candidates for the 8th district house seat. >> the c-spant networks cover nonfictin books and -- nonfiction books and social networking. we take c-span on the road with the local content vehicle. it is washington, your way. now available in 100,000,000 homes. . .

>> tolive viewers joining us via national journal.com, i'm victoria rose, and it's a pleasure to welcome you here this morning. this morning's event would not be possible without the support of our underwriters, the credit union national association and corvus communications. we thank them both for helping us bring you this event. leading it today for national journal is editor in chief reed wilson and susan davis. subscribers depend on reed's weekly column "on the trail," which is found on our web site, and before becoming editor in chief, reed was the editor of hot line on call. he has served as a staff writer for the hill newspaper and has covered the supreme court, the sec and top political races as they have developed across the

country. susan davis is one of our new congressional correspondents, and you'll be seeing her bylines in national journal magazine, congress daily and also on national journal.com. she comes to us from "the wall street journal" where she has been the lead writer for the popular political blog, "washington wire." a neb of -- member of the washington you journal's politil team since 2007, she covered the national campaigns and the u.s. house for roll call. susan's position is a bit of a homecoming of sorts as she previously worked for congress daily and also campaign finance beats. and her first stint at national journal began in the research department of the "almanac of american politics", so all roads eventually lead to national journal. we will be taking questions from you all, we will be passing around a live microphone, and we do ask that you identify yourself and your organization

and then let it rip. lastly, before we get started i would ask for you all to, please, silence your cell phones. i know we are a 24/7 wired community, but if you would help our conversation to flow, it would be greatly appreciated. and now, reed and susan, over to you. >> good morning. want to take a minute and introduce our panelists. sitting to my right is j.p. purse. j.b. worked for rhode island senator jack reed. he has previously served as directer for the dccc, and he's worked on campaigns including the 1998 senate run and state directer for the kerry/edwards campaign in ohio. also joining us is the gentleman in the red tie. one of the first time texas governor john cornyn picked to

serve his staff. a veteran political operative, he previously worked on the 2008 mccain campaign and in 2006 served as the republican national committee's southeast regional political directer. his experience also includes running campaigns in tennessee, mississippi, illinois and minnesota. >> and our house panelists today just to my left is guy harrison, the executive directer of the national republican commission. guy worked with pete sessions as chief of staff in his personnel office. after graduating from dartmouth, he began working for pete sessions and has helped guide the chairman to multiple wins including the texas redistricting win in 2004. two seats to his left is john vogel, the executive directer of the democratic executive campaign committee under congressman chris van hollen. he's enjoyed unprecedented back-to-back congressional gains resulting this one of the

largest -- the largest democratic majority since 1992. he has previously served as the dccc's ie program where in 2008 he directed an $85 million effort that played in 67 districts. john's worked extensively on capitol hill including for steve israel and former congressman dick gephardt, and i want to start with the house guys. just let's kick it right off. guy, are republicans going to take back the house in 2010? >> i think the field is broad, and i think it's exactly where leader boehner said it was four months ago and was laughed at for saying we had more than 100 seats in play. i think that's pretty much agreed to by most political experts. i think we have enough races in the field to get this done. it's a question of execution in the last two or three weeks. you know, i feel better than we did a month ago, and i feel better than we did two months

ago, but it's still a matter of execution. we've done everything we wanted to do which was to have a very large playing field. many races in play. and had enough resources to fund all those. >> john, are democrats going to keep the house? >> yes. democrats will keep the house. if you look at the anatomy, we have a 39-seat majority right now. we will pick up at least four republican seats, including in louisiana, in illinois, picking up a seat in hawaii, picking up the delaware seat and potentially picking up the open seat in florida. that brings the majority to 43 seats. the back of a major gain usually happens from opens. there are right now 15 competitive democratic openings, so we give them the benefit of the doubt, they get eight or nine of them. they still have to beat 35 democratic incumbents which is a very, very tall task. they've got to put at least 70 of those into play because unless you're roy halladay, you're not pitching a no-hitter

here. and they don't have the candidates, frankly. if you look at the news breaking over the past couple weeks, you know, their big time candidate against betty sutton turns out he was involved in a sexual assault case. you know, the candidate running against chris carney in pennsylvania turns out was investigated by the department of justice when he worked for them and was forced to leave. so as those things start to come off the table, they have less and less opportunities to pick up those seats. and if you look at the strategy, and i think the republicans have started to understand that because they've recognized they don't have enough seats in play, so they're now trying to expand the field. but they're going into places that are relatively safe for us. you don't go after tim walls unless you realize that your assault on harry mitchell was not successful earlier on. they just don't, frankly, have the numbers to pick up those 35 incumbents. >> let's move over to senate side, essentially the same we. rob and j.b., where do you see

the senate playing field narrowing to in the final stretch? >> i think that there's still a dozen races at very least that remain competitive. we started with probably the largest field we've had in some time, and now we're getting to a dozen competitive races, arguably five of them are tied, i think, to races where republicans probably didn't expect them including in kentucky. there are probably five races that are particularly close in places like nevada and colorado, illinois. all of these places you're going to see play out going into election. we expect them to be tight. republicans have a, the wanted task of trying to take it back. they're not going to do it this cycle. the mat's too hard. out of those dozen, they would hope i'd win only two. that's just not likely at all

having strong leads in several more than that so far. >> well, i agree with j.b. that there's probably a dozen seats in play although i think all of them are democratic seats. i expect to hold every republican seat, there's not a republican incumbent that's in serious trouble. and according to real clear politics, we're up in nine democratic seats this morning. senator cornyn has been clear this is probably a two-cycle process. but i think there's a path, and j.b.'s right in this sense, we would need to basically run the table. but, you know, there's a path there depending on how things shake out. >> i want to follow up on that just to talk about a couple races specifically. one, obviously, being nevada. senate majority leader harry reid, sharron angle's not the candidate that republicans initially wanted to get, but she's the candidate they have. there's been some skepticism that she's going to be able to beat him, but what do you see,

rob? what does sharron angle need to do, what are the dynamics in that race that you think she could win? >> first off, i don't know what republicans are referring to that she's not the candidate. she won the primary fair and square. reid did an excellent job, and that was his opportunity to really knock her out, and he didn't do it. he's constantly stuck at 43, 44, 45%. and i think j.b. and i probably agree on this. this is going to be an exceptionally close race. our internal numbers basically match the public numbers which are usually a point or two ahead, but some days we're tied. i just think this is going to be a really, really, really, really close race. >> yeah. no. we don't really see this race at all alike here. i think august was probably the key time, july and august. right after that june primary we

had a good six to eight weeks on our own to be able to define sharron angle, introduce her to nevada voters, somebody who right out of the box was up front in saying she wanted to phase out social security and medicare, didn't think it was her job to seek jobs for the state of north dakota. that's all -- nevada. that's all come as news, as a result her, almost shockingly, her negatives are much higher than the leader. when you ask voters the key questions about who's on your side, who do you trust, who's going to fight for you in nevada, who's going to fight for jobs, those are all arguments that the leader wins hands down. obviously, we have a lot of confidence with what we have on the ground here. this is a terrific operation, a great campaign. i think it'll be close, but i see it differently. i think the leader's had a lead here for two or three months and

will hold that right through election day. >> let me ask one more, go back to guy and john for a second. guy, you mentioned -- john, i'm sorry, you mentioned republicans expanding the map going into places like minnesota's first district with tim waltz, ben chandler's district, sanford bishop's district, i don't think a lot of people expected them to be competitive at the beginning of the cycle. guy, let me direct this to you. isn't that an indication, or in your mind is that an indication that the map is expanding favorably? >> you know, i think it's interesting the way the dccc sometimes says, hey, we, we're completely fine here. they said they were completely fine in new york 20, they said there's no chance we could make that into a race again. next thing you know, they're buying time and defending their candidate. ohio six i fully plan on them coming in and spending money because they've already spent money in illinois 17. mississippi four, maybe they

don't care about gene taylor, maybe they don't care about the fact that he's in the low 40s. i would say this, every single one of these inp couple bents we're going to discuss on the democrat side is probably under 46 on their initial ballot, and i don't think that's a good place to be a month out. we went through '06 and '08, and we found your initial ballot has something to do with the ability of you to win at the end of the day. so i feel like we're expanding the field in the right places. you know, are we going to have some candidates that are going to lose? of course. because that's the only thing that prevents us from having an 80-seat gain. obviously, we think we have a good opportunity, and we feel confident in the places we're investing in. >> jon, isn't expanding the field late exactly what the dccc did in 2006 and 2008? >> we focused those resources on making sure we won where we

needed to win. what, clearly, the republican party is doing is they've decided to spend a lot more money up front, and they tried to take out a lot of people early on, and they were not success. if you look at the outside groups spending and the nrcc's spending, they made a full frontal assault on people like harry mitchell and bill foster. they were not successful. so in order for them -- all the the,. [inaudible] declared victory in the house, but in order to get there, they need to expand that playing field because they don't have enough out of our front tier races to get there. >> let me ask one more real quick. jon, you just mentioned a lot of people think the republicans will take over the house. guy, are expectations for republicans too high right now? >> no. they're exactly where they need to be. the fact is we have the opportunity to take over the house, we started this cycle saying our mission statement at

the nrcc was retire nancy pelosi, and we wake up every day focused on doing that. the facts are about a year and a half ago everyone laughed at us for looking at that, but this is exactly the plan that we had in place to expand this field, and, you know, i guess we haven't retired enough races. i think we're at 16 or 17, and it'll be interesting to see how many praises the dccc pulls out of today. i guess they pulled out of yesterday, you know, the shack bits seat, and i'd look forward to knowing where you're pulling out today. [laughter] >> jon? >> we're not -- look, we invest in our races in multiple different ways. we have a very strong ground game going right now in ohio's first congressional district, and we're constantly moving resources around to meet the threat of unprecedented third-party spending that's going on against us, and we have to be flexible in our spending because there was a change in

the law that made this cycle different than any other previous cycle. >> i'm sure you're very excited about those block walkers you have in the district. >> i want to ask about president obama. how would -- i would open this up to all of you -- how would you characterize the role the president has played in the midterms and whether or not he's been an asset or a hindrance to your candidates? >> the president's been a huge asset for us, and i think he's been very good at defining the choice between what the republican party has to offer and what the democrats have to offer. the democrats, clearly, fighting for the middle class, and the republicans continue to side with corporations out there. the president has made that very clear, and what he's doing over these next few weeks is energizing our base. what we saw in the special elections was that there was an enthusiasm gap, but as it got closer to the election, that began to close, and the

president now is very focused on energizing the democratic base, and he'll be successful at that. >> i have some districts i'd like the president to visit. [laughter] >> in the ads that we've seen running so far this cycle, we've heard about the outside groups, but the candidates themselves are running ads that are largely negative. i talked to one democrat, i think, before labor day there were what, jon, 46 house democrats up in the airsome. >> somewhere around there. >> is and i asked him how many of those ads were negative, he said, i hope all of them are. why aren't the democrats running more positive ads? j.b.? >> i guess i disagree with your theory. we've got candidates all over the country that have had a good balance of ads that have something to say about framing what this race in november's going to look like, making the

argument as jon just put out between one where going forward on one side you've got fighters who are going to avoid tax breaks for overseas that are going to stand up against privatizing social security, against cutting medicare. they've got an argument to make as democrats, and for some republicans -- [inaudible] >> i think our candidates are out there. well, i think two things to answer this question. one is i don't think the cycle is different from 2006 or 2008 in terms of the mix of what our candidates are running. they're delineating the choice, and they're making it a choice between what they stand for as a candidate and what the other side stands for, and that's what they're doing. so it's not just throwing dirt at somebody, but it's saying, this is where i stand. i'll protect social security, my opponent wants to privatize it. my opponent wants to give tax

breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. that's the choice out there right now. >> on the republican side we've heard about the referendum election the democrats are trying to bring up, and we have seen republican negatives in polls going way up. sharron angle's negatives are higher than her positives. the same thing for a number of house candidates too. guys, are the, is the democratic strategy of making this a contrast election working? >> well, i mean, i think this is clearly a referendum on the president and unchecked power. and the reality is are you better off today than you were a year and a half ago? is the country better off after spending $800 billion on stimulus, 10% employment, is it better off raising taxes? they couldn't even pass a budget this year. they didn't even -- and when they had an opportunity to extend tax cuts to the country, they failed to do it. and so if i were them, i

wouldn't be on the record either. it's not very good. so, you know, if you think the country's better off with how things are going in washington, then the republican candidate in your state isn't the choice for you. >> but isn't this a -- they're trying to make it into a contrast election? we've seen republican negatives go up. guy, are you seeing that in your campaigns? >> we always figure that -- [inaudible] incumbents which had about an $800,000 cash-on-hand gap between the incumbent and challenger was going to be able to disqualify some of our candidates. what we found is for the most part we survived the month of september, and now we're to the place where we'll have equalized money. of course the nrcc spent some money during can september because we wanted to make sure that we could equalize that massive spending disadvantage. but i'm not seeing our negatives get to a place that we're disqualified. and, frank, going back to the

last question, i view both pelosi and obama as a huge asset for the nrcc. every time pelosi goes on television, she creates a new downer, she creates a new republican voter. of so we encourage both obama and pelosi to visit all of our swing states. i'm sure they'll be nowhere near any of them, but i'm sure the dccc will find the two places that they've gone to, you know, secretly and quietly in a meeting they'd never shared with the public. so, you know, i think we have -- this is a referendum on them, and, you know, we've been through this. in '06 and '08, we tried to use all the arguments that my friend over here is using, and the fact is we knew those arguments were specious then and they're more specious now. >> actually, i think voters are smarter than the litany we're getting right now. republicans were faced with a couple of challenges here that hasn't gone away from them.

