for buying insurance or any medical care needs, that would vary drastically change the set up. it would make the price mechanism worked to bring the price down. >> i think this health-care bill

was one of the prime examples of what is wrong with washington. at a time of economic distress, now moving into its third year, people out of work, the obama administration, nancy pelosi, supported by opponent as he has tested knowledge, fought back coursing through a 2000-page, at trillion dollar health care reform plan for this country rather than focusing on getting us back to work and getting growth growing again. this is a pent-up 25-year liberal wish dream. when they had the votes to push it through, my opponent was one of those very late votes that brought it to fruition. it imposed upon all of us. taxes, mandates, spending. i have talked to dozens of doctors, nurses, practitioners, insurance companies, medical providers. i've found no one who thinks that this is the way to deal

with legitimate reform that has to be made. we can make provisions for pre- existing conditions without passing a mad at 2000-page bill that cost the state $3.1 billion over the next 10 years. it eliminates the help the hoosier plan. all that is out the window. >> our next question comes from a faculty member in indianapolis and is joining us tonight in person. thank you for being here. what is your question? >> in your view, what are the benefits and drawbacks of term limits and how would you vote on such a proposal? >> we are going to change the order of response. >> i think term limits have

pluses and minuses. it would very much help in the case of gerrymandered districts so that we do get more choice and turnover in the congress and senate. politics has become so divided, almost equally between democrats and republicans, that oftentimes, when it comes to a general election, there is only one candidate running. that does not give americans any choice and term limits would help to increase the choice. i think that would be very good and i would vote in favor of that. part of what you lose in term limits, and you have to take this into consideration, is the experience of being in office. that is of value. we do not want to make the term limits to shorts -- too short. >> i introduced the concept of

term limits and i pledged personally that i would live by that pledge. to serve no more than two terms in the senate. that is why i left. the privateered sector and had the wonderful opportunity to serve as the ambassador of germany. i came back to the private sector. i could not stand idly by and watch what was happening to the country i love. watch what was happening to indiana. the massive growth of government in washington is out of control. the spending is out of control. we have to spend all this money, but you have to pay for it with taxes. we have tax rates that will go up for every american citizen, as congress deals with it. yet they adjourn to come home and campaign without taking action.

these current tax rates expire on december 31 at midnight. now congress will rush back in a lame duck session. that is not the way we ought to deal with very serious issues. term limits give you the freedom to know that your decisions, you are not there to build a career for the lifetime, you are there to do the best job that you can. >> thank you very much. i would like to step back because he left a few details out. his 18 years in congress, it they would have dealt with health care then, maybe it would not have come up. it was also endorsed, he had dozens of meetings. i had thousands of meetings about health care. people said we have to do something. little girls that have juvenile diabetes, nurses at have crippling arthritis.

i am proud that we took it on. the ama endorsed it. the american hospital association endorsed it. i think our constitution spells out the way that people are elected. i do not think you have to worry about term limits with me. after his 18 years in congress, when he said he term limited himself, he negotiated his deal with the lobbying firm the first time. he lobbied would and congress. dent he was assigned as the ambassador of germany and then went back and end eight days after he came home, he had another lucrative job with a logging -- lobbying firm. he has done that the last five years. >> you will have the opportunity to began with the next question. let me ask the question. if you have time remaining, you

can respond. >> our next question was submitted by pulte morgan, a retiree from indianapolis. he would like to know, unemployment seems to be the most important issue. it will undoubtedly haunt us well beyond the november election. what are your plans to reduce it? how much will reducing it cost? how do you intend to implement any solutions that you offer? >> i really feel i need to address that previous question. i regret that campaigns have to be turned into a personal accusations. the issues that face the hoosiers are serious enough that we ought to be debating those issues. i guess i have to say that i am not sure where my opponent is coming from, negotiating a deal. the majority leader of the

united states senate, george mitchell, a democrat, and robert dole, both contacted me and asked if after all left the senate, -- when you leave the senate, we would like to talk to you. a number of people said that. under the law, i am not able to negotiate anything, nor do i want to negotiate anything. i took a month off because i did not even want to think about what was next. it was then that they approached me to join in a special counsel. it was a privilege to be passed. -- to be asked. i think that needs to be corrected. i see that i have used my time. i will try to catch up on the question. >> putting people back to work, putting americans back to work

