children, and this one did not, she was horrible, she did not listen to us, these are our experiences -- we have the right to listen to those opinions and then say, "we would like to request this teacher." the way they throw the children in with the teachers is not explained. they get together, and i don't understand how the children are sorted with the teachers. host: we will leave it there. nick is a student in boston. caller: thank you for having me on. i am a student at the university of boston-massachusetts, a public university. i went to a high-school the was also a public high school. host: all right, go ahead. caller: i will start with boston -- it is the very culturally

diverse. the standards for the curriculum are therefore very low. they don't hold us to a high standard, because being at a public university, we are subjected to political pressure. politicians like to show the politicians like to show the public that they are doing an excellent job -- host: and you are saying that low standards are because of cultural diversity? caller: yes, absolutely, because of the standards were high, if the curriculum was more intense, i think a lot of individuals at the schools would not do well, and that would reflect badly upon -- host: did you find that in the high school? caller: in high school, i was not really conscious of the standards. i guess my criticism of public i schools is that -- public i schools is that it is very similar to prisons in that we are often segregated by groups were segregated by race is. if you are the favorite among

the teachers, you get special favors. host: all right, we're going to have to leave it there, because, unfortunately, we are out of time. this was a really interesting discussion. we should have done all three hours of the show on it and we could have really gotten into it. thank you for being with us on "washington journal." it will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. c-span2, booktv, this weekend will be live from the texas book festival in austin, texas. booktv.org and follow twitter updates. thanks for being with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> a new poll shows richard blumenthal's lead has grown into double digits. the poll released shows 11% as point lead among likely voters. his lead was three points two weeks ago. this is the seat held by retiring member christopher dodd. it could be the most expensive get the votes movement in the las vegas history.

senator reid is behind republican sharron angle. two debate tonight. midterm elections are november 2. we're showing debates from key races across the country. we start at 7:45 tonight. he has been in the news for wearing nazi uniforms. harry reid will debate sharron angle and that this fall by the tennessee governor's debate. live coverage at 11:00 p.m. eastern in nevada's third district. "q &a," sunday. >> is sometimes hard to avoid your basic values, has d.c. the

relationship between lot and the average person in this country, what you think what is about. those basic fundamental values i think are part of you, and they will sometimes influence and approach with the question is very open and where it admits to that kind of thing. >> stephen breyer and his new book, sunday night on c-span. >> live coverage from the texas book festival on "book tv." six years of captivity in the jungle. science and human values. plus offers on the obama presidency. panels on medical mysteries and infamous fugitives. get the entire schedule andbooktv.org -- at booktv.org.

>> there is a meeting in brussels to prepare for a summit the will chart the course of the alliance for the next 10 years. hillary clinton and robert gates will be talking with reporters about their goals for today's meetings. that briefing starts in about 35 minutes, 10:40 eastern here run c-span. president obama travels to asia after the midterm elections. james steinberg discussed the upcoming trip yesterday. this is about 40 minutes. >> let me begin. it is my pleasure to welcome you

all, the party secretary steinberg and to introduce deputy secretary steinberg. jim has been in government service for many years prior to his current position. he has been in the national security council during the clinton administration, was an adviser and was also chief of staff in the department of state and the head of the state's policy planning staff. also the deputy assistant secretary for analysis in the bureau of intelligence and research. before that, he was a colleague of mine at the rand corp. in santa monica in the early 1990's. when i first met him, he has been a pass persist -- at past

participant in crisis management and was involved in an exercise we undertook in 2005. today he is going to speak on u.s. policy towards asia. he will speak for about 25 minutes. then we'll have about 15 or so minutes of question and answer, and then he will have to leave promptly at 1:15. jim? >> it is good to be back here. i am honored to be here with you. it is a good time to talk about u.s. policy towards asia. you run into the important questions. this is what we're covering in asia. i will focus today primarily on

bilateral issues. it is a variable geometry, as they say. it is appropriate to focus on asia for a couple of reasons. this is a busy season on the asia agenda. there was recent involvement by secretary gates to the upcoming visit by the president to the eas meeting that the secretary will participate in and the leaders meeting in yokohama that the president will participate in. it is a reason that does not lack for attention every day. when we think about u.s. policy towards asia, u.s. policy towards the region and the significance given the

centrality of the issues of asia to our own security and prosperity and the importance of the dramatic changes that take place in the region for the united states and how we deal with that. i think we need to focus on asia for its global significance. the issues we're dealing with regionally or in microcosm of the big global issues of our time, whether it is energy and climate. but also is a microcosm of those issues. those countries are influential on the global stage on how we address those issues as asia plays a more prominent role and as those institutions adapt to that. the solution to most of the big

global challenges require engagement by asian countries. we will not solve climate change without some of the growers and emitter's. so major it is important as a region. i think it is important to stress that the compelling case of u.s. involvement is because of the global significance as well as the regional significance. it has been clear that we have seen this as the essential part of our overall foreign-policy strategy. we cannot achieve those objectives without a deep engagement in asia. the united states has a strong interest in continuing this tradition of economic

leadership. asia has a strong interest in the united states remaining a strong economic partner. when we think about how we engage in asia, the secretary and others have talked about three dimensions to our overall strategy. strengthening our core traditional alliances in asia with japan, south korea, australia, and the philippines. building new and productive relationships with emerging powers. and strengthening multilateral regional cooperation. i have talked about strengthening our alliances and dealing with emerging powers. i want to focus on my remarks on the third dimension, the multi lateral and regional dimension. i think it is important because these relationships are

important and we see more and more that the ability to generate corporation requires the kinds of institutions and informal arrangements that exist around the globe that are a process of evolution in asia. given the events including the east asia summit, it is a good time to reflect on these. i will start with the one that we tend to spend less time talking about. i think it is important about the continued importance to our national strategy. the country itself interacts to develop what we see as a 21st century economic agenda. i think there are a number of elements that will be on display in the upcoming summit

in yokohama. and the one-two punch, followed by our own agreement to the meeting. as you see, creating jobs or developing a sustainable models for growth, apec has an enormous opportunity to continue this. there is a central the region place in global trade and investment. the developer -- the ability to develop models depends on how the powers can chart a strategy that is consistent with the health of our planet. apec has an important role to play. it is not largely an

institutional decision-making body. but it -- it provides the kind of innovation that allows us to translate the work that takes place within the discussions to more formal institutions. it helps push the envelope by discussing trade and investment barriers in developing concrete ways for the countries of the region to work together to create a win-win solutions on the economic front. the key is a strategy that focuses on growth that is balanced, innovative, knowledge- based, and secure. it demonstrates there are multiple to mentions to a long- term economic strategy. one of the advantages is that it allows us to explore the interconnections between these different elements of our long- term economic strategy.

apec provides a framework for initiatives to take place that may involve all of the members. an important example is the ongoing discussions on the trans pacific partnership. the building blocks created can shape positively and potentially be catapulted to a broader level. the negotiators have begun their work today. they have looked to the work to inform their own efforts on how to make this a high quality trade agreement. it is a promising model as we think about the longer term vision. at the apec meeting, there are a number of important tilt on -- a number of important developments

to look to. there are some statements coming out of a summit 16 years ago. free trade in the region. cataloguing the challenges that remained and giving us a blueprint for the wait for word. it will also provide a springboard for our own chairmanship of apec in 2011 when the first pacific president will host a conclave that will focus on the importance of these trade and economic ties to the region. i next want to turn to other relations. we have seen a strength and commitment to our engagement aussian leaders in new york.