they came into the last two years carrying a tremendous burden from their share of the accountability at where the economy stood. voters instinctively understood that republicans were responsible for the direction and melee of economic misdirection, and as a result even to this day when there's talk of the tea party, the ratings usually are a little bit higher because the republican party ranks so low in the minds of voters. this further played out in the republican primaries over the last few months where, essentially, the fight we're having or the discussion we're having here is what happened in the primary where tea party candidates were turning to the establishment and saying, hey, weren't you the guys and gals that created this mess in the first place? and that's the question our candidates are asking. >> with very few exceptions, i

can think of a couple, almost every democrat that voted for the health care bill is either not running on their vote or not bringing it up in their election. obviously, this is not a good time for the policy debate, but do you think that the health care was a political miscalculation for the democrats? >> i don't think that. i think it's been interesting to see the way the health care debate has shifted. you're just as likely to see on television a debate on where republicans are in terms of their seemingly eagerness to phase out medicare than you are on the president's health care policy. oh where, oh where did repeal and replace go? that sounded like a good pithy line on behalf of the senate republican leadership, but you don't hear it out there in their candidates. rob has ten senate republican candidates that are on record as wanting to phase out medicare,

and as a result i think seniors are scratching their heads and recognizing that the real threat is on the republican side. >> i agree with j.b. that voters are smarter than maybe we give them credit for, and nobody thinks the republicans are going to phase out medicare. it's a ridiculous argument -- >> position, nonetheless. >> -- up in nine democratic seats right now and in every republican seat. nobody's run -- and feingold's running on stimulus and health care and getting throttled, and everyone else isn't talking about it. it's totally -- it's incredibly unpopular, the process was terrible, the outcome was worse, and i wouldn't run on it either if i were them. >> let's focus for a minute on, you both just brought up russ feingold. a guy who's been in office a long time, he's cultivated this image as an independent, somebody that's not connected to his party's leadership in washington. j.b., why is feingold in trouble

this year? >> well, i think a couple of things that, obviously, is a toss-up, remains a competitive race. we're going to see that be competitive all the way through. johnson, a self-financed candidate, got off to a good start. voters had no idea who he was. as we get closer to election day and we get a little closer to the guy that told us that sun supports cause -- sunspots cause global warming, we're seeing somebody who has a penchant for fitting right into the tea party platform of privatizing social security and others. we're -- i think russ has done a terrific job of creating a contrast here. here's a senator who has a record on standing up for debt deficit, a moderate, thoughtful senator that's going to hold his own on election day and win.

>> rob, what's going on in that race? >> i mean, i just think his act is up. he's been there for 19 years, he's been talking about going to washington and shaking it up, and i think he hasn't done it. he voted for stimulus which is, you know, again, $800 billion down the drain. and he just -- people aren't buying what he's selling anymore, and ron johnson, i mean, this is the problem the democrats have, i think, generally. they live in an ivory tower in d.c. and look down on ron johnson, a guy who created a business, employs people, a pillar of his community, just a good, decent guy. but it may not be good enough up here in the cocktail circuit. ron's a great guy, and that's why he's consistently above 50 in wisconsin, and i think he's going to be the next united states senator in wisconsin. >> guy, last month republican leaders unveiled a document called the pledge to america which was their governing agenda. but we haven't really seen that translate out on the campaign

trail. we haven't seen republican candidates talking about it or embracing it. do you feel that the pledge was necessary? >> of course the pledge is necessary. i mean, we need to have leadership and the conference state where they think we should move the country forward. but the fact is right now this race is about the democrats, not about us, and we're going to keep it focused on their record and what they have accomplished or not accomplished. i mean, i think, i think going back to the health care question, you know, the one thing that we found in congressional races is everyone is against health care. both the democrats and the republicans. you can see it in their ads. so, as usual, just like the rest of this democrat answer the only bipartisan answer to the democrat agenda is no. we saw it in the stimulus, we saw it in health care, we saw it in the cap and trade, and the fact is there's a group of independents, republicans and democrats, that want to stop this agenda. eventually, i guess, some will

wake up when you've got peter defazio saying, you know what? maybe nancy pelosi shouldn't be speaker. i guess that is now, i guess we've now gotten the full caucus to say probably she shouldn't be speaker and, listen, our republican candidates out there believe that as well. >> what is it about nancy pelosi that you've mentioned her a couple time, why do republicans have such a visceral reaction to her? >> it may be the fact that she closed -- [inaudible] spends a trillion dollars, pushes a cap and trade bill that's going to ruin the energy sector of our economy and tries to push a public health option on health care. but other than that, i think we're fine with her. [laughter] >> i would give jon a chance on this one. >> republicans have tried this act before, and it was not successful. i mean, they must have run 10,000 points behind going after the president and going after speaker pelosi in the pennsylvania 12 special election. they were not successful. they tried the same tactic in the new york 23 special

election, they were not successful. you know, there's one ad up across the country that's running right now from republicans and their outside groups, and it's trying to tie people to the president or to the speaker. and, frankly, people vote on their individual member on the ballot, and they vote on the candidates they're running against. and the problem with the republicans -- the problem the republicans are facing right now is that they have some very flawed candidates out there, and clearly, there was not a serious vetting process going on. when it comes out on friday that one of their young candidates was a nazi reinvestment enactor, that's kind of a problem for the committee. when it turns out that one of your candidates was accused of sexual assault, i mean, we can go through the list. it's multiple layers of people out there, and that's going to be on the ballot. the voters ultimately ask themselves, well, who's on my side, and whose direction for the country do i believe in more? when you layer that together with either the republican

candidate promoting outsourcing of american jobs, abolishing medicare and then personal ethics issues, you have a serious problem. >> the key -- democrats have tried to turn out these new surge voters who voted for the first time in 2008. the key to that seems to be getting, having president obama himself energizing these voters, massive investment from the dnc, field programs that both of your committees are running. what do you both see right now that indicates that those surge voters are going to come out and going to vote democratic? >> we're getting an incredible response. i mean, just in terms of the numbers, we're knocking on over 200,000 doors a weekend, and we're just getting started in terms of that. we're getting a good response from the ground in the early vote, and more of the democratic-leaning areas are coming in our direction. >> and i think you're right. i think the president is key to it. he's been terrific on the stump.

the dnc's been real thoughtful in programmatically helping campaigns in states get ready. we're just a few weeks away, and as jon says, a lot of emphasis on door-to-door. it has a lot of energy, and a lot of the polling both the generic ballot and the so-called enthusiasm gap closing. a lot of this activity, and the president's leadership has a lot to do with it. .. the fact is our voters -- they

understand when you're losing an election you go to tactics. when you're losing elections you go to personal sources. i don't know who those personal assaults are on. he just randomly is throwing out facts on people doing sexual assault and whatever. but the fact is, you know, there's this idea that, i guess, that that's ok in this time period to run through 20-year-old divorces and other things. i guess we need to dump out our file as well. and i'm sure they'll be coming soon. >> it was tom running against betty who was sued last week. it turns out he settled for $25,000. the police are now investigating him. this was on the cover of "the cleveland dealer" and he pulled the television advertisement. >> what is have they done to improve the republican field game? nrsc done to improve the field?

>> the ground game we find we're not going to win or lose any seats based on the democratic ground game, we'll be in good shape there. i find it amusing that 21 days before the election, the president's major initiative is to launch a tax -- attacks upon its u.s. chamber of commerce. that's going to get people fired up and motivated. i think people out in the country look hat -- see what 10% unemployment and a trillion dollar deficit and a $13 trillion debt and they see the president talking, who spent $750 million getting himself elected president, talking, attacking the u.s. chamber of commerce, 21 days before the election. and you know, it's like bob schieffer said to david axelrod, is this the best you can do. so if that fires up the voters, let's have at it, but the rest of the people, just, it further this image of the white house of being totally detached from what's happening out in america.

>> rob, you referenced the u.s. chamber. obviously, that's in regards to the citizens united campaign finance decision, there's been a lot of debate about that in the closing weeks of the campaign. how is that de -- how has that decision affected your campaigns this year? >> well, i don't think it's affected them that much, in the sense that campaigns still to run -- they still need to focus on their campaign and what they can control. i think the chamber along with move on.org, and emily's list and several other groups left are engaging their constitutional right, it's the country we live in, that's fine but at the end of the day, the campaign is responsible for their campaign and that's what's happening. >> i think there's something important here that feeds into the larger nair testify. if you look at the groups that are spending money and for the places we do know what they stand for, it kind of delineates the clear difference between the two parties here. you have a group called 60 plus, spending millions of dollars. the group 60 plus is funded by insurance companies, who will

make billions off of privatizing medicare, so there's hand agenda behind their ads and why they're pushing these advertisements. you know, its chamber has and again, that's aimed at professor motoring the outsourcing of american jobs and they're spending money against those who stood against that. >> wait. wait. the chamber's agenda is outsourcing u.s. jobs? the u.s. chamber of commerce? >> let's separate -- >> wait. wait. i want to make sure. i mean, that's ridiculous. >> tom donahoe talks the b the values of outsource and what it does for efficiency in the united states work force. >> u.s. chambers job is to outsource american jobs. we have jumped officially to shark. good job. >> well, i'll remind you, i can send you over tom donahoe's quotes and the fact that they stood up against our efforts, and opposed our he was. >> if you wonder why people think democrats are anti-business. thank you. >> all right.

well, moving moving quickly on. john, 15 jibe. >> i think you need to separate the home chambers who have endorsed our candidates, versus the u.s. chamber who is spending money in this agenda and there's a difference between those two. >> we need to separate the small businesses i didn't y'all care about which is anywhere between 10 and 15 jobs, and if they get to 16 jobs, we don't like that small business and if they make money, we don't like the small business. what is the small business that y'all like? >> we're going to go back and forth monday this. >> no. let's -- >> let's refocus the question on citizens united. the issue is the outside money being used in the 2010 elections and in a way, outside groups are affecting the way campaigns can control their message. >> i appreciate probable's passionate defense of individual's constitutional rights to use undisclosed checks to influence the election's outcomes. so far on the senate side on the

republicans, we've seen at least to date $44 million on the republican side. almost half of it is cross-roads, karl rove's group, in karl's mind, the folks here in this room don't matter, and state party organizations matter. what matters is that living room at weaver terrace where the states organize and go from there. cross-roads is an interesting development. when rove started the group in january, he made a big deal about their intention to disclose its donors and they did that until about july. the openly problem was they had only raised $3 million, and they had gotten it from three oilmen from dallas. they quickly changed their tax status and formed an undisclosed gripe. most of the money, most of the energy is surprise, surprise on that mysterious group of undisclosed donors, who continue to pour money in to the psych em. >> but what -- cycle.

>> but what republicans are doing, you may not like it, why are democrats engaging on that playing field? >> it's -- i'd say a couple of things about it. it may not be illegal. but i certainly don't think it's amusing to ask where's the money coming from. where's the money channeled to. you have a majority of democratic donors and frankly democratic institutions, republicans are pointing to labor and move on. what they don't tell you is a lot of those are financed under p.a.c.'s and not the 501c's where the donors are disclosed. there's a lot more openness, a lot more disclosure with the federal p.a.c.'s. that's where the packs is. >> and most of the action has

been on the senate side. it's something that rob and j.b. have had to deal with. guy, are you concerned at all that some of these outside groups have not poured the same resources into the house contests as they have the senate contests? >> you know, we've -- all the way through, we've had to make sure that we focus our donors on where the best rates as possible. to be frank, it is hard to keep our list up, and we added, you know, six to seven new races on a week. you know, last week we added the ohio six, tennessee four, minnesota one. missouri, four. and then -- but, you know, i think at the end of the day, we're going to feel good about where the races we've run, with the presources we've had, and outside groups can fund either way. i do think it's kind of funny to watch the democrats talk about all the big money that's in there. you know, we have 25 who million

dollars -- $250 million that the unions are spending that's conscripted from union members. they get no choice over where that money is spent, but hey, $250 million versus however much karl rove is going to spend. i'm sure it's an equal amount. >> john, let me direct this next one to you. in all these, you know, independent expenditure reports we're seeing, we're really not seeing that much, union money coming in yet. are you concerned that the unions are sitting on their wallets? >> i think the unions have been very engaged in what they need to be doing to communicating with union members and doing the member to member program. >> but nothing in terms of the -- i mean, j.b. -- >> you know, you're exaggerating what has occurred in the past. the fact is probably in terms of labor money, behind campaign ads, probably at the same level it's always been. i expect that maybe hule see between $7 million an $10 million, that's what it was in senate races in 2008, the number wasn't far off in 2006.

a majority of labor's energy, not unlike companies and corporations getting their own out, ed kidding their own -- educating their own votes. that's the way labor and corporations does it. what we're talking about lear is $44 million that comes out on top of it that isn't about educating their own, but about hiding undisclosed money and running negative ads. >> back to the democrats turnout model happened the money that they're spending. organizing for america, the outgrowth of president obama's campaign, sort of the second generation of the howard dean 50 state strategy perhaps and sending staff necessary to various states, has that met your expectations, john? >> we've been very pleased with the activity we've been working with them and it's frankly a very different program than howard dean's program.