is the number-one thing we can focus on in this country today. the way that we -- we need to not create federal jobs, but to create the atmosphere that allows the private jobs to create and businesses to create jobs. one thing we have to do is cut the red tape for businesses so that they know what to expect. we have to give them permanent tax breaks. that is what is going to forward a private invest and grow our jobs. we have to stop loopholes that allow countries to ship jobs overseas. we have worked on this already and we have to do more. i was in indiana just a few weeks ago and they moved those jobs to mexico and canada. my opponent worked with the lobbyist and consultant for the company that bought it, sold it, part of the deal was to shut

down that company and do those jobs. they qualified for federal assistance. that is where we have to start. >> hoosiers, are you ready for a change? the jobs issue number one. after eight years of bush and now two or three with obama, the situation has not improved. the republicans are running as off a cliff of dead and -- of debt and public -- deficit spending. the democrats blue -- came in and blew it right off the record at 90 miles an hour. they are still going off that cliff. our country is going to take years and years, if we ever recover.

libertarians believe that it is time to change direction. it is time to go back to the founding fathers and their ideals of free market economics, which produces prosperity and jobs for everyone. i can give you two quick examples. in countries, areas like hong kong, singapore, where they have low taxes and low regulation, but they have property rights and the rule of law, the economy is bustling. an economy where it is controlled from the top to the point where people were just told they could raise vegetables for their own use, it was not legal. that is cuba. >> your time has expired. on to our next question. it comes from a scientist from indianapolis. he would like to know -- many

fiscal experts believe that extending tax cuts for the wealthy is fiscally irresponsible. what is your stand on this issue, and why? >> raising taxes on anyone in this economy, in any sector of the economy, it is unconscionable and the wrong direction. especially raising taxes on the very center of our economy that produces new jobs. small business. small-business owners -- this is a tax increase, not just letting the tax cuts run out. it is a giant tax increase. small business will not be able to grow us out of this recession. they are already struggling to bring people back. the health care built piled on top of this, they do not have the confidence to even go out and add more people to their

workforce. but the other component of not raising taxes during a deep recession is to stop digging the hole we are in. we have to stop spending. it really would not be that hard. i hope that i will get the chance to talk about how we can bring about a balanced budget. >> thank you. i will take the opportunity to enter both of those questions. getting americans back to work requires and in this job killing, massive big government efforts coming out of the obama administration. it is supported by nancy pelosi. this is no time to raise taxes. again, you pass massive spending

programs and then you turn around to losers and say, now you have to pay for them. hoosiersturnaround to futur and say, now you have to pay for them. anyone who has talked to job makers in this state, have understood that the health care -- the health care bill put another burden on them. forcing them to think about outsourcing. a president who is anti private business. no wonder they want to think about moving out. we have got to extend these -- they should not be left to run out. >> your time has expired.

>> i can answer pretty quickly. the tax cuts -- the tax breaks should be extended. they were extended for a reason. now is not the time to raise them. we need to reform our entire tax code. it is too complex for small businesses and for families. i would like to go back to something my opponent said. in the same senate debate in 1992, he gave the same answer that he said then. he never did that. he served his 18 years in congress, went to a lobbying firm, and then went to another lobbying firm. he has not paid taxes in indiana and years. he has not held a driver's

license and has not voted in indiana in 10 years. he has a home in virginia and a home in north carolina. he said then that you should move back home with the people that you represent. he never did. >> the joining us here tonight to ask the next question is a retiree and a community volunteer. we are so glad you are here. what is your question? >> thank you. my question is, since the u.s. supreme court's decision in the citizens united case and the u.s. senate's inability to reach a vote on a bill that would require disclosure on campaign contribution, would you pledged to sign on as a sponsor or cosponsor of senate bill 752, the fair elections act? this bill would make officials

accountable only through their constituents by allowing canada to run for office on small contributions and limited public funds. >> thank you. disclosure is important. people need to know who is funding a race. one thing i regret is that the first amendment allows outside groups to put ads either for us or against us. we should be controlling our own voice and our own message. the court has said that outside organizations have first amendment rights. there is more than disclosure. disclosure needs to show where it is coming from the congressman has received more special interest money percentage wise than any other candidate running for the united states senate. based on his own reports.

if you're talking about giving support for hoosiers, i think it is important for them to know where that money is coming from. >> thank you very much. i think that the bill -- of course we want to look at the bill and read the bill on that issue. i disagree with the supreme court decision on this. i respectfully disagree with it. i think the sunshine on where the money comes from in campaigns is extremely important. we have to turn around and correct that in the senate. i would like to correct -- comment on what my opponent just sad. he raised three times the money that i raised.