the secretary's participated in meetings over the past few weeks. as this has developed, sotho has our partnership develop. we have seen an agenda of issues of common interest and concerns this is an indispensable partner to the united states. we have talked about climate change as well as some of the new and emerging security concerns, like piracy. this is essential to the future in which the united states are critical partners. we have deepened our engagement the have identified and also by the -- we have an ambassador in the region that shows the

significance that we have attached as the organization as well as the individual members. with our decision last year to speak to the treaty of corp., which is another example of the points we have attached to the framework that is developing for a peaceful and stable region. it is in part because of the importance we attach as a focal point for developing corporate strategies in east asia that we've decided to move forward to deepen our participation in the east asian summit. we believe the creation of the east asian summit is a development in the evolution of the regional architecture. we recognize asia has its own dynamics, and you cannot point to other models. this will have to be developed to meet challenges of asia. what is of importance is that

the summit and the membership reflects what we believe is the key political geography of east asia. it comprises all of the key players of the region and is highlighted by the president's trip including india and russia. it is at the center and allows the institution to develop in ways that avoid the dangers of this being seen as a rivalry among the larger powers and allows us to have the framework that can promote cooperation and solutions to problems. this is an evolutionary process. we will have to feel our way forward. but this is a way for the leaders to think about how to strengthen cooperation on virtually every issue which affects the well-being of the

countries. we all recognize that we need greater cooperation. our goal is to be a good partner to the countries in the region in this evolutionary process of institution-building. in addition, we also have what some in my building have called many lateral as some -- mini- lateral was somism. the so-called lmi prius together the countries of southeast asia and the issues that unite them as well as their proximity. issues like environment, health allows a subset to work together on common challenges and provide a framework for cooperation. this was launched by secretary

clinton last year. projects include the sister river partnerships, the lower initiatives conference on trans- national -- practical dimensions of working together. we intend to initiate a program on emerging pandemic threats in the region. climate change on food, security, and livelihood. our trilateral security dialogue with the nine states, australia, and japan -- with the united states. it allows us to come together with different working levels on an informal basis to focus on strategic cooperation. these are the regional organizations. i don't want to conclude without

referencing the increasing role that asia place in the global, broader institution. to the role that the asian countries played in copenhagen and the opening -- in the upcoming cancun meeting, asian countries are increasingly critical players to meeting these global challenges and playing a central role in these institutions. our partnership with the countries in the region, the benefits of our global agenda. let me pause and i look forward to your questions and comments. >> excellent. thank you, jim. [applause] we have been a little bit -- whatever you please. we have about 20 minutes of time

for questions and answers. i would like to use a part to open this upper with one sort of basic question which tries to encompass the issue of how multilateral organizations can address security questions in the region. the specific issue for me is, how do you see the relationship between multi lateral organizations from a security perspective, particularly ones based on political systems? you have some arguments that say the needs to be a greater level of democracy-based association among different countries in the region. these should engage on security issues. a counter argument is you need

to have something more inclusive, that certainly includes china and that that is a more productive way to proceed in addressing security issues. how do you look at that those two different approaches? >> i think they are complementary and unnecessary. as i mentioned, we have mechanisms like the tri-lateral security dialogue, which is a like-minded engagement of the countries with shared political values as well as shared security. we have the six-party talks format for north korea on nuclear issues are the form eas, and i think both are necessary. the united states has a special set of relationships to try to

develop common positions with like-minded friends and allies. we need to sustain that. we began with those bilateral traditional relationships. we also recognize that if there were only issues among the like- minded, -- we need institutions and arrangements to encompass that. i asked one of the areas where there are multiple kinds of strategies trick we need a balance between more and less formal institutions, as well. sometimes we need the opportunity for people to get together without the formalities of secretaries and voting rules. sometimes it could be necessary to of a binding-type mechanism. that is part of the evolutionary approach that is taking place. we can draw on models from other

regions. there is the reform in this hemisphere, the evolution in africa, the work we're doing to revitalize nato and to strengthen the upcoming summer in a few weeks. we can learn from other regions. there will be a uniquely asian character to the charges we make in this region. >> thank you. let's open up to the audience for questions. there are people seated in the other room and the back and i think -- are there? no. of us we would have cards. please identify who you are and keep your question will to free brief. gentleman right there with your hand up. there is going to be a microphone. sorry.

china released its third- quarter exchange figures. there were a stew $2.65 trillion single largest increase for their reserves. does that not suggest to you the imbalances are getting worse not better, not withstanding china's decision to untether itself from its peg? >> we have a good understanding about who will talk about which issues. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. can you talk about prejudice with india? are we expecting a vote on both sides on what the u.s. is asking

india? so much is going on between the countries. there is so much going on in india. >> i am not going to still the president -- i am not going to thunder onpresident's this trip. we have placed importance on strengthening a broadening our relationship with india. it was no coincidence the first state visit the president hosted was from india. the level of engagement has grown exponentially. i myself had a chance to visit india. the economic, political, and social level -- our agenda is very broad. what you will see is a demonstration of just how broad

the relationship is. we have much to do with regional issues and not issues of food security, education. the list goes on and on. we'll be able to demonstrate that we have moved to a new level in this relationship, one that is based on mutual respect for the constructive role but india does play on the international scene. the partnership will be very much in view. the other think is -- the other thing is that we group india and south asia and we see this as an east asian country, as well. in some ways, the stop and indeed will be the first stop for the president on histour. it is important to see this as a forum for developing cooperation within the region.

india is a participant there. this presents a global partnership between the united states and india. we're able to put behind us some of the differences in the past and move forward to build this relationship and it will be of benefit to the people of india and the united states and the world. economic futures can only be strengthened. we are dealing with the needs of our people on food, health, and on things we both believe we can take to a new level, and i think that will be highlighted on the trip. >> thank you. hello, i'm paula stern. i have been on the international economic policy advisory committee. i want to ask a question about trade, not about the exchange

rate. you will not send this over to ron kirk or brightener. when it comes to the -- or brightener -- or geithner. when it comes to the economies, subsidies have crept in during the whole effort to stimulate out of this global recession that we have been in the. we have petitions about the way china operates. economic system that may go up against some of the rules of the road of the world trade organization, of which they are a member. there are observers where they are -- where there are rules of the road. the extent to which apec in its

divisions will deepen some of these issues beyond the exchange rate questions and really get into the models that are appropriate for a global architecture. >> that is a great question. i cannot comment on specific cases. you pointed your finger at something we believe apec can have an important role, which is to develop models of institutional reform to a limit of non-tariff barriers that stand in the way of economic growth and to look at some of the structural problems as apec use as a place for countries to showcase their own reform efforts to try to deal with these elements, and to have a chance for a give and take in an informal way.

it is a nice complement to the more formal mechanisms. we believe strongly that the recent we signed up and join wto was to give a fair forum for us to debate these issues. it is simply using the mechanism we have all agreed to to achieve the results that we agree we should be achieving a. but that structural work that can go on apec, weather is looking at models and structural reform to reduce the imbalance is and the inefficiencies that come with these kinds of interventions, i think apec is a very attractive form for that to take place it does allow engagements to encourage

countries to take the advice and concerns of others into account. >> there is a subsidies issue which i don't know if it has been a focal point anywhere, including the wto until the dispute comes at the end of the day. there is some productivity in some of the economic and trade institutions. thank you. >> yes, ma'am. right there. >> i wanted to pick up on something you said in response to a previous question about india and how the administration sees india as a part of the asian fabric. this is consistent with things the administration has been saying for the past year. does that lead you to re-think

what we believe should be india's role in east-asia centered --east asia-centric institutions? >> there has been a moratorium on new-member issues. we're trying to think about that and to think about what the future of apec is. membership needs to be embedded into that broader conversation with the membership. i do think it is apparent that on the economic front that india itself is looking east and that is developing stronger trade and economic ties and that we need to think about how we relate india's economic development to the region. that will be part of the overall

review process as the membership of apec considers whether and what direction we should move. >> thank you. representative here. predict right up here. >> with that decision of u.s. presses -- of u.s. precipitation, we have for the board discussion of likelihood of the obama administration using apec to deal with economic issues and to deal with political issues. do you think this is the policy of the administration right now? will become the policy in the future? >> as i mentioned, as we work to the evolution of these institutions, we want to be seen as a good partner purred we want to have these conversations among the members.