but i mean, they are in all of our -- the majority of our targeted races, they're organizing volunteers, they're organizing get out the vote efforts and i think that that will show through on the election day results. >> j.b., have you been pleased with what the d.n.c. has done for senate candidates? >> yeah. i got to that earlier. i'm especially pleased with not only the tools and technology that's going in to targeting and getting out voters, but the d.n.c. has put a lot of energy into full-time organizers that have been out there a while. they're now part of the fabric of campaigns, and i'm -- i'm playing a big leadership role. >> i want to ask something maybe a little less controversial. sarah palin. obviously there's been a high level of interest in the media whenever she gets involved in house races, senate races with endorsements, but from where you sit what, is the impact of a

sarah palin endorsement? >> it's putting someone on the fringe and there's three proehl impacts of the tea party movements on the house election this cycle. the first is where the moderate candidate in the primary election is defeated by the person on the far right and whether or not that be the delegate at large seat or that be jesse kelly winning in arizona eight, you know, essentially many of those of places take those campaigns off the table for the republican side. that's one element. the second is where it forces the republican candidate, who wins its primary, to have taken positions that are not popular for a regular general election, and then the third is, where you actually have they're continuing the tea party candidate continues to run in the general election where it no longer requires a 50 plus one vote if win on the democratic side. we're seeing that play out with the third party candidate clark taking up a substantial amount

of the vote and that's happening all over the place. >> i think governor palin is obviously an important member of our party and actively campaigned for a lot of candidates up and down the ballot, and frankly, she's probably -- it's probably easier for her to go in to most places than president obama. president obama is going to connecticut, he's going to washington state, you know, with the exception of missouri and ohio for fund raisers, and doing anything public there at all, because i think people don't want continued unchecked power of president obama. >> go ahead. >> kind of leads to the segue about the tea party. the tea party movement has sort of captivated the attention of the midterm election cycle. als we head into the final days, do you feel the tea party has become part of the republican party, or do you feel that they operate on sort of maybe a dual track? >> i think they're one of the many pieces to our coalition. we obviously have candidates

that can appeal to a variety of -- variety of these coalition members, and whether that's veterans, tea party members, or sportsmen. that they -- you know, we have to -- we have to always look at coalitions and try to figure out a way to get those individuals involved. i also would really like everyone to stop preferring to the tea party as this one big monolith. every single tea party group is different. they have different opinions and every time the national media or the democrats try to paint them with one big brush, they're really missing the point. the fact is the tea party movement is filled with a lot of people with of independents, republicans and democrats that are upset with the three main votes and you want to talk about disqualifying issues. the fact is cap-and-trade is a disqualifying issue, health care is a disqualifying issue and that's a reason the democrats aren't running on it. you can talk about phantomish

use out there, but these are issues voted on in the last three years and we will continue to talk about them and we will continue to win because of them. >> let's talk about the tea party a little more. if it is this sort of hydra organization, how does the national republican establishment interact with them and really harness their energy? >> i hate the word national republican establishment. >> you have guys. >> we're not the democrats. we don't vet our candidates and pick out our candidates. we actually have voters do that for us and i know it's shocking to the democrats that we awill you voters to pick our candidates, but that's what we do, and i think the american people, is ready for that as well. >> but you do have -- what you do do is you choose who you're going to support and when you're supporting people like alan west, who is calling for the violent overthrow of the united states government, that's a choice you've made. when you support team like tom ganley o is in trouble with the law, that's a choice you've made. >> you can go after a lot of people, but going after a man

who served, please, at least honor the people who have served like al west and the fact is he's done more than any of us sitting at the table have done for this country and don't denigrate him by putting words in his mouth. >> let's get back to the -- aside from -- >> so anti-business. >> aside from how you like to characterize, whatever the republican groups here in washington are, there is a republican national committee, there is a house republican conference, there is an nrcc, there is an nrsc, how do you as strategists, harness the energy of the tea party movement if they're not a -- this monolithic movement that can be dictated to from the top? these are people who are incredibly distrustful of washington, d.c., how do you help without scaring them away? >> you know, this reminds me of the rest of the republican party, we are distrustful, we don't like stimulus, we don't like the health care plan,

because it's washington knows best, and listen, our party has been a group of individuals that believes that local decisions are better made, and i know that's shocking for the cocktail circuit in d.c., that we don't want to run everything out of here, but we do believe every candidate has the ability to bring something to the table and that's the reason why we, when we were recruiting, which is the best thing you can say been the establishment side, we were looking for business leaders, not community organizers. you know, we are looking for people that actually have done something in their lives and they can bring, that that -- that opportunity and that know how to washington, make it -- make it function better. >> rob, you've got, among your top candidates, it seems like you've got a mix of folks who closely identify with the tea party, folks like ron johnson, sharon engel, and folks who don't associate with the tea party as much, rob portman, rob kirk, how do you see that balancing act, especially once

they come to d.c., if they do. >> that's not my problem, if they come to d.c., but i think -- i think that they -- all these campaigns are running individual campaigns, as guy said, i think these people, they're certainly an important part of our coalition. the good news for us, almost universally they're leaving their democratic opponents, so while, you know, my friends, in the democratic party like to make fun of these people and talk down on them, the reality is, they're hard working americans who are getting involved in the process, because they're very frustrated the way the country, the direction -- the direction of the country. and so as senator coyne said, do you think they're mad at the republican establishments, wait until they have their shot at the democratic establishment on election day and i think it's a great l way for the republican party. >> gentleman we're listening to a fascinating reinvention of the

relationship between the tea party and establishment republicans in washington, and of course, for us to believe this version would be to ignore the seven to 10 month primary process that happened before us and to see nearly eight of rob's, to use the phrase earlier, and picked candidates, tea party friendly candidate party backed candidates running out there. a lot of talk about the language towards tea party candidates. ignoring what we saw in the republican primaries, where particularly delaware, where the establishment got so strident that the state party chair was often quoted as saying that christine o'donnell could never get elected to anything, including dog catcher. i don't think the kind of

mentality that these folks say exist is really there. you can still see the tension and it's parts of why some of these races are stalled. >> rob, i just want to follow up on that. j.b. did raise a point, but we did see in a lot of the primary processes, canned that would be more centrist, cabbed dates that were favored -- candidates that were favored to win but could not get out of the primary system. -- >> i think party has become -- look, primaries matter, campaigns matter. clearly, the selection process demonstrated that. i think that with buying republican party is fiscal policy outlook and the rule of government and i think if you're generally speaking on the right side of that for smaller government, less taxes, you're going to be fine, and you know, if you're not, you're going to have troubles, but i agree with guy. look, people on the state, they

know best, they got to pick their nominees and we're supporting all of them. >> we've got time for about two more questions before we'll open it up to all you in the audience, so prepare your notes. former speaker tip o'neill said all politics are local. we've now seen three election cycles in a row in which politics seem to have been nationalized. is it the invention of social media, the proliferation of cable news, what is it lately that makes all politics national, guy? >> i think this is an economic issue, because i mean, essentially, what you've got is local newspapers are struggling, local tv stations are struggling, you're seeing more people getting their information from a national news source, whether it's cable television or network news, or on the internet. so i just think technology allows us to look at a lot of things, rather than just being focused on the local area as

much. >> i think it's 10% unemployment, you know, a massive deficit, even a bigger debt. i think the country is going through a very privatal time and i -- pivotal time and most people see us at a fork in the road. are we going to get this country back in gear and back to a place where people are allowed to prosper and businesses are allowed to create jobs. are we going to go, continue on the path we are now, which is the best way to get the economy going, taxpayer dollars, we need to pay back from china and employ government workers. you know, the one place where the economy is not hurting is d.c. the government workers are, you know, they make way more than average than private sector workers, and i think most people around the country say the way to get the country going is not to expand the federal government, so that has created a national environment, which i think is very favorable to us. >> john, what do you think, why is all politics national? >> i think there's two points to

be made. the first is it when democrats pick up 55 seats over the past two cycles, no matter what happened this cycle, we are going to be playing a lot of democratic seats and a lot of members are going to have tough races, because you're naturally playing on the republican field. so it may be over amplified about how big a national environment is going on, but the second is, we all recognize that there's a a lot at stake with te economy right now, you know, over the past -- before the obama administration took over, you had an economic disaster, the memberdown was happening, we -- meltdown was happening, we started to correct that and people are looking at what is the direction and what are people offering for how you have get out of some of this economic funk. >> j.b.? >> i think you can go back all the way to 9-11, and i don't think you'd find a single federal election since then that you could argue is anything but quote unquote, nationalized, an we all agree on this panel that the single galvanizing issue of this election cycle is where our

leadership is going to take this economy. clearly, people are -- continue to be wanting eager to see the economy moving, and the question before the voters is, do we want to go back to those old time policies that got us in to trouble in the first place, or do we want to continue to move them forward. >> i just love this argument. the democrats are in charge, this is for nearly four years, they have been in control of both chambers of congress. they've had unchecked power for the last two years. i mean, at some points, you would think they would take responsibility for something. they pass the stimulus, they say it would keep unemployment 8%, it's now 10%. they threw $800 billion down the drain, and so voters aren't idiots. i mean, they should take responsibility for being in charge, for several years. and i think voters are going to hole them accountable in a

couple of weeks for that. >> all right and our final question before we open it up to all of you, there are going to be races that -- when we wake up on november 3, or in i guess all of your cases, when you realize the morning of november 3 and you haven't gone to sleep yet, in which we say, how did this guy win, how did this guy lose, we're all going to be surprised. j.b., give me the best surprise that we're going to see on november 3? >> well, the best surprise is happening in kentucky. that would be -- that would great my disturb leader mc mcmcconnell, who has already predicted that republicans would win every single red state they're defending. he's sitting on a surprising kentucky. polls remain pretty close here. my candidate jack conway, seems to be two, three points back from rand paul. kentucky voters are befudd he

willed by paul -- befuddled by paul. his comments on med compare, privatizing social security, not think that there's a drug problem in kentucky, are leaving voters with a head scratching and you've got a real race down there, one to watch. >> guy, go to you, what's the house race that we're going to see that's a big surprise? >> you know, it's hard to pick out the surprises, because so many of them that were surprises last week, like the before massachusetts 10, i mean, those are all now kind of tried to -- i'm going to continue with the ohio 6, charlie wilson is in trouble, our candidate is both a distinguished veteran and a small businessman, who evidently, you know, my counterpart, he doesn't like small business or veterans, so i think we've got a good shot

there. >> rob, what do you think? >> i noted that j.b. didn't pick the louisville trial lawyer jack conway to win because he's not going to. >> jack conway is going to win. >> i think -- i appreciate that. this is ridiculous. he's not going to win and i believe rossi and firoreno will be elected to the senate. >> my problem with the candidate is not that he owned a small business, but he decided to fire 300 of his workers an send those jobs to mexico to turn a profit. that was my problem with him. but turning back to our surprise -- >> he built a business which is always shocking to anyone in d.c., it doesn't come from government, it can't come from anyone. >> john, give me your surprise. >> my surprise, i think -- i'll give you one of two to choose from. either bara or the are charlie 10 seat.

>> we'll open it up to questions. please raise your happened. we have some folks with microphones coming through the audience. >> matt benjamin, med my global advisers. it looks like we're looking at the very likely prospect of consecutive wave elections, with voters listing from party to party, clearly, and even with the tea party, those kind of energetic segment now, they routinely say they don't like either party. i'm wondering what this says for any of you, what this says about the entire system. voters are very unhappy and they keep just kind of jumping back and forth, tossing whoever is in power out. is that significant? >> let's start with j.b. >> you're right. i think you continue to see a level of dissatisfaction with both parties. in terms of not just in this election psych em, but we're seeing it in -- from election to

election, overpass cycles. look, these are tough big problems that we're facing. not just here in washington, but by states, bilocally. you can't dismiss that people are eager to see change and moving things forward here. >> rob, what do you think? >> think the president ran -- the president in 2008, he basically ran on the platform that president bush's team was incompetent. these guys are idiots, we'll be fine and his administration has been basically a disaster for the economy, and so now people are saying that they had an opportunity, they said they were going to fix the economy, they didn't, and so now i think they're going to be held accountable for that in the next couple of weeks. >>

>> hi, chuck ross from gwinnett last summer, the speaker referred to the budding tea party movement as astro turf and then there was an article written by the speaker and the leader in "u.s.a. today," describing their tactics as unamerican and i'm wondering, if you've noticed that since that time, a lot of tea party rallies, there's been a lot of rhetoric about we are americans, you know, there is, you know, we are not astro turf, we are an authentic movement. i'm wondering if you could address, was that the largest tactical error of this campaign so far? >> you know, one op-ed kind of leads to, i mean, the tactical mistake is on the republican side and that turned into a democratic pickup of a seat in new york 23. the republicans went out and recruited a candidate, he did not immediate, was not conservative enough for the pea party and the tee tea party ran

their own candidate and hijacked the election. >> guy, what do you think? >> i just am kind of focused, instead of on specials, the fact that we're going to win new york 23 and we're going to win pennsylvania 12, and the fact is, i guess that's the last thing that we'll see them had to offer, they want specials, but we'll pick the seats back up. going back to the tactical question on astro turf. the first mistake was electing speaker nancy pelosi speaker and the stimulus, spending $800 million in one day, cap-and-trade and health care, it's hard to isolate that is the worst amongst those four. >> and yet, john does bring up the point that there has been third party candidates who have taken significant support if present surveys, are you concerned about that? >> in one instance, it's favored instance, which is new york 23,

and we have the same or similar problem in hawaii, so i guess, you know, we could sit there and talk about hawaii all the time, we can talk about hawaii all the time like they like to talk about new york 23, but i don't get fixated on one seat when we have a field of 80. >> are you concerned that throughout that field of 80, there are some third party candidates who could take support? >> no. >> not hat all? >> no. >> i think the question alludes to, there is a level of arrogance if d.c. among the democratic intelligence. that is just remarkable to me. and they're so con descending to the american people about how basically they know best and i really for the life of me, from a political, what i do for a living, which is working on campaigns, i don't understand it at all. i don't understand why they don't, you know, this has been building for a year and a half, we don't try to tap in to these, i think the level of frustration out there and win these people over, but instead, they just continue to attack them, call

them names, and then voters, many of them voted for president obama and the democrats a couple of years ago, and it's just -- it's a remarkable display of arrogance. >> i'm going to hazard to guess that you disagree? >> i don't know what the huberis rob is talking about, because i have to tell you, i'm feeling pretty humble. the truth is here that the establishment of republicans in washington are still mired to the culture that's here in terms of the lobbyists the gridlock. this system in many ways, while democrats still run it, in a lot of ways, it still feels like this is a city that belongs to the republicans. this is their bastion here.