if you look at might relent -- my rolodex is nothing like his. he has taken as -- i would venture to guess, many times more in special interest contributions and i have. he is spending about a five-one to what i am spending on television. at what special interest he has tied himself to. 100 special interest that he worked for personally. 800 pages all lobbying reports, as you sit through that. >> i have taken no money from special interest. i am running my campaign on a small donations from

individuals. if there is an independent group of dairy would like to put on radio ads or tv commercials that would help my campaign, i would welcome back. i would expose where the money comes from. there is a downside. if you live in a small community, you sometimes have to tread very carefully in the political scene because the party in power will often take it out on you if you have donated on the other party. there is a double edged sword here. it is good for openness, but it does -- do not be fooled tonight. by canada it's his sound libertarian when they want to get elected. -- by candidates who sound libertarian and want to get elected. every time they get into office, they reneged on those promises.

democrats and republicans both come from the party of big government. you have a choice this year. you can vote for smaller, constitutionally sound government. >> moderator's privilege. what does he have wrong about you? you have 30 seconds. >> thank you for that opportunity. he has totally mischaracterizes what i had done. we put that out for everyone to see. he has misstated completely and we have proven that. independent sources have proven that. it is a tired old washington game, if you do not want to talk about what your party has done, you put out a distraction. >> i would like to respond.

everything i said is a result of his 800 pages and lobbying. i have documentation, his documentation, either he is not telling the truth or is lost firm -- law firm has not. that is against federal law. the facts are the truth. he talks about -- never once -- >> do you have anything to offer? [laughter] >> i am not beholden to any special interest. i take the constitution seriously. i would govern from that standpoint. using the free-market to build prosperity for indiana citizens rather than government schemes

that never work. >> that is enough of the moderators privilege. now back to our citizens. robert, a retiree, is here tonight. what is your question? >> since the approval rating of congress is so low, would you be willing to sponsor legislation to repeal the generous compensation plan now enjoyed by government officials? >> our first candidate. >> that is a great question. when people are hurting in indiana or across the country, we should pay, too. we should feel that. sign a balanced budget amendment. we should do that. i have supported that legislation, but we do -- when i

could not vote against a raise for congress in my very first year, i gave that race to charity. we were successful in cancelling any kind of race were compensation for members of congress. sometimes you see that we have a lucrative health care bill. i have blue cross blue shield. it is just like everybody else's. certainly, we have to tighten our belts across the board and that includes elected officials. >> yes. i would have no problem with that. i would like to take the pay cuts because right now our country is very much hurting. federal workers get paid double in salary and benefits what a comparable position would pay in the private sector. that is unsustainable and it is

wrong and we need to cut those salaries and cut those benefits and be more in line with what the private sector highs. -- has. it is very important not to set us up as two classes of people. the government does not produce jobs. the private sector produces wealth and jobs. the only sector growing right now is the government sector. it is growing by taking money from your pocket and putting it into the government sector, which never operate as efficiently or politely as the private sector. it is very important for us to rain and those costs that have given an unfair advantage to people in government. >> robert, the answer is yes. congress ought to live by the

laws that it asks of citizens. that would be a very constructive step of going forward and i would be happy to introduce that in congress and the people choose to send been there. we also need to balance our budget, but what we see growing here is congress. the only entity that has not tightened its belt in this very serious recession, the worst downturn in the economy since the great depression, families have had to tighten their belts. businesses have had to tighten their belts. are indiana government has had to tighten its belt. only the federal government has expanded in did -- expanded exponentially. their pay is higher than the average worker in america. i think that needs to be addressed. we will not balance the budget if we go to congress -- eight

trillion dollars stimulus bill that did not stimulate workers and get people back to work. a trillion dollar health-care bill that people do not want an think reforms can be made at far less cost. bail alps -- built out, this building here has been greater than any other time in our history. we are putting our children and grandchildren in debt. >> thank you. next up is amy, and joining us tonight. she is a developed manager from indianapolis. >> thank you. i think americans would like to see the incidence of abortions to go down. what is your view on sex education and birth control? >> thank you for that question.