there's always a temptation to develop an answer in washington and tell our partners about it. we're developing some ideas of how we see the future. rather than announce this is what it should become we want to consult with them. it would be presumptuous of us to come in and say here's where we think the organization should go. there will be a chance to begin those discussions. it is part of our bilateral diplomacy when we meet with other partners, to get their views. we are sensitive to the central world and we want to solicit the views of our partners to about theeas -- about the eas. this is something we do not want to say that this is a washington answer patrick we want to begin

this discussion with our partners. we want to sort this out. it doesn't have to be a bright line between each and every institution. things did not follow those need to charge in the real world as to do sometimes in the classroom. they have to take into account a variety of perspectives. this is a dialogue we are beginning, particularly with eas. we want to consult with others and figure where are the gaps? where were not able to work together as effectively? where are potential duplications? >> great. we in the back there. >> thank you. i want to ask -- there was a demand that north korea -- the

2005 agreement. statements show a different position. they are not going to come back as a non-nuclear state. there was concern if there was no dialogue, there would be heading to further provocation. i like to ask your comment on these concerns. >> we have had to deal with the north korea issue at some point. i do not think there is a lot of value in responding to specific public statements for north korea. we will see what the policy and the decisions are from the north korean leadership. the north koreans continue to insist that they do support and agree on the implementation of the 2005 s statements. there should provide a good basis to move forward.

we still need some clear indication that the north is prepared to go beyond rhetoric to reflect that implementation. we think there is a strong consensus among the other five countries that north korea needs to demonstrate its seriousness of purpose. we're very open to see those kinds of ideas the north has about how to pursue that process. there is much in it for all concerned. the north has to understand that there are some skepticism and some responsibility on their part to show they are serious about the joint statements. >> great. standing. >> i applaud you for taking this approach on regional and global, which is rarely brought into the

equation. i want to stick with your team -- theme. the administration has shown that multilateral institutions that were downgraded can have a major impact on security issues. the president suggest even a greater the venue next year. the magic will be results. what to these organizations -- the metric will be results. what do these organizations accomplish? what do you consider success for this round and the whole panoply of security issues. what do you think can be accomplished? >> we have seen and you have suggested some models from the past. the declaration on conduct and

we have a way in which an informal and non-blind way, countries can develop some understanding -- in a non- binding way. this is a shared view. you heard this from the chinese representation as well as from secretary gates pit bull began -- with secretary gates. we will begin with, efforts on piracy where all the countries have an interest. we have focused in recent years because of the intensity, there are piracy issues in the region and there are other issues of environmental safety in the region with the increase of maritime traffic. we have an interest in discussing some of the issues like the arctic, which could be

significant for northeast asia. i think there is an opportunity to begin with areas where there is a shins -- a sense of what needs to be the objective. some of the environmental issues are examples. those are places to start. we looked over time to address some of the more thorny once. -- some of the more thorny ones. things like arms control in europe. it is not out of the question in the future. we want to start in places where we can make pragmatic improvements and find areas of clear shared interest and demonstrate we can work together effectively.

natural disasters are another example. coordination and developing mechanisms for communication, cooperation are all interest to all countries. >> if i could follow up for one point on this. you can make the argument that the recent discussions in hanoi that was attended by secretary clinton and by secretary gates, that the united states sent a signal that it wants to work with or use the arf as a way of discussing some of the sensitive issues, which would be territorial disputes in the south china sea as a forum, and that is a new departure for the united states to introduce that issue in that way into that kind of a forum.

it generated at least some potential attention with the chinese on this issue, which was clear at the defense itself, in the case of the arf. >> stanley is talking about results. on the more difficult and sensitive issues, we cannot see this as doing this to get an agreement. it is for a better understanding. one of the things we do hope for the eas is that it becomes flexible and that leaders can discuss issues of concern. it is not threatening to have these issues raise. we don't expect these will translate into the institute's becoming institutions taking on institutions on difficult issues. they need to focus on building trust and patterns of

cooperation that will allow us to deal more effectively. >> i think we're coming down to the last question. one last question. very succinctly, please. then jim has to go. >> hello. it is good to see you again. regarding your meeting with you and the japanese prime minister yesterday, what did you discuss as well as the upcoming meeting with president obama? thank you. >> i think that it was a great pleasure to welcome the vice minister, a good friend of the united states. it is a reflection of the strong relationship between the countries that we have people on both sides work together for a long time and have a very strong sense of mutual commitment.

he in support of his boss and we have respect for and our goal is to help support the work they are doing together. we talked a lot about how we can make sure that we communicate effectively to wear a public. the long-term perspective of our relationship, and to make a series of upcoming meetings a success. one of the ways we make it a success is to focus on the broad range of shared interest that we have entered a joint determination to tackle those challenges. we have no more important partner in asia than japan. we have a strong security relationship. we talked about avenues and dimensions of that, as well. i think we feel that the partnership is very strong.

a key challenge is to build on that momentum but also to do an effective job of communicating just how vital their relationship remains. >> grade. with that, we will bring that meeting to an end -- great. a big hand for james steinberg. [applause]

>> a live picture where secretary of state clinton and robert gates will address reporters in just a couple of minutes. the to part in meetings to discuss nato's strategy. defense ministers are meeting in brussels today to prepare for a november summit that will chart the western military alliance's

course over the next 10 years. we're having some technical difficulties with the microphones there. we'll bring you live coverage on c-span when it gets started. until the "washington journal an." post" this morning. president obama's approval rating has taken another died in the polls. -- dive in the polls.

again, this is based on a reuters poll. once again, the numbers. currently president obama's job approval, 43. 53 disapprove.

that is a change from 47-50 in september. country in the right direction? 31% say yes, 63% wrong. in september, 33-61. a plan to back democrat or republican for congress among likely voters. 44% democrat, 48% republican. that is from "the new york post." "financial times" this morning. it picture of president obama and pennsylvania. -- a picture of president obama in pennsylvania.

this, again, from "financial times." do you think this election is about president obama? we will start with richard from new jersey. caller: thank you so much for

taking my call. i don't know if this election is purely a referendum on obama as it is a referendum on the state of affairs in america. let me tell you why i say that. did you watch the debate between cristi and o'donnell and chris koons? koons? >> -- host: i did. caller: she used the term obamacare. there is no legislation on the books called obamacare. i have been a long time wolf blood sir -- wolf blitzer watcher, it is disconcerting when you talk about legislation that does not exist. what if we talk about the o'donnell wiccan candidacy because i think it would be underhanded. just like that there is not anything obamacare that the

president signed in congress voted on. why do we spend an entire debate with two very sharp people managing the debate and get people can constantly talk about legislation that does not exist. host: our good friend joe from georgia. republican line. caller: great to talk to you. i think it is definitely about obama. we are having a meeting with our congressman tom gray and a great talk-show host and tom is a lead sponsor to repeal the obama health care. i can tell you, i think everybody i am talking to is voting republican because we just cannot afford obama. i think one reason the stock market has gone up so much is because they think republicans will take over the house and probably the senate and i think we will landslide the president in 2012. host: you have a lot of competitive races.