>> a 40 seat majority in the house and the president having republican control. this is remarkable, this is good news. i may rest easy the next couple of weeks. >> but i and i aren't having a conversation about power. you keep referring to the so-called culture of the city, and the way it plays out, and you talk about the cocktail circuit and hubris and it comes back to the point i made earlier. this was all of the -- all inherent in the tension that existed between establishment candidates and tea party candidates. a lot of those establishment candidates that ended up losing, this is the same rhetoric that we heard in republican primaries, now spilling out and saying, oh, isn't this true about democrats. the only problem is a lot of these disenfranchised candidates were making that argument about your candidate. >> that resulted in us leading nine democratic seats. >> let's move on to the next question. somebody from over here. >> good morning.

tina johnson, very happy to support this event today. as we get closer to november, the media has been increasingly reporting on the inability of democrats and republicans to meet at the center, do you feel that barring a national crisis, that are you concerned that this type of polarization will paralyze the government on collaborating on some important issues and thereby the country especially at this time that requires revolutionary change for recovery? >> i don't think the country is worried about the -- about the government doing too little. i think they're worried about the government doing too much and so i think having people here, slow the process down, read the bills, think before they spend $800 billion on a -- on a failed stimulus program, these kind of things, will be celebrated by the majority of the american people. >> go ahead. >> kind of to follow up on that.

do you think, the question about the middle, where do we all agree in the middle, do you think that voters this time around, what wins, the people that come to the middle or jim comes to mind where he made the point, you just draw the line and stick to it and negotiate and what do voters want? >> i think voters want the government to stop spending money they don't have. that's what -- and i'm sorry, but independence, it's not -- i mean, i continue to be amused at the plan to get out college students, that they're planning to save congress. the reality is they're saving -- they're losing independents 2-1 in most pools and independents are flocking to republican candidates, because they want the government to stop spending money. plain and simple. panned that's i think -- and that's i think what is playing out across the country. >> there's been a bipartisan answer to this agenda. it's been no. bipartisan answer on the stimulus, bipartisan answer on cap-and-trade and health care,

it was no. i do think there's a sense of hubris when you are voting for a held care bill, shoving it down everyone's throat when the american people are against it. that is an amazing sense of hubris when you say we know better than you do and it's more amazing when you have a speaker in pelosi that shoves through a cap-and-trade bill that is going nowhere in the senate. >> i think the american public wants congress and the government to work towards assisting the middle class, creating jobs for the middle class, not siding on the side of corporate middle interest and who is ultimately looking out for them. >> we know you define corporate special interest as the u.s. chamber, so therefore, the u.s. chamber, its chamber of commerce is a corporate special interest. i guess, the fact is, you know, the middle class is defined so narrowly by the democrats. the fact is, you all are

anti-business. it is a fact, you've shown it today, and you know, i guess, -- i guess the only good job for a democrat is a government job. >> we're for protecting social security, not privatizing it. that was -- >> $500 billion out of medicare. >> all right. let's move on to the next question. over here. >> good morning. i have more of a strategy with preexpect to messaging, and be it, you know, the independent expenditure group, who are or aren't disclosing their donors or the union group. how is it difficult for the four of you to kind of keep on message when there's all this money going out, competing messages, are you seeing that as being helpful or hurtful to your candidates both on the senate happened house level? >> j.b.? >> i'll take that question on its face. a lot of times campaigns and

candidates can be overwhelmed, especially when there's not so many outside groups, but so much outside messaging, that it's not unusual in the especially contested races that you turn on your tv, in places like missouri or illinois, and you'll see on a single race, five, six different messages. it seems to me especially a frustrating thing on the republican side, because there are so many of the smaller right wing inspired groups that see 501c activity as a new toy. but those donors that come together and put up on tv the cause of the day, a chance to say, hey, let's get some attention on this issue. you're right, a lot of times, that source candidates and confuses the message. >> rob, what does that do for your candidates, are you concerned about the multiple

messages, if they exist in colorado and states where there are lots of outside groups joining in in? >> i mean, i think that to be answered honestly, i think always halls something the campaigns have to worry about, but it's been around since mccain-feingold passed, most people who have been involved in this process are used to it now and frankly, i've been, from our point of view, very pleased with the ads and i think they've been largely helpful to our candidates, so it's been a benefit to us this cycle. >> i think there's one thing we can all agree on, the party committee, our hands are tied far more than the outside groups and we should all work together to figure out some way to fix omar khadr some of the copses -- to fix some of the consequences of the mccain-feingold bill. >> a prayer moment of agreement. -- a rare moment of agreement. how about that. mike over here. >> i run the brady campaign to

prevent gun violence. the gun issues and so-called other wedge issues, democrats that have sucked up to the nra are most likely to lose this year in the house, n propublica a is backing people like ellsworth against coates. where do you see the gun issue and the other so-called wedge issues this year, are they totally irrelevant because of the economy or do they play in some places? >> good question. rob, do you want to start? >> i think the nra has been enormously helpful to most of our candidates, a few places where they have endorsed where i wish they hadn't, but largely speaking, they've been helpful and i think to a lot of people, in rural america, that's an important issue, and obviously the republican party is with them on that. >> john? >> i think there are a number of wedge issues. the thing about congressional races, 435 different congressional races, and you know, races on long island, new

york, are different than races in, you know, rural mississippi. i think we're going to see choice play out in a number of races, we will see the issue of the second amendment play out in races and you also see stem cell research play out in a number of these races and it depends geographically where the race is, which side someone cuts to it. >> all right. one more. gentleman in the back there. >> i'm from congressional quarterly. i've read a lot about the mandate trap over the years, because over the last 20 years, virtually every wave of election has really been more about people voting against the party in power, rather than for the outside party. and nonetheless, the winning party tends to regard the election as a popular referendum on their agenda and act accordingly and that's basically what the republicans are accusing democrats of doing in the wake of doing. now, guy, you said earlier that this election isn't about us, it's about the democrats.

which is true, but if you guys win, it is going to be about you. is there any reason, if the republicans do have a wave election in rejection of these guys, that this is -- any kind of an affirmative statement about the republicans' agenda. >> i think it is an affirmative statement. that the american people want a check and balance on this administration. i think it's fairly easy to say that they want -- they want some kind of certainty out of this uncertainty, that is in their marketplace. they would like to repeal and preplace health care, the health care bill. they do do not want cap-and-trade, they would like us to get our fiscal house in order. that's exactly what we'll be able to do. obviously, we'll have a president that we're going to have to work with that we'll have to limit his desire to continue to spend the trillions of dollars that he likes to spend. >> i think there's an important point, that you bring up here, it's a machine date against. the one difference, that makes this cycle very different than

previous ones, is its favorable and unfavorable rating of the republican party and their individual candidates and in 2006, there was a net positive favorable rating for democrats, and same thing in 2004, the republicans had a net favorable rating. the republican brand is even worse than the democratic brand right now, so while it may be people voting against those in power, the choice that's being given to them is not seen favorly by the public, which is why this is much more of a except tv election than they like to think and give credit for. >> the real genius of the republican pledge is there's nobody in this room that can tell you what the heck it is. that going forward, that when you watch a lot of thieves senate debates, there's usually almost consistently a terrific moment when republican candidates get asked a question, something like, can you tell us what policy or proposal that you have that would be different

from policies from the bush administration? nearly every republican candidate doesn't have an answer to this question. there isn't a contrast or a different from the same policies that got us into trouble in the first place. >> rob? >> i just -- i think -- no. i mean -- >> we'll move on. we have time for two more quick ones. we have a question there in the back. >> hi. okay. i was wondering, this is a question more for mr. harrison and jesmer, it seems like the areas a lot you're on offense are the areas in a few parts of the country where obama did less well than the democratic candidates before him. can you talk about why that is,

whether it's cultural, whether it's cap-and-trade, and whether you think that, you know, some of the other areas, that you might clean up better there than other areas of the country that did support obama in bigger numbers than they had in previous years? >> well, respectfully, we're on -- i disagree with the premise of the question. we're on offense, and in six of the nine states rear leading, president obama won those seats, so i think we're on offense in places where the president was in some of these places, washington, california, they have dark it wasn't even close. wisconsin, it wasn't even close, and so i think we're on offense and on pretty blue ground. in the beginning of this cycle, we obviously talked about the fact that we had 48 seats, that mccain had won and yet a democrat incumbent had won as well, so we felt like that was a good opportunity for us. we didn't know that the

president was going to actively attack the coal industry, which obviously gave us opportunities in the appalachian areas and you said whether it's cap-and-trade or cultural, that is cultural. if you're attacking their way of life, they feel that -- that you may not have the best interest in -- you know, to show you how far they're attacking, you can see the west virginia democrat governor's candidate commercial. secondly, arizona, you know, you have a president that sued a state about a law that the voters like. you know, that obviously provides us opportunities. once again, this is the hubris of washington saying we know more than you do. frankly, the state law does exactly what the federal law does. it just says, hey, at the state level, we'll do -- we'll help you out with enforcing this. so i think that they've provided this opportunity, because of

their hub ry s. >> we have time for one more. move hover here over -- move over here for the last one. >> >> i have a couple of hands up over here. >> i'm a ph.d. students at ucla, and my question to all of you is what can you and your secular organizations learn from the tea party movement and all of the organizations that are going on within the movement, some have compared it to a spider or a star fish. and my research suggests that although there's certain elements of the spider, meaning kind of top down, it has a lot of star fish element to it, meaning very decentralized, the national -- excuse me, the virginia tea party convention that was held last weekend, was one of the most efficiently organized conventions i think high ever attended while i was conducting research, so clearly, there's something interesting going on. what can you learn about their strategies that various people kind of throughout the country

are employing for your respective organizations. thank you. >> guy, let's start with you. >> you know, like i said, at the beginning, tea party movement has a lot of familiarity to the republicans, because we believe that voters and local controls should happen. we actually believe this is the way the federal government should work as well, to allow states and local communities to make these decisions, rather than one size fits all government processes. obviously, that's one of the reasons why we feel the affinity to the tea party movement. the other thing that we have also learned is that we shouldn't do as the democrats do and decide to denigrate americans. and you know, everything that comes out of my democratic side of the mouth mouth, is hey, if you're a business map, you've done something bad. if you're a veteran, you've done something bad. if you're a tea party member, you've done something bad, rather than understanding that these are a group of americans that are upset and guess what

they're upset with? democrats? >> rob, what with can he learn from the tea party movement. >> i agree with what guy said. i just think these are -- these are at the end of the day, citizens who largely weren't involved in the process previously are now involved in the process. i think it's good for the country and good for the republican party. >> john, how do you see the tea party movement? >> one, it's very impressive what the tea party movement has put together and this is a power of grassroots organizing, it's extremely impressive, and i think it also leads to an overall thing that we need to look at is parties are responsible for their constituency politics and if there is going to be a large pickup of republican seats, that is going to be done in part because of many tea party candidates and people have to ask themselves, are the views that these candidates support, you know, what is the republican party going to adopt from those views. >> j.b.? >> i think that what you're seeing with the tea party movement, granted, grassroots

reaction to what's happening, that eagerness to get involved, clearly, you felt that same kind of commitment in the 2008 election around the president, and you go back and look at some more election psych else in 2006 and 2004, -- cycles in 2006 in 2004 that showed a trajectory an empowerment for grassroot groups organizations and individuals that really want to make a difference. >> that will be the last word today. thank you all very much. thank you for attending everybody. [applause] and now these guys are all going

>> this is a thing that is a little off the radar for the people watching, sort of who is going to win control of the house on november 2nd and who is going to be the next speaker? this is the battleground for the -- both political parties and especially for hard-core political operatives because he who controls the state house, then controls the process to draw up the new maps of congressional seats for the 2012 election. depending on how it is done, it could make a big difference for years to come. >> what organizations are making the contributions and how much are they spending? >> in all, it is about $200 million that we have been able to track down. that's almost exactly split between republicans, spending and democratic spending. it varies, you got the republican governor's association spending money, the democratic governor's association spending money.

both have an organization which is dedicated specifically to channeling resources and cash and expertise in to local races, you know, unions are weighing in on -- on the side of many democratic candidates in many states, business interests on the other side. it is pretty much across the board. it is a lot of money, a lot of foot soldiers and a lot of political muscle. >> you write in fact that the fight is reaching a fever pitch at the governor's mansion. why is that? >> we got 37 different governorships that are up for election this year, that's the that on the one hand and the other reason that the governorship is important is that in many states, not all, but in many states, the way the laws work, the state house -- the -- the local house and senate can draw up a redistricting plan butt governor hat final say.