it is an important issue. however, it is not a federal issue. it is an issue that should be handled at the state level. the state should make the rules about such things, as abortion. different states will have different rules. our founders intended, the states were to be incubators and trying to things. if they did not work out, they could be scratched. at least they would not be sent over the entire country and have a bad effect that way. i am in favor of responsible behavior. there are enough different methods of birth control and this day and age, there should be very few unwanted pregnancies. as far as sex education, i am in favor of school choice. you can have your children educated in the way that you want. whether that includes sex education or does not include

sex education, that would be up to a parent. personally, i find the earlier, and the better. i would like to seek abortions down as low as possible -- see abortions down as low as possible, never paid for by tax dollars. >> i am a believer that life begins at conception. life is given to us by our creator. it is sacred and not the responsibility of government to decide who lives and who does not lives. i believe the unborn need protection and the elderly need protection. this is one of the defining issues, i think, as to we are as a people. we all are used -- always been inclusive to -- not to those who are disabled, those who do not enjoy the full benefits of life

that many of us do. the unborn and the elderly it fall into those categories. as far as sex education and birth control, it is not the responsibility of the federal government. it is a decision that ought to be decided between parents and their children. i cannot support something that would put a federal program or a state program or any kind of government program deciding what to teach my children regarding issues of life, regarding issues of sex education. >> i think that the candidates, are pretty much in agreement of this issue. i am a pro-life democrat. pro-life and folks and pro- choice folks should be working together to cut down on the need for abortion. this argument has gone on and

will continue to go on. the more we can do to work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which will reduce abortions. we agreed that it is all life. respect the unborn and do what is right. all life should be respected. whether that is working together to talk about birth control, sex education, we have to do this so that a woman or a young girl is not forced into the times when they have to make a decision whether to terminate a pregnancy. >> a retirement savings are on the minds of many americans with all the turmoil that has taken place over the past several years. so security is a key part of retirement sick -- social security is a key part of retirement security. are you in favor of privatizing

social security in any way it court -- and argue in favor of raising the age in which americans can receive retirement benefits? we would like to start with dan coates. >> we all know that our entitlement to social security, medicare, medicaid are in serious trouble. there is the number of workers speeding into the fund diminishes. these funds are basing -- facing some crises in the future. for years and years, congress has kicked the can down the road and said, let the next congress deal with that. the time has run out. we need to look at how we can restructure those programs in a way that preserves and saves the hard earned payments that taxpayers have put into those funds and to guarantee -- the

guarantees we have to provide them their retirement income. yes, there needs to be a look at a whole variety of menu of options regarding how we can do that. raising the retirement age is one thing that has been suggested. i think we should take a serious look at that. we did that in 1984. maybe it is a way to go forward to secure social security. there are long-range changes that could be looked at. we ought to have an adult conversation. we need to stop playing politics with. >> your time has expired. to brad ellsworth -- >> i think social security is a successful program. we have done a huge injustice by robbing the fund over the years.

it occurred when we concentrate on putting people back to work, they will be paying into social security. i opposed the privatization of social security. i imagine what would have happened to our social security trust fund had it been privatized. 70 is not that old. when you are on the end of a jackhammer, it is a little different. his position kind of stuns me because he has already endorsed early in the campaign, he endorsed the pulte ryan plan, which does privatized social security. yet, when people started to back off and you -- he changed his position. it is just another example of where he says one thing and comes back and change is with the wind. >> social security is insolvent.

it is a ponzi scheme. unlike bernie madoff, who only hurt a certain number of people, social security is perpetrated on the entire united states. that is what happens when you put government in charge of your retirement. if it is not done well, it hurts the entire country. that is why these things should be handled at the state level. states can experiment and find out what works. anything that we do to social security, so that it does remain solvent, we need to make sure that the elderly are protected. we have to keep those promises. i do not think anyone disagrees with that. statistically, it is a very bad

deal for younger workers and it cannot be sustained in the current way. what we need to do -- i have one suggestion. one way is to take our social security taxes and let the half that the employee pays be put into an account, like a 401k. the government would not be able to borrow for it to pay for general fund spending. >> thank you very much. mark who works as a cashier and lives in indianapolis 7 and our next question. he would like to know the following. in your official role as the united states senator, what would your position be if faced with casting votes on the related issues of the don't ask don't tell policy concerning gays in the military or a constitutional amendment to defined marriage as only between

a man and woman? i would like for each of you to take 45 seconds to respond to this question. >> i do not really understand what the federal government has to do with marriage. whether it is a heterosexual marriage or a marriage of same- sex couples. it is not in the constitution. it belongs at the state level. it should be done through contracts. everyone should have a marriage contract. we can take that problem off. if people want to have a marriage, a traditional marriage, they can go to a church and have their marriage sanctified anyway that they choose. under the law, every person in this country has to be treated equally. as far as don't ask, don't tell -- >> your time has expired, unfortunately. >> i believe marriages between a