jim marshall, democratic congressman from georgia, is running ads that are anti nancy pelosi. the singing he voted with the republicans but caller: that is correct. and the congressman will campaign for marshall's opponent this weekend. i think scott has a good chance to beat marshall. it shows how unpopular -- i think the guy is the most unpopular -- he is a nice man but by far the most unpopular president in history. we don't need a lot of government, we need less government and taxes and i am thrilled we have a congressman. i think, braised will be president of the united states someday. a great leader for the conservative cause -- host: how is pools barbeque going? caller: peter, that is why we are there. we are honoring him -- he broke every record. he started a business 21 years ago and this is every -- great news. he broke every record in the

history of the barbecue. he is doing super. he is great. i want you to come down and did that in some time. host: there will be campaign stops at that bar-b-q in georgia. is this 2010 election about president obama? caller: i believe without a doubt it is a referendum because many people came out, normally would be republican or independent, and voted for him with great expectations. and all the things he promised, he could have done. but if the democrats start calling and lying and saying he is doing a great job, the need to put his foot to the fire. the money he is spending in the unwarranted war and now pakistan, and now threatening iran, how can we ever get anything done? we can never get our house in order. believe it or not, i would have

expected sarah palin and mccain to behave like this because of this seems like an extension of the bush administration. host: who did you vote for in 2008? caller: believe it or not, i was stupid enough to vote for him. host: who will you vote for for california governor and senate. caller: believe it or not, it will definitely be jerry brown because he's got experience and he cares. host: what about the senate race? caller: i am not voting for none of the incumbents, out of the question. two female senators -- and our state it is in a pure mess. career politicians to not care. i don't care if joe the trashman -- he will get my vote. host: from "the new york times ," the reporter traveled to wisconsin with michelle obama. here is a picture of michelle

obama and a little bit from the article. a misses obama's reemergence after a nearly two-year hiatus from politics reflects the deep trouble the democrats are in. she is not keen to be on the campaign trail.

she talked to the talk-show host. >> we got this man an office. i think we are proud of barack and his accomplishments, everyone in the communities are playing with us and we feel that. let me just tell your listeners that it means all the world to us to know that there are prayer circles out there and people who are keeping the spirit clean are around us. so, that means a great deal. we have, along with the we've

got to keep it coming. this election is going to make a statement about whether barack 's power and support is as deep. people are questioning whether his support is as deep. they want to make light, this is just a one time thing. host: jimmy, portland, oregon. is this election about president obama? caller: i don't think this election about barack. he has been trying to go across the party lines and get these people to talk to each other. they have philosophical differences, one filibuster can stop it all. i think that a lot of people are making a bad mistake, that there is going to be a republican wave november 2. if it was not for republicans -- all this money from outside

foreign countries, into the elections in the millions, maybe 100 million, and the elections -- they are close. with obama, they are starting to tighten up. remember, this is supposed to be a cycle where the republicans automatically pick up because the economy is bad, because of all of this other stuff is bad. host: carol, republican, at water park, new jersey. caller: yes, this election is about obama. even the commercials are not identifying whether they are democrats or republicans, just trying to push the particular individual. we have john runyn running here who is a new guy, not a career

politician, and he is going to washington to make it less government. we are a member of the 9/12 organization, when we started three months ago there were 60 people in attendance and then 120 the next month and now up to 160 people. these are independents, democrats, republicans, who are patriots and they are voting for runyon because they want smaller government. government. host: david from maryland, here in the suburbs. caller: this election is not about barack obama. this election -- it should not have anything to do with barack obama. i find it amazing how republicans can set up there and blame barack obama for every single problem that has come up in america. eight years of failed politics with the bush and all obama was trying to do was clean up the mess that president bush has started.

it should not have any bearing on what barack obama has done. it has only been two years since this man has been in office. two years. he said it himself. it will take longer than even his first term for some of the bills, and some of the mistakes to, for his term -- it will take longer for that. i cannot see how republicans could strictly blamed barack obama. last time i checked, there were three main branches of the united states government. if barack obama vetoes a bill or even accept a bill, it still has to go through the house, right? two-thirds of the house still has to approve a bill? i don't see how people can set up there and blame barack obama for anything. host: from the front page of "the new york times." stephen ratner, who oversaw the obama administration overall of the auto industry for months

resisted a settlement with regulators over his role in the new york pension fund kickbacks because he did not want to be banned from the securities industry. that was the front page. then you go to the jump, and that is a picture of him at the top. here is how this article the

includes, about his book " overhaul" that just came out and, by the way, book tv will be covering him in detroit in a week or two. here is how this article concludes --

john, helena, montana. is this election about barack obama? caller: good morning. i would say no, this is not about president obama. i would say it is not even about republicans and democrats. if you look at polling over the last 10 or 15 years you see this country is 40% conservative, 40% moderate, and 20% liberal. i would say that this election is about voting members to congress that reflect that demographic more than anything else. i also have a warning to many other republicans -- republican

politicians, that is. we are electing republicans because you say you are the conservative party. but if you choose to nominate people who are not conservative to run against mr. obama in 2012, -- people like mitch daniels, sarah palin, people who raise taxes and increase government. host: you are calling on the republican line. who is your favorite republican? caller: who is my favorite republican? i like mitt romney a lot. i like what i have seen from chris cristi so far. these are men who have governed as conservatives in blue states. i like rudy giuliani. i did not know if he >> we will go live now to nato secretary -- to nato headquarters in brussels where secretary of state hillary clinton and defense secretary robert gates are addressing reporters.

>> good afternoon. i am pleased to be here with my colleague, the secretary robert gates, for today's joint meeting of nato foreign and defense ministers. the meeting was productive and far-reaching. i will give you a readout, and we will be happy to take your questions. the focal point was nato's new strategic concept which now exists in draft form. the document and the conversations that has sparked service an important function -- to insure that natal evolves as the world evolves. to be a security alliance in the 21st century, remaining relevant and effective, nato must have the capacity to anticipate and protect against

shifting challenges from terrorism, ballistic missiles, from cyber attacks, to the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons. relying on the strategies of the past will not suffice. nato began as a regional alliance, but the threats are now global. our perspective must be global as well. it was in recognition of this fact that nato launched the strategic concept review. i would like to think secretary general rasmussen for leading it, and a panel of experts that did an enormous amount of work, led by former secretary of state madeleine albright. today's meeting brings us closer to a final product. the member states will continue to discuss and revise as we prepare for the summit in lisbon next month. defense ministers met earlier today to discuss middle reform

and strengthening capabilities. -- nato reform and strengthening capabilities. we will be needing another aspect of the reform agenda after this. one critical element will be an emphasis on improving coordination between civilian and military operations. today, security challenges are rarely just military. usually, they are political, and always, they are both. they call for a contribution from a wide range of people from specialists and weapons specialists to experts. we believe no must harmonize and integrate its civilian and military capacities. that is something secretary gates and i are working on in our own government. one item not on the formal agenda was afghanistan. naturally, as its largest ongoing operation, there was much discussion. two key elements of the strategy

were discussed -- first, helping afghanistan make the transition to taking the lead on its own security, and in the longer term creating a strategic partnership with afghanistan that will foster lasting stability and progress. both objectives are critical to nato's mission in afghanistan. in addition, secretary gates and i met together and separately with the number of our counterparts to discuss a range of regional and global issues. the united states remains absolutely committed to nato, which has safeguarded our freedom for over 60 years. we will continue to offer whatever support we can to help finalize the strategic concept and to implement it, insuring that nato will always stand as an effective and forceful alliance for its members security. with that, secretary gates and i will be glad to take your