>> in the future both parties talk about maybe 25 seats that could be decisively effected, maybe for the next decade. it just -- it depends on who wins where, who has control over redistricting, how it is carried out, what kind of court k458ance -- challenge happen. but the point is, you could very easily with a -- a slash of the pen, you could create a district which is safer for your party, which increases your probability of winning it or keeping it, which means that you have to put fewer resores into that, in the next cycle, which means you could put more resources in closer races. there's 20 or so seats that are potentially the jackpot. >> you're saying this could affect the redistricting effort. what does all of this spending,

what effect does it have on the mid term races? >> these are state house races that we're actually talking about. these are things like state assemblies, there's about 7,000 of races at the state level. this is the state housing, the state senate and then of course the governor's races as well. this is not for the -- for the sitting congressmen, you know, in wisconsin for instance, there's 99 assembly men which is the lower house in madison and the capital, you know, there's 99 assemblymen and both democratic and republican operatives see about 20 different seats in play, and so they're pouring money into those races to different degrees. >> keith johnson with the "wall street journal." thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll have more campaign coverage in a minute, looking ahead, tomorrow a live debate for delaware senate seat, republican christine o'donnell

faces democrat chris could nots, from the university of delaware beginning at 7:30 eastern time and on thursday, we'll go to las vegas for a debate between nevada senator and the majority leader harry reid, he's in a chose race with sharon angle who is supported by the tea party. live coverage begins at 9:00 eastern. a look at schedule, a debate for north carolina's u.s. senate seat, incumbent republican faces democratic secretary of state elaine marshall and then chris valle van hollen, regaining control of the democratic representatives. and then a house debate. right now, we'll see a debate from wisconsin for that state's senate seat. russ fine gold is being challenged by republican ron johnson who is a cofounder of a plastics company. this event hosted by the

wisconsin institute for public policy and service. the warsaw television stations. >> the marathon county theater welcomes to the u.s. senate debate between incumbent democrat russ fine gold and ron johnson. i'm glen of public radio. we want to thank the sponsors. the wausau herald. and public television and the wisconsin institute for public policy and service. thanks to dean and sandy smith and the staff at the marathon county for making this event possible. our panelists tonight are mentioner of the daily haired.

panelists will pose individual questions. the panelists will ask a follow-up. the candidates will then have three minutes and no more than five minutes to respond to the follow-up at the moderaters discretion in which the candidates can elaborate on the questions and question each other and respond to the statements. if we get through all six questions, and there's time remaining, i'll ask a seventh and final question. the debate will conclude with 60-second closing statements. we expect them to be treated with respect and dignity. please turn off your cell phones if you haven't already. finally the theater doors have been closed for the event. if you need to heave, you will not be let back in and will be directed instead to an overthrow room. round of applause for the two candidates, russ fine gold and ron johnson.

12k3w4r50 >> i'm going to ask you now to refrain from applause. senator fine gold, you have 60 seconds. >> thank you for your leadership and making this debate possible. i grew up in this state, lived here all my life and been instilled in the idea of wisconsin independent, political independence in particular. and that has had a big impact on the way i have done this job. some people say i'm the most independent member of the senate. it is the reason i voted against that tarp deal, that wall street bailout and all of those unfair trade agreements that send 10s of thousands of jobs overseas.

a -- it is even the reason as you know in american county that i voted against that no child left behind bill which forces teachers to teach to the test and takes away local control of education. but i go to all 72 counties every year and hear what people's priorities are. you all know it prior. it is jobs, and cutting federal spending. >> i have offered specific plans on jobs and federal spending. a jobs tax credit and a 41-point plan to cut a half a trillion dollars out of the federal budget. my opponent has chosen in six months of campaigning to do nothing of the kind. he hasn't offered a jobs plan. he have hasn't offereder a specific plan to cut federal spending. i'm still hoping we could have a discussion about it tonight. thanks so much. >> ron johnson, you have 90 seconds. >> good evening. six months ago, i had a full time businessman running a manufacturing plant that i had been building for 31 years. i had for political aspirations. this is not my life's ambition.

our country is heading in the wrong direction. people are out of work. families are struggling and they're worried. the response from washington has been incredibly ineffective and extremely expensive. our nation's debt is 13. trillion dollars and it is threatening the future prosperity of america. the voters have a clear choice, they could vote for a career politician whose votes have exploded the deficit and expanded the size and scope of the government, and -- or they could go to a legislator, someone with private sector experience, balancing the budget. somebody that had a career and had a family, willing to amy the common sense to the nation's problems. that's what i have to offer. that's what i like to talk about tonight. >> our first question comes from rob mentioner of the wausau daily herald. >> thank you. our first question deals with the health care reform haw. critics argued that the law was passed without bipartisan support, a bare minimum number

of votes and -- votes and against the will of most of the american people. yet there are also many provisions in the bill that are broadly agreed to be improvements to the current system, closing the doughnut hole in medicare part d, preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people with previous conditions. senator fine gold, i like to ask, why did you vote for a bill that most -- in wisconsin oppose and for mr. johnson, you -- you campaigned on repeeling the law, but wouldn't that also mean doing away with positive provisions that are included in it and things that -- as well as the things that you argue would be harmful. >> we'll go first with senator fine gold, you have 90 seconds. >> i got to reject that handy idea that the people of wisconsin oppose this. i did town meetings in the 72 counties for the last six years since i got reelected. when i ran, i said, if you elect me, i'll try to have national

health care legislation. the evidence we have is 60% of the wisconsin people fwaferede that. and 40% probably didn't want us to do it. right here in the county, in the heat of the tough town meetings was 50-50. i had to figure out what wisconsin people really wanted. what we came up up with was a plan that makes sense, it was not a takeover of the health care system like mr. johnson says it did. it didn't do that. it is in the wisconsin tradition, for like 100 years, we had a strong private insurance system here but with strong regulation of insurance. in fact we have the strongest regulation of insurance through the insurance commissioner of any state. that's what this bill really does. your question anticipated the really big deal which is we finally have the insurance companies out of the complete control of our lives. we controls on pre-existing condition denials and every young person under 26 can stay on their parent's plan until they're 26, which i think is a great thing. the bill is a compromise that i

think brings the country forward on an issue that needed something done. i'm proud we did. >> mr. johnson, you got 90 seconds. >> thank you. the health care bill is just incredibly expensive and complicated over reached by the federal government. we didn't need a 2600 page bill passed in the middle of the night to address the problems that are in the health care bill or industry. if you think about what are the primary problems, it is costs and access. if you think about what you -- thed a strayedive senator fine gold said this would do. it said it would save families 2500 dollars every year. the budget office has the figures in. it it says it will cost each family 2100 dollars and they're getting the premium increases. there was no cost control whatsoever. it would be a cost curve down. that didn't happen. in terms of accessibility, if you like your health care plan, your private plan, you could keep it.

well their own agencies, health and human services and i.r.s. issued an -- a report said 50% of current plans won't be grand foured, it will be put in government changes. government reg hated he will care -- it was a shame because i think we had a consensus to address the problems in our health care industry. we could have dealt with individual bills to traci those problems. i would have started with tort reform. why wasn't that addressed? that could have saved 2 to 300 billion dollars in junge lawsuits -- junk lawsuits. >> rob mincer you got a follow-up. >> i like to follow up with mr. johnson. you have said you pay for repeal in the law. i want to ask again, does that not risk sort of doing away with the provisions like the pre-existing condition or the medicare pardon d, doughnut hole closing, for senator fine gold,

the follow-up would be -- you argued if things like the public option, and -- other ways that the -- that the bill could have gone further, do you think that there's still more to be done on the health care reform and what would those cuts look like? >> do i start? >> you got three minutes. >> again mr., the individual problems facing health care could have been addressed with individual bills. we didn't have to take 500 billion away from medicare. we didn't have to increase taxes $500 billion. we didn't have to put on 16,000 additional irs agents. what does that have to do with health care. we didn't put in the provision, the 1099 provision that we're -- would require every small business person to put in a government form submit a government form to their suppliers and the irs every time they purchased american $600 worth of -- of supplies. and senator fine gold, there's an attempt to strip that out to repeal that. senator fine gold voted against that repeal. so again, this is a huge overreach.

it is incredibly complex, it is designed by the way to take -- to privatize, go to a single pair run health care. barney frank said as much. this is the first step along the path to a single pair. with senator fine gold, that's what he wants. lee wants a single pair government solution. >> i want what i voted for. i want this bill. i think it is the right solution. yes, i pressed a public option, it would have made it stronger but mr. johnson said we should have passed individual bills to deal with these problems. we tried to pass them individually and the insurance companies killed every one of them. we tried to have a patient bill of rights. we had a huge effort, a bipartisan effort, the insurance companies killed it and we got it this the bill. they killed the ability of us guaranteeing coverage with pre-existing by putting it in the bill we got the protection. they have -- they were going to let insurance companies prevent

them from having coverage because of life-time limits on their coverage. that was limb naiminated. we finally got the dope nut hole. we got seniors between 2,000 and 6,000 dollars of expenditures are getting no coverage frot prescription drugs, we tried to do that before, ron. couldn't do it. the idea of doing it bill by bill, it ain't going to happen. it happened because we got together and did a package that really finally put us in control, and took the insurance companies out of control. i sure don't want to see that repealed. >> mr. johnson. it will put the government in control. that's the problem, the government will get in control and get between the doctor and patient. it is designed for a government takeover. when these plans go in the government exchanges, the government is going to totally regulate which insurance companies can participate in that. senator feingold, that's what you wanted. i'm confused in terms of what you want, because six years ago in a debate, you said you want a

50 state shution, along with thompson's solution. but a few years later, you said i'm for single pair. >> this is a 50 state shution. these are separate state private insurance plans. it is not one national plan. so that's exactly what we ended up doing. it is not in place yet. couldn't possibly know watt rates are going to be. we haven't gotten it if place yet. it is going to be a state based private system. we're going to finally make sure the insurance companies don't run our lives. >> let's go now to pam. she has the second question. pam. >> let's turn to the xi now. senator feingold, some argue that the massive economic policies meant to improve the economy have done little. how do you respond to concerns from voters that these policies aren't creating jobs or helping working families. mr. johnson, you say most politicians have no experience creating jobs in the private sector, and you tell -- you tout your business background with

strong credentials in the race. why do you think be your experience in the business better qualifies you to craft job creating and economic policies than someone with a background in policy creation? after all the country is not a private business. what kinds of policies will you support to help create jobs? >> we go first to mr. johnson and then senator feingold. >> i think first of all you have to understand where real jobs are created. real long-term self-sustaining jobs. that's in the private sector. of course i been doing that for 31 years. i been producing products, i been creating real jobs for 31 years. and i understand that. when they passed a stimulus bill, of course the assumption was the government could provide long-term jobs and it doesn't. in fact, senator feingold casts the deciding vote for the stimulus package. three days before he cast that, he said it would create 2.4 million jobs in the first year and 9 million after three years.

obviously that hasn't come true. we're a year and a half in this. we should be up .5 million and we're down 2. million. it requires the knowledge and the experience of realizing how do you create a job? what are the incentives and disincentives. what effects do the rules and regulations and taxes that the government imposes on the private sector? how does that impact business creation and job creation sfl i understand that. it is a different perspective, it is sorely lacking. we got 5 lawyers in the senate. we have zero manufacturers and we have one accountant. our country is facing reer is -- very serious fiscal issues. a little business perspective is long overdue. that is what i'm offering the wisconsin voters. >> senator feingold, you got 90 seconds. >> let's see if we could get away from attacking other people's jobs and career choices and talk about the question. the question is whether this recovery that we have been trying to do has worked at all.

ron, your arguments about this, i heard time and again were carefully evaluated in the sent denial yesterday. they said you were wrong about your claim that the recovery bill did nothing. you never addressed the fact that 95% of all working families in this country got a tax cut under that bill. that's something we should reject? under this bill we have seven times more road construction than last year. if youified to get here tonight, you probably figured that out. we have 0e thundershowers weatheration of homes. i have been to the sites where it is happening. guess who is doing that? not government employees, it is your local heating and cooling people. the local construction people that are doing that work. i'm the first to admit that the recovery bill was an emergency and single step. it did not create permanent jobs but did create somewhere between

1.5 and 3 million jobs, that's something i think you want us to have and not forgotten about. finally the higher act we added on top of it provides jobs for people and companies who have been laid off for over 60 days, the company gets an exemption from the payroll tax for the rest of the year, if they hire somebody. we have built them, they're beginning to make a big difference. >> follow-up? >> how seriously do yow take the climate change particularly as it relates to the economy, will you push for creation of green energy jobs and alternative energy? >> which one wants to go first? >> i'm happy. i simply don't believe that global warming is proven science, manmade global warming, as a result, the last thing we could afford to do is penalize our economy, and tax energy up to a trillion dollars, it would be incredibly devastating for wisconsin, and this is a bill that senator fine gold -- feingold voted for. similar to the house bill, it

would have increased the of raj cost of household energy. it could have cost wisconsin 30 to 60,000 jobs. certainly on the basis of unproven science, i would not support a cap and trade legislation. >> well, look i do -- not substitute my judgment as -- i wouldn't substitute my judgment for you and i wouldn't substitute my judgment for the vast majority of scientists who say climate change is real and that man has something to do with it. i respect those scientists. i think they're right. i think we better do something about it. mr. johnson has said specifically it would be a fool's errand to go anything about it. that's just ignoring our responsibility to our children and grandchildren. to our ability to have a man et that people can live on. it is not true that i voted for cap and trade bill. that house passed that bill, i said wait a minute. i don't want it to hurt the

wisconsin economy. we have a more cold -- coal based economy, than other states. that bill was cooked in favor of the nuclear energy. i let the administration know, i'm one of the reasons that bill didn't get through because i'm very concerned that businesses in wisconsin do not get hurt by what we need to do to try to solve the problem. but sticking our head in the sand and thinking this is caused by sun spots does not solve the problem. >> mr. johnson, do you have a response to that? >> well, certainly feingold voted for culture on the wiebe erman bill which was similar to the house bill, it would have had the same impact as the house bill. i think he did vote to move it forward. >> moving a bill forward so you could discuss it and debate it is part of the process, and i don't know if you want me to vote against debating bill, and there was a financial regulation bill in the senate that you agree with.

and you know, i voted to have us take it up, and what are we going to do, never debate bills? and i tried to amend it and the amendments were lousy. i didn't vote with the republicans because they were weaker, i was the only person not voting for it because it didn't do the job. the notion you said because i voted to debate a bill that it was for the substance of the bill, i'm the strongest advocate to make sure this bill doesn't rip off wisconsin and i always will be. >> as devastating as that would have been for the -- for the economy of wisconsin, you should not voted for it and allowed that thing to move forward. >> let's move on. we -- >> according to the congressional budget office, social security will be able to pay full benefits for every recipient until the year 2039. there are concerns as more americans age and retire that the money will run out, i believe there's also a resolution going through the house and senate. right now this calls to no cuts

for the program at all. my question is are changes needed and if so, what would they be and how would you insure those that pay into the system now will see something when know retire? >> we're going to start with mr. johnson and then senator fine gold -- feingold. >> excuse me. i am mixed up. it is senator feingold -- >> that's what i thought. i wasn't going to argue with the moth moderator. first of all, we know how to do this. it has been done in the past. this is taking it out of the hands of the congress and create a commission which was done in the early 80's, that is a bipartisan com miggets that creates a package to create -- improve the solvency of the program, then send it back to the congress and not allow amendments. that's what we did. that's how we went and raised the fike ka level and exprue pay out, in social security in your paycheck was down around $60,000. they created a graduation in

that and keeps it solvent until the date you set. it is not high enough. it goes to $10 ,000. people say why don't you raise that f i crorkse a limit up, i would strongly propose that. but we to have a commission to do it. but i would argue not changing it fundamentally. i strongly oppose any form of privatization of social security. i'll oppose any attempt to have people's accounts whether in social security or in the future to go to wall street where they could risk losing their social security which is fundamental for so many people's lives. mr. johnson has specifically said, that as to people who are not in social security, everything is on the table. that obviously includes some forms of privatization. i will fight that every inch of the way. >> mr. johnson? >> i realize promises have been made to seniors. people currently required and people about to retire.