man and a woman. that has how it has been since the beginning of time. this does not mean that someone can choose to live an alternative lifestyle. just do not call it marriage. on don't ask, don't tell, i was part of the effort that negotiated that with the democrats. it has worked as effectively because our military had testified significantly on the difficulty of that issue. >> your time has expired. >> i believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. in regards to don't ask don't

tell, i fall in line with secretary gates don't ask don't tell is coming to an end. we are forcing anyone who is going to go fight for our country and be injured and killed, they should have the right to serve. we are spending billions of dollars kicking good soldiers out of our military. >> now we have reached our final question of the evening. you are back to 90 seconds. joining us tonight is a social worker. what is your question? >> thank you. the current administration vows to change washington and in partisan politics. however, it seems as though the political climate is more partisan than ever. what would you do to encourage more collaboration amongst the parties? >> thank you for that question.

we need to send people to washington -- my career in law enforcement was about resolving disputes. listening to all sides and try to fix the problem as best you can. it was not about republicans and democrats, black and white, rich and poor. that is what people do not like about washington. they want the truth. they want someone to serve the public and not serve themselves. we can stop senators and congressmen from going to be, lobbyists. put a lifetime ban. then they really will come home after they suggest and come home to the people they represent. that needs to happen. civilities to return to washington d.c. no one had a corner on the market on good ideas. we should be working together.

i have one of the most independent voting records in the house of representatives. to critics know that great working together, not stereotyping one side from the other is during important. that -- those are the kinds of people we should research and sent to washington. >> if you want government to change and if you want the atmosphere in congress to change, you need to stop wasting your vote on old parties. you need to send a party to washington who cares about the people in the country and the people in this state. they are not beholden to special interest and not worried about what committee they will get on, someone who has worked with both sides of the aisle as well as combined with people who have agreed on controversial issues and have come together. there are several plans that

have been agreed to two people and are in favor of it. as far as cutting military spending or the way to save social security, i would join with those kinds of people in the senate. you cannot count on the old parties to change. it just is not going to happen. if you continue voting for them, they will continue to ignore you. if you do not vote, they will ignore you. if you vote for a libertarian, they know that you want to change. you have seen it through the smoke screen. you want small constitutionally limited government. do not waste your vote this time. check out my website. >> thank you. >> this is not about civility. our country is in a serious

recession. unemployment is higher than it has been since the great depression. we are entering a third year. we have a government that my opponent supported 90% of the time. it is putting our country -- our children at risk and our grandchildren without the kind of opportunities that we have had. we have a serious problem that we have to address. we have to hold this party responsible for taking us in the wrong direction. we are entering the third year of a serious recession. kids are graduating from college and cannot get jobs. we have a bailout -- we have had

bailout of companies and bailouts of the banks and entities that caused this problem in the first place. the spending is beyond comprehension and we have to put a stop to it. it is by cutting back on washington, going back to principles of limited government. >> thank you. thank you for watching the 2010 u.s. senate debate sponsored by the internet -- indiana debate commission. our thanks to the candidate, dan coates, brad ellsworth, rebecca sink-burris. we would also like to thank our broadcast coverage. we would also like to thank our host, the university conference center.

a special thanks to the voters to ask questions tonight. you can submit your own question to the candidate for the october 22 debate in fort wayne or the october 25 debate. to do so, log onto our website. on beh night. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ [laughter] [applause] ♪

>> 37 senate seats are being contested this year. 18 currently held by republicans, 19 held by democrats. you can see all the key debate online at c-span.org/politics. in the senate race in florida, political reports that democratic m candidate democraticeek is not in negotiations with charlie crist to drop out of the race. meek is denying the allegations. that this is designed to keep out marco rubio. >> in a few moments, your phone

calls and today's headlines all live on "washington journal." our coverage of campaign 2010 continues tonight with debates between the senate candidates in wisconsin and north carolina. and we will look at efforts by state attorneys general to combat foreclosures and their states. our guest will be indiana attorney general greg zoeller. then we will be joined by the chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee, representative chris van hollen. and two former members of congress will talk about their efforts to help members of both parties find common ground. our guest will be a republican john porter of illinois and david skaggs of colorado. "washington journal" is next. "washington journal" is next.