questions. >> the first question is from an ap reporter. >> i would stand up, but i cannot, because of a computer on my lap. there has been a lot of talk recently over the past couple of weeks, and even today about the peace talks, the reconciliation and reintegration program that president karzai wants. we know what your red lines are for these talks, and we have been constantly reminded this is an afghan process, afghan-lead. we know all of that. at what point does the u.s. need to take a seat at the table in order to protect the equities the american people have lost with the blood and treasure over the last nine years? >> first of all, we have always

acknowledged that reconciliation has to be a part of the solution ultimately in afghanistan. we will do whatever we can to support that process. i think one of the principles we have established with president karzai is transparency with one another as this process goes forward. we are in a very close consultation with president karzai and the afghan government. we know what they are doing. -- we know what they are doing, and they know what we are doing. they understand what our requirements are. frankly, we share with them what we think will be in their own best interest as the process goes along. it is basically a partnership as we go forward with clearly the afghans in the lead. we are confident that we have access into this process, and plenty of opportunities to make

our concerns and suggestions known. >> the next question comes from "the wall street journal." >> why help with reconciliation now? not too long ago that the was are doing it was premature, and the government needed to be weakened. what has changed? >> i will not get into the details, but i will say that whenever opportunities arise that are worth exploring, we ought to take advantage of that. whether they lead to something concrete in the short term, or establish a predicate for something that might develop months or a year from now, i think, does not really matter. we need to be open to opportunities that arise. >> i would also add that both of us and our counterparts here in brussels have both seen and

received reports of progress that we are making on the ground. general petraeus was here in brussels yesterday and last evening. he briefed a number of the ministers as well as nato isap officials. his report reinforced a lot of the other evidence we are seeing about the increasing effectiveness on the ground of our joint efforts. i also think it is something of perhaps exaggeration to read too much into these early reports that are appearing in the press. this is a long process. there are two aspects -- the reintegration aspect is

accelerating more and more. the fighters on the field are seeking a way out. many of them found themselves employed by the taliban, or related insurgents, because it was all way to make a living. our reports are that more of them are seeking to leave the battlefield behind, and our redlines for them are the same as our red line for reconciliation -- renounce violence, and give up their weapons, renounce al qaeda, and the insurers and see, and abide by the laws and constitution of afghanistan. on the reconciliation front, this is a much more complex efforts that is just beginning. there are a lot of different strains to it that may or may

not be legitimate, or borne out as producing any bonafide reconciliation. so, i think that as bob said, we support with the afghans are doing. we obviously have sought and obtained transparency. we have an understanding of their goals and objectives, and they have a very clear understanding of our red lines. this will play out over time. obviously, we have for more than a year supported this kind of effort, but the timing is everything. the sincerity of the outreach is everything. we are not yet ready to make any judgments about whether or not any of this will bear fruit on the reconciliation front,

while we continue to see fighters coming off of the battlefield on the reintegration front. >> i would just add one sentence to the effect that secretary clinton mentioned general petraeus brief scenes yesterday. he briefed me last night. i had several defense ministers come up to me who had just been in afghanistan, and to a person, they said they were heartened by what they saw on the ground. >> from the german press agency -- two questions, both on the style defense. -- on missile defense. would you expect the decision on the summit to be linked to a debate on the u.s. said strategic -- u.s. sub-strategic

?clear weapons i can you give us some vision of where you are not at with where you expect to deploy efforts in europe? >> first of all, based on everything i have heard today, i did not hear anything about linkage in terms of missile defense and nuclear reduction. indeed, a number of speakers today talk about as long as we lived in a world of nuclear weapons that it is important that nato rename a nuclear-arms alliance -- remain a nuclear- armed alliance. with respect to turkey, we talked about many subjects.

obviously, the approach to an alliance was one of those subjects that was broadly discussed. i would say that we are not putting pressure -- pressure on them, but we are having continuing conversations with them as one of our allies. >> high. this is regarding the british aid worker. will the navy seal who was expected of throwing the grenade to have killed -- that killed the eight work -- the aid worker face punishment?

>> investigation of this tragedy is still underway. i do not know the answers to those questions. clearly, the death of this aid worker is a tragedy. we offer condolences to her family and her friends. but, i think there is also an important point to be made. let's not forget to put her in harm's way, kidnapped her, and captor on a mountainside at 8,000 feet. it kept her on a mountainside at 8,000 feet. the taliban and there's the principal responsibility. >> i would echo that. it is a point that my colleague made. we join him in expressing our

deepest condolences for the loss of this intrepid young woman. we regret deeply that the taliban is increasingly targeting aid workers. our aid workers, who go out to help deliver medical services and educational opportunities for seed and fertilizer to farmers, or help set up local government and court systems -- they are vulnerable. they are there working with people on the ground. they do not carry arms. they are there on a different mission. it is one that has been much more integrated between our military and civilian capacity than ever before. we are very proud of the

partnership that exists, all the way through nato, between our military on the front lines and our development workers on the front lines. just recently, the taliban made clear that aid workers should be targeted. we know what happened to the medical team that was kidnapped and killed just several months >> we appear to have lost our signal from brussels. programming. the congressional oversight released a report about tarp. the report points out concerns there were potential conflicts of his -- interest. it is just one issue that might be raised this afternoon.

you can see it live, at 1:30 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> all of this weekend, live coverage from the texas book festival on booktv with eugene robinson and sam harris on science and human values. also, authors on the obama presidency. throughout the weekend, panels on medical mysteries, capital punishment, and infamous people. >> it is sometimes hard to avoid your basic values -- hi you see the country, how you see the relationship between law and the average person in this country. those basic, fundamental, legal and political values are a part

of you, and they will, sometimes influence an approach where the question is open, and admits to that kind of thing. >> supreme court justice stephen briar, and his new book, sunday night, on c-span. >> a new poll is showing that connecticut's attorney general has grown into double digits over of linda mcmahon, the former ceo of world wrestling entertainment. two weeks ago, the lead was three points. this is the seat held by retiring senator christopher dodd. the midterm election is our november 2. each night on c-span we're showing debates. tonight, we start at 7:45 with the u.s. house debate.

easternve at 9:00 p.m. as senate democratic leader harry reid debates sharon ankle. that will be followed by the tennessee governor's debate, which will be followed by one of the closely watched house races in the third district. delaware's u.s. senate candidates, christine o'donnell and chris kuhn's met in their first televised debate last night. before the debate, new castle county executive, chris combs county executive, chris combs was leading the team that -- a tea party-date -- backed candidate, christine o'donnell, by about 20%. this debate is about an hour and half.

>> let's introduce the candidates. welcome. we also want to think aarp delaware, and the american cancer society for support, making this debate possible. >> let's go through some of the ground rules for this 90-minute debate. it is divided into two parts, following an opening statement we will pose questions. responses to the initial question is limited to two minutes, with a one-minute rebuttal from the other candidate. there will then be an

opportunity for all of us to get into the discussion. that is the first hour. that will be followed by a 30- minute segment where we turn to the students they have questions. responses will be limited to when minute. each candidate will have two minutes at the end for a closing statement. our live audience understands there will be no applause during tonight's debate. we want everyone to be quiet, listen, and learn. a coin toss and determine the order for the evening. we begin with two-minute opening statements from each candidate. we begin with first -- with chris cones. >> thank you to our hosts. there is a great deal at stake in this election for our

family, and for our country. all of us recognize that washington is broken. as i have traveled up and down the state as a candidate, listening to voters talk about the issues facing them, i have heard their frustration with washington and elected officials who are permitting narrow policy agendas ahead of the country, and doing little to help americans out of work. the gridlock has real implications for us in the delaware. there are more than 35,000 in delaware still out of work. these are not just numbers. >> these are our neighbors. we cannot watch washington ignore us or them any longer. in this election, voters face a clear and important choice between on the one hand, my opponent, a candid that wants to take her state and country back to the failed economic policies