>> they have been known for decades. he's done nothing to fix social security. he's good at using it as a political weapon. he has done nothing to fix it. he incurred more debt which makes it more difficult for us to fix the problem. as a matter of fact during his tenure, 2.2 trillion dollars have been paid into social security. the american people, by and large, that's tucked away and set aside. not being touched, it is spent. it was spent on other government programs. the money is gone. so certainly what i like to do is take my account -- accounting background, my business background in going to washington and address the problem and make social security sustainable long-term. i will look at the options. i think you have to have an open

mind and be flexible. the only options i would take off the table, i would not agree to a payroll tax increase and i would never force privatization on anybody. continue to claim i would, i would not. i would not force privatization on anybody. >> eric murrow, you have a follow-up. >> when we talk about social security, the next thing is medicare and medicaid. similar concerns about funding there as well. what do you see is the government's role in providing health care, to the growing number of eld herly and needy. does the current system there need a change? >> with regard to social security, the notion that the fund is currently insolvent is absolutely false, as you said it goes to 2039. it is simply a scare tactic to try to pretend anything else is true. it is solvent and the medicare program which i'm going to address now is in more immediate of getting reform in the near term. well, that's exactly what the lelt care bill does. the bill that mr. johnson would repeal has his -- as misses

first act has been specifically analyzed to make sure that medicare is solvent for 12 more years. we do that not by cutting medicare benefits, he's got a mailer out, we're cutting senior citizens. medicare guaranteed benefits, that's untrue, it doesn't do that. what it does do is cut 00 to r500 billion out of the program that goes to wasteful aspects of medicare advantage and all kinds of waste, fraud and abuse. if he has his way and repeels the bill, we'll eliminate the best step we've taken to make medicare solvent in the future. we need to protect the medicare benefits for all seniors. i do not believe in cutting back on them, the only way to do it is be responsible and that's what we did in the he will care bill. >> we're in open discussion period, mr. johnson. >> as with social security, we need to honor the problems, i'll be dedicated to do that for people that are retired and about to retire. medicare is a huge problem. the total liability of our three main entitlement programs is 76 trillion dollars.

our total u.s. asset base is 72 trillion. it is a real problem. it needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed honestly. >> go ahead. >> i was going to say, the way you don't traci or try and fix medicare is create a whole new entitlement, add another entitlement, as an unfunded liability and take 500 billion dollars away from medicare. it will -- there are 15e,000 seniors in wisconsin that will not have their medicare advantage, they like that program. this -- the new health care entitlement, you could take a look at it, it is a redistribution of health care from seniors to an entirely new group of people. >> that is a problem. that is -- you don't fix one entitlement program by creating a whole new one that going to be a huge budget buster. >> look at the exchange. this is the point, about the difference between the two of us.

ied of a solution with regard to social security, raising the level above 600 thureks. he rejected it. no shution or alternative. then on made care, i pointed out we had a specific thing that he wants to repeal. go areas that the official estimates will make medicare solvent. he doesn't have an answer, he doesn't have a plan. he wants to say we got debt and problems. he gives you no idea what he would do about it. that's the easy way. that's the way you don't face criticism. it is not the responsibility you need from a u.s. senator. >> i have a very specific proposal, we repeal the health care bill. that will save trls. >> precisely. >> that would save trillion the in deficit spending even the next decade. it will restore the 500 billion that has been taken out of the medicare program. that -- that was the worst possible thing. to try and preserve medicare. >> the insurance companies will get their fair chunk of that back.

you bet. >> let's go on to rob mincer, you have the next question. >> mr. johnson, you have called ann rand's book a foundational pak for you. it is -- the book paints a heroic portrait of rich businessmen that heave society to escape the poor that are basically portrayed as social parasites in the book and rand endorses selfishness as a virtue. she wrote a book by that title. what is it about her philosophy that appeals to you and what makes that a foundationling book for you. for senator feingold, the aspect of other thoughts that tends to apply to conservatives is her strong defense of individual liberty and her opposition of any form of collectively. do you agree with the notion that much social spending amounts to redistribution of wealth? >> mr. johnson, you have 90 seconds. >> i'll -- first dispute your

description of what she's really talking about. but the way i describe it, take a look at the title of the book, alliss represents the producers of america of the country. shrug means they have become so overburdened with regulations and rules and taxes that -- at some point, they shrug and quit. they don't quit at once, they quit one by one. and what the book talks about in fictionalized manner is what happens to society when the producers of the society quit? again, because they have been so overburdened by rules and regulations and taxes, it is a warning. it is a warning what could happen to america. when you talk about -- when you hear people talking about a tipping point, that's what we're concerned about. that's what i'm concerned about what happened in the country can. we have more people that are net beneficiaries of government than paying in the system. >> that's a very serious thing to worry about.

and that'see that's why for -- from my standpoint, at lass shrug is a huge warning in terms of what we need to avoid in this country. >> nor feingold, you have 90 seconds. >> i believe in the community of wisconsin. give you credit for being consistent with that -- at lass shrug, you believe the producers are a special group of people. i guess they're better than the rest of us. if things aren't going their wear you take the position that people shouldn't have unemployment compensation because your view has been that they just don't want to work. you oppose minimum wage, you support trade agreements, that ship 10s of thousands of jobs that many people in this community overseas. you say, well i'm a producer, that's good because it is creative destruction. it will all work out in the end. it might work out in the end for you and other people that are very well to do and fortunate. what about the other people in the community who are suffering. i don't think this -- these people should ever be allowed to

not work if they can work and i know people in wisconsin, they want to work. but these policies that you support are making it impossible for these hard working wisconsin people to make a decent living. i assume that makes them shrug as well. >> rob mincer, you have a follow-up. >> one part of the discussion about sort of wealth redistribution has to do with the progressive nature of the tax code. this is a -- been part of the debate about for instance the push tax cuts, set to expire which included larger tax reductions for those in the upper income brackets and for, for those millsdz class workers and others. so to get sort of specific on these ideas doesn't make sense for the bush tax cuts to be extended even for the wealthiest individual. >> this is a free form discussion period. i think we have to have common sense on this. mr. johnson, and i both have talked about the federal

deficit, he calls it the tipping point and i don't even disagree with that, we're at a tipping point, can we afford to make the federal deficit much larger right now. i think we have to figure out a common sense solution. the common sense solution, is to cut the tax cuts, the middle class tax cuts for working people and wealthy people. . .

>> the fact we are talking about that is exhibit one of how much the stimulus failed. the last thing we should be doing is increasing taxes on anybody in this week recovery. when he is talking about that top bracket, what he is talking about the 750,000 businesses. 750,000 businesses that apply 25% of the total workforce. those are the individual businesses that pay under the individual tax. those are the engines for economic growth. and i am all for the workers of wisconsin. that is a huge difference. i export product. i produce products and export products to about 25 different countries. one of our largest export markets is china. i have faith in the workers of

america that if we can get government out of the way and make sure the government just creates an attractive environment for business creation and job creation, american workers can compete with anybody in the world. we live in a global economy. it is not whether we choose to. we have to compete. costs lei do it every day. >> he is only talking about 5% of all the businesses. 95% of all the small businesses in the country would not experience a tax increase if we did the cut for the wealthy. this is a myth. how does it work that the only businesses that are worthwhile and the only producers that are worthwhile are well-to-do? most of the jobs are created by people of average and modest incomes. they are the engine of economy in this country and they should not be disregarded in this way.

>> we agreed to move to pam with the next question. >> united states foreign policy, particularly in the middle and near east, is taking a monetary toll. the war in afghanistan is not in its 10th year and has extended over the borders into pakistan. the u.s. has left 50,000 troops in iraq. can we afford the strategy of broad backs of policies do you support that will bring about a successful improvement to our military presence but also keep american safe? >> we cannot afford this unwise approach to those who attacked us on 9/11. that is al qaeda. obviously, the iraq war had nothing to do with that. it was incredibly expensive. the afghanistan war originally had to do with that, and i support that, but now the leadership is principally in places like pakistan, yemen, somalia, and other places.

this is costing us $100 billion a year. we cannot afford it and it is not the way to get at the enemy. why don't we have a timetable the president would propose to gradually bring those troops out of pakistan? i think he is beginning to look at that. i listened to wisconsin people who first proposed the idea for iraq. they are following through on it. at first they said they did not think it was a good idea, but then bush endorsed it and obama did. it is the reason the troops are coming home. our priority has to be going after al qaeda and making sure we do not dig another huge deficit, which is what is unwise interventions are doing. >> we have to recognize we are still under the threat of terrorism. what we are trying to do in afghanistan is deny sanctuary for those terrorists. that is where they launched the attacks on 9/11. we have to be mindful of where else there will be hiding. we need a strong intelligence

capability. i am not sure exactly how senator feingold tried to weaken our intelligence capability over his career. but in terms of basic philosophy, in terms of putting our find young men and women -- let us acknowledge that people have stepped to the plate to defend our nation. they are the finest among us and they need our total support. i look through the lens of is there a vital interest for americans. is there a clear and present danger? i am a disadvantage here because i do not see the intelligence reports. but president obama does. for whatever reason, he sees something there and he decided to surge 30,000 troops. one concern is that announcing that surge with the sense we are going to start withdrawing -- in a conflict like afghanistan, we need the support of the villagers and the people. do not make that commitment.

to not be committed to success makes your chances of success extremely difficult. i think that is unfortunate. >> i would like to respond to this notion -- >> just a second. you have a follow up? >> that being said, what does it mean to win in afghanistan? is that a place we need to win? >> this has been a mistake of the last nine years. it is not about invading one country after another. it is about attacking an organization that is present in many countries in the world. it is about destroying al qaeda, wherever they might be. for five years, i have been on the intelligence committee. i have worked day and night to figure out where this threat is. people in the military and the intelligence community consider me to be a person has worked the hardest to understand the threat of a kid that in places like africa. the notion that you dismiss that as weakening america is dead wrong and it is unfair. here is the other thing.

we need to honor these people that are fighting for us over there when they come home, too. i took the lead in the state to making sure there are veterans centers for people who have mental health and other issues when they come back. we have one in green bay. there will be no one in wasau because of my efforts. i believe in supporting both there and when they come home. i have been honored by the national organization of veterans service officers as the number one legislator in the country this year for my work on behalf of these veterans. >> i would like to ask you why didn't you vote? you were one of 25 senators that refuse to vote for the resolution condemning you're supporting group, move on.or, when they placed a shameful ad in the new york times that talk about general petraeus. why did you defend that act? >> i believe in freedom of speech. i do not believe senator should

sit around condemning people's comments. we should be working on the deficit and jobs. i am not going to vote for any resolution that waste our time by trying to chill the speech of anybody. that is against freedom. >> if you show a great deal of support for our troops. >> i do not think our troops want us to sit around all day passing a resolution saying, "he said that, rush limbaugh said that. that is all we would ever do. this is serious work we do in the senate. standing around monitoring people on the extremes is not what we should be doing. >> let us move to eric, who has the next question. >> can't we all just get along? >> absolutely. [laughter] >> i time that well. it seems as though partisan bickering is the order of the day in washington. it often appears the only business being done is one party

blocking the other. how do you, if elected, intend to impact? how can you get bipartisan action doing -- and going and share the responsibility you votersen givien by the and get things done? >> i have a record of problem- solving, actually getting things done. in my community, i have been highly involved in education issues. you are dealing with all types of people. the focus has always been on accomplishing something, attacking problems and solving problems. i would take that same type of attitude to washington. we are talking about record deficits. since senator fine gold's party gained control of congress, our deficits have exploded. we had a deficit of 400 billion -- $450 billion the first year. in the last three budgets, we have added $3 trillion to our

debt. these require a seriousness of purpose. somebody who wanted to go there and genuinely attack these problems -- that is why i am doing this. this is not my life's ambition. i am just a guy from oshkosh who took a look at what is happening in the country and said at some point in time somebody has to step up to the plate and go to washington with good will, in a bipartisan fashion. that does not mean i am going to leave my principles behind, but i will go there with a dedication to address these problems and get them solved once and for all. i am not going there to bicker. i am going there to solve problems. >> you have 90 seconds. >> the question was about how would you do bipartisan things. i want to answer this question by pointing out that i probably have been involved in more bipartisan initiatives than any other senator. i think it is 40. to say i was not bipartisan

after being the co author of the best known bipartisan bill of the last 80 years, you may not like it, but i was a part of that. we proposed a line-item veto, which the president has endorsed. susan collins of maine, a republican -- she and i have introduced legislation about areas where children cannot get adequate dental care. we were the leaders in that. the other night, you mentioned somebody that you had done, as you said, cooperative work with. he wrote a letter to the paper saying that was not his experience with you at all, and he supports me for the u.s. senate. >> it seems like a lot of the contention between the parties is played out with the use of the filibuster or the anonymous hold put on legislation, both of which seem to contradict the principle that a simple majority wins.