of the past, and to i believe has extreme positions that threaten vital education programs that would abandon our commitment to our veterans. in my case, i've a proven record working with delaware's businesses, large and small, helping to create jobs and spur growth. over the next 90 minutes, i look forward to sharing my values that i learned in delaware, working here, been leading -- and leading. i take seriously the idea that this campaign is a job interview. tonight's debate is about giving an insight into which candidate has the best experience to represent them and do the hard work of fixing what is broken in washington. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you tore hosts and to

everyone being here tonight. i am running because i'm concerned about the direction of our country. the america that we knew and grew up with is being threatened. will be paid $1 million a day on the interest alone on our national debt. the common sense women in this room and all across delaware know this is not sustainable, yet my opponent wants to rubber- stamp the failed process -- the failed programs that cost us jobs. this is wrong. uncle sam needs to be caught off. i want to go to washington based on private businesses, not your tax dollars. i want to fight to have our nation become debt free. i want to stop the tax hikes that are coming in january. i want to reach a sustainable energy independence, support the military, and strengthen the homeland. i want to fight to strengthen social security, improve

education, and protect constitutional liberties. in an election year, just about every candidate says this, but what distinguishes us are the proposed solutions. i look forward to getting down to brass tacks with all of you over the next 90 minutes because i believe there is a clear choice. of vote for my opponent will cost the average of delaware family $10,000 instantly between the january tax hikes and his vote for cap and trade. most of us cannot afford that. if you think that government is too small, and you are taxed too little, if you have ever questioned whether america is a beacon of justice, he is your guy. if you want a u.s. senator that will stand up to the washington of lead, putting your interest ahead of special interests, and make the tough decisions to rein in washington, then i asked to vote christine o'donnell for u.s. senate. >> we're not getting to the

question portion of the evening. i will begin with you, chris coons. creating jobs clearly has to be a priority. americans voted overwhelmingly for democrats because most felt they would be able to fix the broken economy. unemployment is at 9.6%. almost three-quarters of americans say that the economy is still in a recession. why should the voters of delaware trust the democrats this time around? >> thank you for your question. i think the voters of delaware should trust this democrat because of my combination of experience working with the private sector. hands on work and concrete and engaged work as county executive parris lots of groups said represent businesses large and small to effectively grow the economy.

i have presented concrete and real ideas. they are on my website, and i look forward to going over them. i would advocate for a research and development tax credit, combined with a new manufacturing tax credit, that advocates for companies that invent things here, and make them here. i think we need to change the crazy tax policy in washington that gives incentives to american companies to ship jobs overseas. there are other things i have proposed. extending the home office tax credit, for starting a new business that employs folks in the first couple of years, fighting harder in trade policy to make sure that our trading partners are not taking advantage of us, doing more in the investment and innovation -- at the end of the day, i think delaware has a long tradition of inventing and then detective world-class products. the best way to get out of the recession is through growth.

the best way to growth is by taking advantage of the skills and resources of a world-class university like this one, and time that to a stronger, more- qualified, more-stable work force, giving us the resources that we need to be the leader in the world increase in high- quality manufacturing jobs. >> you have one minute for a rebuttal. >> my opponent has a history of promising not to raise taxes, and breaking the taxes? and as he takes office. unemployment in this county rose almost double. he has said he will continue to rubber-stamp the spending policies that come from washington. we were promised that the stimulus bill would create jobs, but instead it cost two 0.6 million jobs. we were promised it would keep unemployment at 8%. instead, it is at 9.7%.

the democrats are bragging that it has leveled out. while it has leveled out, more people than ever are on food stamps, and welfare spending is higher than ever. this is not the right move. it is not a move toward real economic recovery. it is almost toward creating a culture of dependency. >> that is the time. sorry. >> what specifically would you do to create jobs? >> i think the best thing the government can do to get our economy back on a real economic recovery is to get out of the way of the small-business owner. the way you do that is make sure the tax hikes do not, in january, and roll back regulations that have forced them to close their doors. a couple of things -- a temporary two-year tax holiday on the capital gains tax to give

money needed to reinvest in business. to permanently eliminate the death tax. it will create 1.5 million jobs and >> we are in a discussion portion, so you can interject as we continue to discuss that point. >> i am not sure i understand a region which she means by a culture of dependency -- what she means by a culture of dependency. she denounces the obama administration, when frankly, just a new -- a few weeks ago, a new bill, and tarp funds that are being repaid -- real and concrete steps are being taken i also cannot imagines that unemployment has doubled in the past year under my watch. i suspect we will keep a close eye. >> the department of labor

statistics, and we will have it on our website. he said that we are not creating a culture of dependency, but how would you despite how -- what is happening when unemployment has leveled out, but more and more people are on food stamps? do we want delawareans to be receiving food stamps or paychecks? >> we will love to have americans able to receive the benefits they need to get through tough times to denounce people as being dependent, is reckless frankly -- is frankly slandering people in a critical time. >> that is not at all what i'm doing. i am not the person who has cut the tax benefit for low-income but senior citizens as you did for residents. i am proposing to make sure that

tax cuts do not expire this january. you have said you will stop the tax cuts for the so-called rich. what you fail to realize is that the so-called rich are the small business owners, the dry cleaner down the street, the pizza shop owner who makes $300,000 before they pay their employees or feed families. >> we will try to have a conversation if we possibly could. i think would be helpful for us to have an exchange of an idea -- of ideas. i think it is important for folks to look closely at some of the things she has thrown out on her website. most of them are just flat out lied. some of them are just factually untrue. i am not point to stop every single time there is something she throws out that i disagree with or is untrue. at the outset, what you have put out is incorrect. if we sit and say that is not true, that is not true, we will

not make much progress toward >> did you support keeping the bush tax cuts for all americans, or only those making under two and a thick thousand dollars a year? >> i support extending them for the majority of americans. the value that i will apply is that we have a tough choice to make. every increase, at every extension that is given will cost and increase the deficit. it adds to the debt. here is the value that i would apply in deciding to extend all of the bush tax cuts and for how long. i think wish to do the tax cuts that have the best chance of getting our economy going again. >> you have an opportunity get back into the sky -- this discussion. this is issue number one, jobs, jobs, jobs, and also the deficit. you have made the point that the national debt is exploding.

the budget deficit is exploding. i want some specific, meaningful cuts, if you are elected as senator, what would you cut in the federal budget, and do not just a waste, fraud and abuse. what would you cut specifically? >> that is a great question. we have to tackle the deficit and debt because our deficit is almost equal to our national gdp. when the country's deficit because the gdp, that is when your currency and a market collapse. >> what would you cut? >> first of all, canceled the on spent stimulus bill. second of all, put a freeze on non -- on discretionary spending. put a hiring freeze on non security personnel, and when we are talking about cutting government spending, we have to talk about waste, fraud and abuse. a recent report came out and said we spend over $1 billion in

medicaid waste, fought -- fraud and abuse. we're talking about pharmacy's billing for prescriptions given to dead people. we're talking about home health- care companies billion for patients that were in the hospital. center cockburn recently put out a report that disclosed millions of dollars that were supposed to go to education funding that instead went to special favors. special favors are something my m -- my opponent knows about because he created 12 contingency funds to pay out favors to special interest groups. the court forced into a closed -- to close 11 of them. of the one that is open, he spent $53,000 in a men's fashion show. at a time when he brags the balance in the government by -- the budget by raising our

taxes, this is how he chooses to spend our tax dollars. we have to ask if we want to send this gentleman to washington, d.c.? i would say no. he is a career politician. >> you have one minute to respond. >> a minute might not be enough. let me get back to the focus -- what would we do to tackle the deficit and the debt. we have challenges. the overwhelming amount of spending is made by defense spending. what the president has proposed, and i would consider supporting a freeze on non discretionary spending for three years. i have also identified a series of reductions i would support. some of them aren't agricultural support, and some of them are in office hiring. several of them are in defense.

programs the pentagon itself said they no longer need. there are a variety of platforms and programs we could do away with as we invest in making our defense and military more modern, flexible, and responsive. >> let's open the discussion by correcting some of the financial issues by talking about some of the -- your own personal financial problems. most people know about and irs lien that was for about $4,000 in taxes and penalties. you just received your best to agree, you said because it took to a decade to pay off your tuition. the question is, how can voters rely on your thoughts if you're having personal issues of your own? >> the irs tax lien, the irs

admitted that was a computer error. as i have gone up and down the campaign trail, i have discovered that there are thousands that faced the same thing -- and irs mistake has caused them -- cost them greatly. that is more reason why we need to reform the irs, and not put them in front of our health care. i did not have a trust fund. i paid for my own college education. i have a graduate fellowship. i know how hard it is to earn and keep the dollar. one reason why you should be able to trust me is because when i read it because i work in this economy. -- because i worked in this economy. when i fell upon difficult times, i made the sacrifices needed. i sold my house and a lot my

possessions to pay off my personal debt, and to become a stronger position. i have worked hard in order to get to the position that i am. i can relate to the thousands of delaware families that are struggling right now, and i am stronger for it. i needed through to the other side. leadership does not count in whether or not you fall, but whether you have gotten up. >> we are in the discussion portion. if you anything you want to address, go for it. >> i frankly think we need to focus in this debate and the campaign not on personal financial difficulties or background issues, but on the issues in front of less -- the things that dollar is concerned about. -- delaware is concerned about. there has been a lot of discussion in the national media about what my opponent has said or done that i think our

distractions. >> you are just jealous that you were not on "saturday night live." >> let's get on a serious note. >> and the idea that i was responsible for been sued -- she is confusing me with my predecessor. >> you raise property taxes, according to reports, three times. you proposed new taxes on hotels, a paramedic services, and even 911 calls from cell phones. is that true? >> no. it is not true that we proposed taxes on calls to the 911 center. >> did you increase taxes as the county executive? >> let me walk you through what has happened.

when of the attacks my opponent has made is that i am driven the county to the edge of bankruptcy. nothing could be further from the truth. new castle county has a surplus. i have worked hard over six years to defend a significant reserve that is made it possible for us to continue to have a aaa bond rating. roughly 30 counties have a aaa bond rating. i reached a bipartisan solution to >> your quick response appeared >> you have been criticized for saying you brought the county to a aaa bond rating. you inherited that a good rating. how would you justify cutting the tax exemption for low-income seniors, and disabled seniors, cutting our policemen paid, when you whistling spend so much money and special interest groups? you cannot justify that. that is a career politician.

we do not need more of that. >> do you want to respond to that? >> do it in 30 seconds. >> i am proud of my record. the hard choices that had to be made. every time you get a bond rating, you earned a bond rating. each time you go to the market, you are rated. moody's said because of conservative fiscal policies of my administration that we have earned a aaa bond rating. >> let's move next to a series of questions on national security and foreign policy. right now, 100,000 american men and women are serving in the military. the president of afghanistan has acknowledged that he is in direct talks with the taliban to create a peace council. here is a question -- would you

support a negotiated settlement in afghanistan that includes taliban representation? would that be acceptable to you, a deal between president karzai and the taliban? >> i am concerned about the security of our troops and honoring the sacrifices of our veterans. the war in afghanistan, i think was justified by a direct attack on the united states by the taliban who were offering harbor to al qaeda, the authors of the 9/11 attack. here in our tent here on the ground, we have to look hard at if we are continuing to contribute to america's security. i would support a resolution that allowed us to the security and intelligence estimates in place, and allow us the opportunity to engage should the taliban say control, or allow al qaeda to meet emerge as a real threat. we spend $1.30 trillion in iraq

and afghanistan. hit us contributed to our debt. we all lost more than 5000 servicemen and women. i have folks that i am close to that are deployed for the third or fourth tour. we have asked a lot of our men and women in the field. frankly, the mission has exceeded the scope we could've except -- expected. i am far more concerned by the threats posed by an unstable pakistan, iran, and an endless war in a country where we are trying to build a nation where there has not been one. >> in making sure that afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorists, why has he supported a random time with the drawbacks a random -- with a drawl? a random withdraw would simply embolden the terrorists.

when we withdraw from iraq, we need to make sure there are benchmarks in place, making sure there is a representative government over there that serves the needs of the people and that can defend themselves. when we reach these benchmarks, that is one we will drop. >> she said withdraw from iraq, i suspect you meant afghanistan. >> did i say iraq? thank you. >> frankly, i come from a family of veterans. a family that has dedicated a lot. i reminded every day of the young man i grew up next door to me that was killed in a rack of december, 2005. i never take lightly the more -- enormous sacrifices are men and women have taken, and we ask them to continue taking. 10 years strikes me as too long.

i question whether your principles give us any hope of winding up this war. the government of president karzai has proven itself as being ineffective at establishing control over the whole country. we are doing our best. we have dedicated hundreds of billions of dollars to this conflict. i am concerned there is no reasonable end in sight. there are times when the best way to honor the sacrifices to come up with the plan to responsibly wind down a conflict could >> that plan should be based on those benchmarks. you are saying hollow rhetoric when you say the top priority is a concern for the safety of us on the homeland, diffusive -- if you support this random time withdraw. all we will do is embolden the terrorists. whether it is the tax cuts, or in this, you've gone back and

forth -- do you support the president, or do not support the president with the tax cuts. you are saying you do not. >> let's stay focused on the issue in front of us, which is afghanistan. >> you are jumping around. >> no, we are focused on afghanistan. the court issue is what reasonable prospects to you have to actually result in a with a drawl? in iraq, there was infrastructure in place. in afghanistan, there has not been a nation in decades. despite our 10 years of incredible efforts, we are not succeeding in building a nation. we had a decent shot of benchmarks in iraq. >> when we are fighting the soviets in afghanistan, we did not finish the job. we have a responsibility to finish the job. if you're going to make

politically correct statements that it is costing too much money -- >> yes no, is the nation more secure than it was under president bush? >> yes. >> no. >> will move on to our next topic. >> can i say why? >> i know that the statements in the national media are distractions. i appreciate that, but to the voters in delaware, that is the message they are receiving. we would be remiss that we -- if we did not address this issue. the comments yet made have become fodder for late-night tv shows. the release and at that opens up same "i am not a witch." what do you say to voters who

want a change, but are uncomfortable with these remarks? >> this election cycle should not pay -- should not be above comments i made over a decade and a half ago on a comedy show. they should be about what is important to the people of delaware -- how will we -- how will we get real jobs back, get our economy on track -- these are the issues that dollar is concerned about. as you can attest, i have not welcomed this media attention. you have been asking for an interview for a long time. my party has been getting as many voters, going to as many forms as possible to counter these things. my opponent has said that the statements we have made in our 20's should be off of the table, and after he made that statement, days later he started running ads in his own campaign

material, using those statements to misrepresent my character. again, i thank you for the opportunity for the delaware voters to get to know why am and what i am about. i can assure them that while i made statements, i have matured, but regardless of my personal statements, when i go down to washington d.c., it is the constitution that i will defend. it is by the constitution that i will make all of my decisions. that will be the standard bearer for every piece of legislation that i vote on. >> do you have a rebuttal? >> i was surprised to see in a newspaper profile of both the loss, her statement that she would not have her faith be a central driver of the decisions if collected. i am interested in the suggestion that the constitution would be your guide. i am interested in hearing

whether it is the constitution passed by the founders, the constitution of 1930, the constitution of 1975, the constitution of today? sydney, protecting -- to me, protecting a woman's right to choose is important. these are not just random statements. these are relevant to her service -- what sorts of charges she would confirm, what is sure she would take up. i stand firmly behind the constitution that expect -- that stands today. >> let's go to the issue of faith and politics. . . you said that you thought you would end up a preacher, a professor, or a politician. you have occasionally been a guest speaker at some of the churches in our community -- baptist churches. what role does faith in your life have yr politics.