since these are senate rules and not constitutionally mandated, the support changing or eliminating them? >> we are in a free-form discussion period of about three minutes. >> i respect the fact that the founders of this country created a constitution that tries to create some kind of balance between the house and the senate. i think the senate has to have rules were things do not go flying through. they tend to do that in the house. that is why i slow down the cap and trade bill. we make sure it did not pass too fast because we have these rules. i do think it is being abused now. it is being used on almost every bill. both parties have been involved. one answer might be right now we have all 60 senators who want to get cloture present, but the rest of them could be in the bahamas. they do not have to be there. one solution would be 60% of everybody present. senators tend to like their

weekends. making them be there i think would help reduce this abuse. but i do not want to completely eliminate thomas jefferson's idea. he said the senate should be the cooling sauce for the house. he was a pretty smart guy, so i do not want to toss that out. >> i agree. the senate should be a deliberative body. i support that. it is were legislation should be really looked at very carefully. those rules are there for a reason, to stop something. senator feingold says he is bipartisan. two of the most partisan bills were passed last year with him being the deciding vote. taking over, remaking one sixth of our economy, the health-care bill. there was not one republican. there was no but partisanship about that. republicans were shown the back of democrats' hands. he provided the 60th vote. i would say the same thing was true in terms of the stimulus

bill. they rushed that trillion dollars, hoping that would create jobs on an entirely partisan basis. the think president obama said, "one." -- i think president obama said "we won." >> that is inaccurate. the recovery bill was not only democrats. i was not even the deciding vote. there were 61 votes. susan collins voted for it. it was not just one party. i recognize it was mostly democrats, but it is not true. you know very well -- >> i stand corrected. it was close. >> if we are not going to have a process where you try to reach out to several republicans, that is said. if you have to have a situation where all 100 senators vote for something, that is disturbing. i think he should give credit to

those republicans who had the courage to work on a bipartisan basis to do that. that was not an entirely partisan vote. >> do you have anything to add? >> we have a seventh question because both of you have been six and tonight. according to critics, the citizens united decision has opened the floodgates to a limited cash being spent on negative campaign advertising by rich special interests which do not even have to reveal their identity. how dangerous do you think this development is for democracy? will this decision allow foreign governments or terrorist groups to secretly fund campaign ads? should we work to overturn the decision? if so, how? and what if anything should we do to keep big money from anonymous sources from influencing election outcomes? you have 90 seconds. >> it is easily one of the worst decisions in the history of the

supreme court. it says that everyone of you is in the same position as a corporation, the corporation has the same political rights as you do. the results are being seen in this election. there are millions of dollars being spent by out-of-state groups against me, and i have not seen any ads on my behalf, and i do not want any ads like that. they are hidden. you do not know who is paying for them. there may be foreign money involved. it is the destruction of our political process. the founders of this country did not believe corporations were the same as the rest of us. we can try to require some disclosure of this information, which i supported in a bill called the disclose act, but fundamentally we do have to overturn it. we are going to have to get one justice who realizes this decision was completely wrong. otherwise, our democracy is going to be submerged by the very powerful corporate interests that already dominate washington. it is only going to get worse.

>> i think campaign finance reform should be pretty simple. i would be for total transparency and immediate or at least very rapid reporting on the internet. we have the capability of doing that. we do not need to assault or individual rights to free speech. that is why i felt the mccain fine gold was an incumbent -- mccain-feingold was an incumbent protection act. this has pushed money outside the political process to places like moveon.org. we have no idea who is funding these ads. i do not like attack ads. a particularly do not like them now that they are being used against me. my solution is pretty simple. let us do away with mccain- feingold. let us have total transparency and immediate/rapid disclosure

on the internet. then we know who is supporting each candidate and we know it right away, and we can bring campaign finance back into the system, where it is more accountable than it is today. >> campaign money spent by outside groups this year is helping republicans instead of democrats by a wide margin. why is that? democrats say corporate interests are trying to weaken wall street legislation and create tax breaks. republicans say the spending is a reflection of deep dissatisfaction on the part of the american people with the policies of the democratic majority in congress and the u.s. senate. >> mr. johnson just refuse to answer the question about citizen united because he already endorsed it. he is benefiting tremendously from in his campaign from millions of dollars of these ads, and i am not and do not want to. you say you do not want it.

will you call on them to stop? >> i have no control over it. that is part of the problem. >> will you ask them to stop? >> that is the right to free speech. >> it is the right to you to say to them stop. >> would you ask them to stop? >> people have a right to free speech. there you have it. >> the guy who wants to be our u.s. senator will not use his free speech to say, "will you please stop. >> i agree with people saying the reason there is more money being spent on the republican side is that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. people are concerned. people are very concerned about the out of control spending and debt. they are concerned. that is why they are putting their money where their concern is. that is their right and they should have this freedom. >> insuring companies and mining companies are all concerned, and they are hiding behind these ads because we finally are going to

get concerned over them. you talk about ads that are nasty attack ads for an out of state, and he refuses to call on them to stop. that is a direct attack on wisconsin's petition of home- based campaigns. >> individuals are concerned about what has happened in the country and have their right to support their position with groups that run ads. that is their freedom. i am not going to take that freedom away. you seem to want to do that. you want to be able to select who has free speech and who does not. >> i want them to have free speech, but as you said they ought to disclose. you're not even called on these people not to disclose. >> i would be happy to have them disclose. >> what you ask them to do it? >> disclosed. [applause] >> frankly, i am sure you know darn well who is doing this.

>> is your law. >> it has nothing to do with the mccain-feingold law. >> we have time for one additional question. i am going to give you each 90 seconds to give us what solutions you see for the problems of illegal immigration. mr. johnson, we will start with you, and then senator feingold. >> i believe this is relatively simple. it is a big problem, but the first step is it has to be a two-step process. we have to secure the borders. i have always scratch my head, going why don't we just secured the border? we tried comprehensive reform in the '80s. what that did was it actually ended up being an incentive for more people to come over illegally, because people granted amnesty, which i am totally against. we have to enforce the laws on

our books against employers that are hiring the people -- these people, who are attracting people across the border. but you do not pass laws that also create incentives for people to come here illegally. senator feingold has voted for social security benefits to illegal immigrants. he had voted for funding for sanctuary cities. he voted for food stamps for illegal immigrants. that creates an incentive for more illegal immigrants to come into our country. you do not do those things. you have to first secure the border, in force the loss on our books, and then look at who is left. let the dust settle. we are a very caring society. i am all for treating the people who remain here in a humane fashion. >> i do not support social security benefits for undocumented people. that is absolutely false. but again, mr. johnson does not

want to solve the problem. this is a problem the business community of the state has screamed do something about. you're going to let all of these people be undocumented in this country. many of them are working here in wisconsin. we need to figure out a common- sense solution for that now, not let the dust settle. the arizona debacle is going on because of that attitude. just close the border? there are already people here. we have to figure this out, unless you are planning to just pack them up and send them back. the answer is some of figuring out penalties and temporary work permits for these folks. if they want to come back, another penalty, and then get in line behind everyone else for citizenship. he does not want to solve the problem and he is not in touch with the business community of this state. they demand we take real action. just closing the border is not a serious attempt to solve the whole problem. we need comprehensive

immigration reform, as president bush said and as president obama has said. >> we come to the 62nd closing statements. by the toss of acorn, ron johnson, you go first. >> i would like to think tonight's yours. wisconsin voters have a clear choice this election. senator feingold cast the deciding vote for both the stimulus package in the health care bill. he voted for the last three budgets, that have increased our national debt by over $3 trillion. i offer a different direction. i have been building a business for 31 years, exporting products and creating real jobs. i would like to use that lifetime experience to help get our economy growing again so we can start creating jobs and addressing our national spending and that issue. the idea and promise of america is incredibly precious. america is exceptional. it is our job to make sure if not only survives, but that it

thrives. that is why i decided to run for the u.s. senate. that is why i am asking for your vote. >> as i said at the outset, the difference between us would be whether we would propose solutions to problems. i talked specifically about how i would try to solve the problem of jobs and how we deal with the issue of deficits. mr. johnson has offered none of that. between the two of us, who is on your side? who voted to control the insurance industry and not let them be in charge when it comes to health care? who voted against sending those jobs overseas? he thinks they are a great idea. he thinks that are good for wisconsin. what is good for wisconsin is protecting jobs and protecting wisconsin values. if you give me the chance, i would like to continue to work on that. >> that includes tonight's debate between incumbent democrat russ feingold and ron johnson. a warm round of applause for

both candidates. [applause] >> our campaign coverage continues in a moment. up next, a debate for north carolina's u.s. senate seat. incumbent senator richard burr faces challenger democratic secretary of state elaine marshall. after that, maryland congressman chris van colorado will talk about the democratic party's efforts to maintain control of

the house of representatives. later, we go to georgia's eighth district, of the winter, for a house debate. >> get working on those videos for student camp, our annual video documentary competition. there are $50,000 in prizes. for complete rules and information on how to upload your video, go to studentcam.org. >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," michale el hirsh joins us. his latest book is "capital offense." next, steve bartlett will talk about housing foreclosures. will talkprile

about key house races. the obama administration announced it would lift the moratorium on deepwater drilling. later that day, the national commission on the oil spill will meet. now is the first of three televised debates between north carolina's u.s. senate candidate, republican senator richard burr, and democratic secretary of state elaine marshall. this was held at the university of north carolina center for public television studios in triangle park. the north carolina association of broadcasters educational foundation hosted this event. >> this is the north carolina at u.s. senate candidates debate. this program is sponsored as a public service to the citizens of this state by the north carolina association of broadcasters education foundation. here is our moderator, carl

kasell. >> it is my pleasure to serve as moderator for this u.s. senatorial debate. first, we will introduce the candidates. they can get to my left is elaine marshall, the democratic candidate. she holds a law degree, served in the north carolina state senate, and is currently north carolina secretary of state. the can get to my right is mr. richard burr, the republican candidate. he holds eight b a degree, served in the u.s. house of representatives, and is currently a u.s. senator from north carolina. here are the rules of the debate. it will begin with questions, then wilt and the closing statements from each candidate.

the order of the opening statements, questions, and closing statements was determined prior to this debate and has been agreed to by the candidates. mr. burr will make the first opening statement and receive the first question. >> welcome to north carolina once again, and let me say thank you to the north carolina broadcasters and to unc tv for this wonderful opportunity. whoever is elected will decide the direction of this country for the future. if you believe this country is headed in the right direction, if you are supportive of a government that costs too much and that is too large, i am not your candidate. but if you believe our future has to change direction, if you believe that our government needs to be downsized and we need to figure out how to get more bang for our buck from the

standpoint of your tax dollars, i am asking for your support. i am asking for your support so the next generation can enjoy the same opportunities we have had. this november, i need your support and i need your vote. thank you. >> thank you so much. i want to think the broadcasters association, senator byrd, the studio, and all the folks out here watching. as i traveled around north carolina, i find that folks are very frustrated. they are seeing that the american dream is slipping away from them and their families, and they believe washington is not listening. they are correct. washington is not responding to the needs of ordinary americans. they are listening to lobbyists and special interests and they are having their way. senator burr has been in washington for 16 years. i grew up on a farm. i have been a teacher and small-

business owner. i've fought hard for lobbying reform. i have taken on wall street. i have prosecuted folks who have scammed others in financial crimes. i believe washington has to focus on creating jobs and getting this country going again. we have to make sure the middle class is robust. it is what makes us different from any other country in the world. i would appreciate your support in this race and thank you all for turning into night. -- for tuning in tonight. >> you have both been traveling the state, talking with voters. what is the most important issue they are bringing to your attention, and what should congress do to address this issue? >> frankly, it is jobs, the economy. we have over 10% of north like to'ians who would work and who are unemployed today, over 9.6% of americans.

we have held above the 9.5 level for over a year. people want an opportunity to work again. it has to be matched with policies in washington that encourage the job creation we need. we have gone through 18 months of the government trying through their checkbook to generate economic growth. after a lot of money, we saw unemployment go up and more americans hurt. it is time we look back at history and do things we now have an impact. let us make tax rates and regulations predictable. let us give private capital to reason to come into the marketplace and expand businesses, and to create jobs. this country was not built by government. it was built by hard-working americans that took risks. there was a reward at the other end. today, government stands in the way of them determining what

that reward might be, and it freezes the money on the sidelines, where it does not grow in a productive way to create a job for an american. let us change the policies and we will change the employment picture. >> indeed, jobs is the most prevalent thing folks want to talk about. we have to help small business. we have to help provide the credit they need so they can create the jobs we need. america has to get moving again. i have been a small-business owner. i know how hard it is to start to get going. i have worked hard cutting down the red tape it takes for starting a business, growing that business, and getting the financing they need. a lot of folks would get different inventory if they had the credit to do that. next, we need to help the private sector to create jobs by having sound tax policy that rewards job creation here in america, not rewards shipping jobs overseas. we have to make sure that our tax policy allows them credits

for job creation, credits for research and development, the ability to have a menu of different options. there is no one size fits all answer to different industries out there. we also need to quit shipping jobs overseas with unfair trade agreements, and the tax policies on top of that that encourage it. and we have to think about investing for the future. we have to have jobs that cannot be shipped away. that is why green energy and renewable sources of fuel are very important. we are in great shape with our schools, our research universities, our community college. we can have a good work force here that can turn a good living here in north carolina. >> north carolina has made the fastest transition from traditional manufacturing to a 21st century economy. we are the home of the largest biotech industry in the country as far as growth. we are going to be the vaccine

hub of the world with the opening of the new novartis plant. but what chase's jobs offshore? regulation and too much taxation. they are and competitive here. we have to make sure this is a national effort to make u.s. companies competitive. >> this question is directed to ms. marshall. the think the american recovery act or stimulus worked and do you think the country needs a second stimulus? >> the stimulus package did put a floor on the free fall. it kept us from going into the second great depression here in america. i do not think it had enough focus. i do not think we need a new stimulus act at this point. in talking with the folks administering the program in north carolina, we have yet to see the benefits fully because about a third of it has yet to deploy. that will be deployed to

private-sector folks who will be creating jobs that will not just be the construction jobs of the beginning of long-run jobs that will sustain us, a lot of them in the grain economy. the jury is a little bit still out on the total effect of the first stimulus package, but i am hopeful. i do believe we are seeing jobs coming from that. it did stop the freefall after wall street went wild to keep us from going into a really great depression. >> i think that after $787 billion the secretary is right. a lot of it has yet to go out the door. it is on obligated. we are devoting them to things we know will have a positive impact on employment. when we look at the temporary jobs that were created, most of us saw the highway being repaved. it was not because we needed it. the order was they had to use

the money quickly. the truth is that is not the best use of taxpayer money. i am convinced that we need to rethink where our investments go. we need to look at this with a mom provision in place. -- with a longer vision in place. i do not think we need to try what we did expecting a different result, but to the millions of americans that are out of work right now, that have not felt the effects of the stimulus package, it is hard to convince them that this really kept us from going off a cliff and making it worse for every unemployed american. it is as bad as it gets. >> indeed, the stimulus package has yet to be fully deployed here in north carolina. show already is a very nice phrase, but there were a lot of things, given the economy we are in, that folks were not fully developing to be able to accept or apply for these funds. i am encouraged that they will

be putting us back to work. i hate to tell you that highway out there needed it. it was not just because they could do it. >> the social security administration has announced that americans are worried about their life savings and retirement. would you support for the reforms of wall street? which of those look like if so? >> for the reforms on wall street? is that what you said? i thought you were going towards social security. >> i was for a moment. would you support for the reforms, and what would those reforms look like? >> but think that as we learned after the financial crisis, congress was asleep and regulators were asleep. there were products that had been created in the financial markets that nobody ever assigned a regulator to. it is those products that in many cases spiraled out of

control and contributed. they did not do it all by themselves. they had willing companies, that went along bundling mortgages and taking advantages of products the american people should never have been exposed to. there was congressional legislation that said we have to make sure every american can own a house if they want to. the legislation went so far as to say -- it does not mean that you qualify for a loan. we had to work out from under a terrific housing market right now. i think anything we do in new regulations should be focused on the things that make a difference in bringing confidence to our financial markets, but not toward things that bring additional regulation and frees capital from finding its way to job creation in this country. >> i think financial reform needs to go a bit further. i have been a regulator here in

this area. when they talk about the fed being asleep at the wheel, that is clear. even when whistle-blowers' explain to them what bernie madoff was going, they were not spurred to action. i have prosecuted folks for skimming people through the financial area. it is imperative that we strike new laws. that includes making the conspirators to talk about subject to criminal action or civil remedies. it is time we fully fund the s.e.c. and make sure they have the tools. we did conflict of interest cases where people had no idea what the product was. but there were told it was good and were on the payroll. what happened? the lobbyists started walking through the halls of congress and got our authority taken away. that is the culture that is driving wall street and the other special interests walking around congress. if a regulator does a good job,

they are punished. >> i would say that secretary marshall raises a good point. we have laws on the books that were intended to prosecute people that break the law. to date, very few have been prosecuted, but there are a lot out there that deserve to go to jail over the money they have scammed from investors in this state and across the country. i hope the government will do it. >> the social security administration announced this week that it will not give cost- of-living adjustment increases to social security recipients in 2011. what do you say to younger residents of north carolina who asked if they will be able to count on social security when they reach retirement? will the mandatory retirement age need to be extended? >> thank you. this is a very important issue

to folks out there. social security is a promise that has been made, and it needs to be a promise kept. social security has kept folks like my mom living in dignity. you should not go into poverty in america just because you grow old. for the next generation, i say social security needs to stay exactly where it is. what needs to happen to make the program solvent is for congress to quit monkeying with the trust fund, for starters. we need to make sure we have more jobs out there. everything we talk about goes back to jobs. when we have more people employed, we have a more robust economy that supports our retirees. we need to make sure wall street does not get their hands on this money either. i have -- i think the devastation we have seen -- it has taken the life out of people when they realize that what they have worked so hard for has been skimmed away from them. suppose those assets would have

been in the stock market, with what we've seen to the last couple of years. the devastation has been horrible. i will approach privatization of any social security assets. >> this year, for the first time in the history of social security, seniors did not get a cost-of-living increase. in march of 2010, i offered an amendment on the senate floor to provide a $250 stipend to seniors. it was paid for. i paid for it out of on obligated stimulus money. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not see any interest in extending that stipend to seniors. i am sure when we go back to washington, maybe even before we get back, there will be a lot of members saying we have to do something because this decision has been made. the social security laws are based on inflation.

with the lack of inflation because of this bad economy, it costs seniors that adjustment even though their cost of living continues to go up. let us be candid. to a 30 year-old paying into social security today, the actuaries for social security say they are not going to be able to get a dollar out. it is unsustainable in its current form. the person having of the debt commission in washington, i have confidence they will make a proposal that brings a change to social security that makes it financially sustainable. but to suggest anything before they come up with the debt commission report would be the wrong thing to do. everything should be on the table for them to consider. >> i certainly look forward also to the results from the debt commission. they are taking their fine tooth comb and magnifying glass and looking at a lot of programs, not just social security.

i am very hopeful they will find some good ideas that are ones we can all accept. i have a good deal of confidence in erskine bowles to be able to handle the matter. who will people be standing up for when as recommendations get made? will it be the people or the big business and special interests in this country? >> turning to some military issues, mr. burr, do you support reforms to the pentagon budget as proposed by defense secretary robert gates even if those negatively impact our bases in north carolina? >> the short answer is yes. i think the secretary has laid on the table $100 billion worth of cuts at the president pepper crust. the devil is in the details. can we do away with a joint command? can we do that and not impact

our ability to carry out our national defense obligations? where i differ with the secretary is that i am not sure you can cut 10% of the contractors doing business with the military in this country and be able to deliver the services. in many cases, they are delivering supplies to outposts in afghanistan because we do not have the capabilities anymore in the united states military. in many cases, they are doing workweek cut from the military so that we could make sure that every service member was one prepared for combat and not for the ancillary duties that come along with large troop movement, or with the responsibilities of a base here in north carolina. i am happy to say i have not seen anything in the proposal that would have a negative impact on any of north carolina's bases, but i also believe we have to assure our soldiers, are sailors, a

repairman, and our marines that the tools will be there for them to carry out their mission. >> i also support the recommendations. north carolina is a military- friendly state, and that has helped us. we have had an increase in the amount of activity, personnel, and operations coming out of fort bragg. the momentum is coming toward us. as they do other consolidations or reductions, i think we are well set on the military side and the state side with the way we provide opportunities for veterans and returnees and take that learning and turn it into good products and services for folks coming out of fort bragg and camp lejeune. we are very well said. i also think we can do better contract oversight. the stories you read about in afghanistan and what have you, it is evident there is a lot of money being squandered, wasted or unaccounted for there.

we can do that. it is the right thing to do, and elimination of no-bid contracts. that is something that needs to get our attention. i think north carolina can flourish with a reduction around the country because we are military ready. we are military accepting. we are glad to have our veterans and our military presence here. they are building our state for us. it is great that we can use their resources. i recently did a program to help veterans transition into more private jobs out here. i am happy to help lead that effort. our military presence has been good, but we can change with the times as well. >> north carolina should know that we came out of iraq in a very positive way. we have over 27,000 active-duty troops at fort bragg, over 9000 marines at camp lejeune. we are the tip of the spear in

this state when it comes to military action. when the president calls on our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines -- we are first when this country needs to be represented around the world. >> the next question goes to ms. marshall first of all. president obama stuck a certain date to ending the war in afghanistan. >> this is something we have talked about a lot in north carolina. i think we need to be paying attention to military leaders for the withdrawal. a lot of folks know from the democratic primary that i did not support the search uptick of troops there. i think it has taken our eye off the ball on overall fighting terrorism. but we are there. we are there now to the tune of $4 billion a month. i think we should have an orderly withdrawal, not putting our military folks in additional harm's way and not harming those

who have been our friends and allies as we have tried to be together there and work with them. but i do think we ought to be doing orderly withdrawal. i am not so hung up on dates per se. the military leaders over there should have the ability to conduct their withdrawal as they see best fit. different regions are not going to all be the same. i am going to rely on military leaders on that one. >> i was supportive of the surge. it was successful in iraq. it enabled us to get out faster, to turn over security to the military and police. i supported the president's decision to implement a surge in afghanistan. i am not sure we are going to have to wait until july to figure out if the surge can work. if in early summer or spring we determine the surge camerawork, i will not be hesitant to call for bringing our service members from.

but if the surge, and i hope it does, is successful, i hope the president will ignore an arbitrary date and i hope he will provide all the tools that are needed to make sure that the surge is successful, and more importantly that afghanistan is ready at some point to take over their own security. i am reminded frequently that pakistan is next door. i am not sure that any individuals that talk about immediate withdrawal, and i am not suggesting secretary was, understand. what do you do about pakistan, a nuclear country, a country that probably cannot manage all the terrorist elements in pakistan today? we have to have a plan for when we leave, for afghanistan but also for pakistan. >> yes. we have to keep our eye on the ball. protecting folks from harm and those who would harm us is the

number-one job. we have to be lean, mean, and flexible, whether they are in yemen, somalia, or wherever. we have to always capture, kill, or take care of folks who would do us harm in this world, without regard to geographical boundaries. >> the first provisions of the federal health care reform law went into effect last month. however, there are still many politicians who say that health care reform is still vulnerable. where do you stand on federal health care reform? would you support efforts to repeal or not fund part or all? >> all of the above. i would hope to repeal it. i would hope to de-fund its implementation. i would work aggressively to replace it with something that helps the american people. expansion of coverage. i do not believe that half of the individuals who are going to have coverage expanded to them,

15 million individuals, should be delegated to the roles of medicaid, where their primary care doctor is an emergency room. it is the most expensive place to deliver care, but 50% of the health-care plan puts them in medicaid. the plan does not do anything for cost control. make it more affordable for every american. the inspector general of the centers for medicare and medicaid services came out in the debate and said if you pass this it will eliminate 20% of the small and medium sized hospitals in rural america and 20% of the long-term care facilities. i do not believe the way to improved health care in this country is to reduce the number of outlets. we need to invest in chronic disease management. we need to make sure that individuals that need treatment get it as early as possible. we certainly did not need to spend are still $500 billion from seniors out of medicare to

fund the creation of this new program. >> we have spent a lot of time in the last two years talking about health care. but when you think about it, we spent the better part of the last 20 or 30 years talking about health care reform and have not gotten there. this bill was ugly. the process was ugly. but a lot of ugliness has been worked out. when we began this conversation, i wanted to be sure that i spoke up for broader access to health care, more affordable health care costs, and that the loopholes become eliminated and we do not create others. i want to work very hard to have a good health care bill. if there are things that need correcting, it is a work in progress. the reporting that will have to be done by small business -- i will work hard to get that out of there. i do believe it will come out. it is a start. we have to fix things that might

be a problem, but we have to lower costs on families. the private market is modulating. they are working on it. i hope it will be successful. we are beginning to see things. to have things like elimination of pre-existing conditions, elimination of gender discrimination -- those are very important to me and very important to americans. i get it. i have had a very sick husband. i have opened up bills that took my breath away, $5,000 a month for a medication he needed to live. i have been there and it is not a happy place to be. but i had good insurance. a lot of people do not. >> the ugly is not out of this bill. we stymie innovation and devices and drugs. we chase it offshore by saying it is not going to be paid for in the future because health care will be designed based on how much money we are willing to put into it. in this bill, we found things

like a mandate on small business, where when they purchased something over $600 to have to file a 10-99 with the company purchased it from. this is insane. it has no place in the health- care bill. that is what happens when you do not read what you pass. >> we will not take a short break for public-service announcements. back to our questions. to many observers, washington seems to be stuck in a state of gridlock, where party agendas and reputations take precedent over cooperation. if elected, what will you do to build a compromise on major issues? >> indeed, folksy that washington is broken. they see partisanship beyond compare. they do not understand it. folks need to talk to each other and understand each other. there is a lot of middle ground out there. we should be able to recognize that. we have to change the rules of

the senate. they currently are crafted so that it is very, very difficult , and you need supermajorities to get things passed. we have to work across party lines. we have to realize who we are working for. i will go to represent the people of north carolina. i will remember who sent me there and will vote for what is right for the people of this state. i was not the washington insider pick in this race. i do not have obligation. i can be the independent free voice i have been all along in washington. it is right for north carolina, it will come out right. >> i have passed legislation in the united states senate. i know what is it is like to reach across the aisle and work with ted kennedy or another democrat. the senate, by design, requires a level of bipartisanship that starts when you first begin to think about legislation.

the problem is that when you have a party that determines that are going to change the process, not the rules -- and i would be against changing the rules of the united states senate. we have a majority leader who decides he is going to bring bill after bill to the house and deprive not just the minority but members of his own party from the opportunity to amend legislation. then the senate is doing exactly what it was designed to do. it is shutting down. it does not get this country any further, but the senate was always designed to achieve bipartisanship through the rules and through the process. if you want to make sure we have a functional united states senate, make sure whoever the majority leader is or whenever the party is that is in the majority allows the process to take place and does not short cut it. >> when