>> faces a central part in how my wife and i raise our children. ours is a faith that we think is a general motivationoward public service, to try to create a committee tt is more tolerant, inclusive, and just. we think that is the central message of our faith. i also think that someone who has been elected 10 years -- my -- the aspect of my private faith does not influence the decisions i have made for the public in my 10 years in office. >> let us give you a chance to respond. in a television appearance back in 1998, you said evolution is a myth. do you believe evolution is a myth? >> i believe -- i was talking about what a local school taught. that should be decided by the

local community. please let me respond to what he just said. >> answer the question -- is evolution a myth? >> local schools should make that decision. >> what do you believe? >> what i believe is irrelevant. >> why is it irrelevant? >> what i would support in washington, d.c., is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught in their classrooms. what i was talking about on that show was a classroom that was not allowed to teach creationism as an equal theory as abolition. that is against the constitutional rights and that is an overreaching are of the government. please allow me at least a full minute to respond to what he said. he said the statements that we made should be taken into consideration when casting your vote. i would be remiss not to bring up the fact that my opponentas recently said that it was -- that he was studying under a marxist professor that made him

become a democrat. when you look at his decisions on things like raising taxes, this is one of the tenants of marxism, not supporting eliminating the death tax is a tenet of marxism. i believe people support my catholic faith more than his marxist beliefs. >> a lot of people -- because they have learned in the last few weeks, he once described yourself when you were in college as a bearded and marxists. >> i hope people will go and read the article. it is anrticle i wrote as a senior, the day of our commencement speech. the title and the content clearly makes it obvious that it was a joke. there was a group of people i had shared a room with who were in the young republicans and who thought when i returned from kenya and registered as a democrat that doing so was proof that i had gone over to the far left. date -- they jokingly ll me a

bearded marst. if you read the article, it was clear on the face that it was a joke. despite that, my opponen and those in the right-wing media have spun this. i d never been anything but a clean shaven capitalist. [laughter] >> i would stand to disagree because first t of all, if you e saying what i said on a comedy show is relevant to this election, then you're writing an article -- forget the bearded marxist comment, he wrote an article saying you learn your police from an articulate marxist professor and that is what made you become a democrat. that should be assigned to every delaware voter. >> if it were true, i would agree. >> you said at -- >> there's an issue you brought up about schools. this goes to you mr. coons.

schools are trying to get an accountability in the classroom. it is very difficult to dismiss an underperforming teacher because of the stringent contracts that had been negotiated with the individual school system. do you feel that teachers' unions are too powerful? >> one of the things i have complemented, both -- is the remarkable progress on the "race to the top" program. i like but the process and the outcome. the president and vice presidents at a very high bar. they had money for states were willing to make significant changes. delaware's teachers' union came to the table and was the leadership of gov. markel. been a significant changes. they embraced charters and made a more powerful. then made it possible for

schools to war underperforming to be shut down or restructured. they change the system so teachers compensation could be tied to approval by children in the classroom. i think our teachers deserve our support. i think our teachers have a long tradition of contributing significantl to building a stronger and better community. my own mother and grandmother were schoolteachers. i respect the hard work that they do. earlier today i was at a school in new castle. . the work that our teachers do, the work that is done in early education, the work that is done here and that other great public universities in the state and country is critical to lay the groundwork for our future. i have no problem with recognizing that the people who do the hard work are entitled to a good standard of living. they are entitled to be able to live a life where they have health care, they have a pension, and they have job security. i think there are issues we have toackle. i think "rice to the top --

"race to the top" help to do that. >> he did not answer the question about whether the teachers' unions re too powerful because he got their endorsement. in delaware we spent so much money on education that it goes to the six-figure salaries, not to the teachers in the classroom. it is appalling that in a state where we spend so much federal and state dollars on education that teachers who want to get extra materials have to do so out of their pockets. i have met many teachers. i have talked to them about their concerns with "grace to the top." whether democrat or republican, a lot of them have expressed that we are not spending our education dollars appropriately. what is going to happen when this funding dries up? we'll be broken system. in wilmington, we have an extremely high dropout rate.

why spend money on a broken system? it is not one to work. we need to sit down and have conversations with the teachers, not the unions. >> over the years, a number of conservatives haveroposed eliminating the department of education in washington. the support that? >> i do not think that we need to go to that aspect of a step. the report has been released that shows millions of dollars of department of ecation money has been abused. that is the kind of stuff we have to stop. we also have to make sure that the money we are putting into education goes to the classroom and make them more effective. that is something we are ignoring. every time there is a problem, which is for more money at it. we are not getting to the root of the problem. that is what we need to do, start getting to the root of the problem. that means talking to the teachers and putting the powers back to the parents over where they send their children to

school. >> in a recent survey of 30 industrialized countries, the united states ranked 25th in math, 21st in science. finland was first in math south korea was first in science. specifically, what would youo to make the united states number one and once again in math and science? >> great question. as someone who has spent 2 years working with a nonprofit organization that raises money for private individuals and helps provide scholarships for students, teachers, and for a college education -- i have been hands on and engaged. some teachers are cynically under supported by their district. i think there is a significant role for the federal government in providing financial support and encouragement. scholarships for those teachers and -- -- we need a new

generation of teachers who are fully prepared and fully qualified to engage their students in the classroom, to teach to the standards tt "no child left behind" the established. we need to use collaborative learning techniques. >> i will give you a very quick chance to respond. what would you do, specifically, to make the united states number one? >> we have to empower the teachers to do what they need to do to be more effective. they are the ones on the first line of defense. they had the most influence over our students. but we also have to empower the parents. i support charter schools and i support student vouchers -- school vouchers so that it gives parents, regardless of and from, regardless of status, an opportunity for their students to have a shot at a great

education. >> let's switch gears and talk about health care what is such an important issue to millions of americans right now. under the new health care all that was recently signed into law by the president, children can now stay on their parents' insurance policies until the age of 26. people can no longer be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. ensures but the big insurance companies, are prohibited from rescinding coverage if a customer become sick and they cannot impose any lifetime limits on essential benefits like expensive treatment or hospital site -- hospital stays. you ought to repeal all of that? >> nobody is saying that the health-care system did not need to be reformed. that is part of insurance reform, not health care reform. in the course of the public debate we have begun to use coverage with care. our goal should be to make

health care more affordable. even with obama care, almost vulnerable in deware are still left uninsured and without access to quality health care. when we passed obamacare we were promised it would make more people eured. it is not. it is actually causing people to drop their policies because of compliance standards are so high. this should not fce businesses to break our laws. second of all, we were promised that more people -- that health- care costs would be lowered. it has not. it has increased health-care costs according to recent reports. what i want to do is fight to fully repealed it so we can begin to enact real reform. that real reform would include allowing policy ability when changing jobs. allowing someone to get policies across state lines. right now we only have three

options. that is not right. i would also fight for some sort of court reform thatould allow doctors to not have to worry and practice of medicine to prepare for the court room as compared to the examination room. this reform also have to protect those patients who are victims of true medical malpractice. >> you have one minute to rebut. >> i think the health-care bill has many advances. it prevents state -- it recruits and trains a whole new generation of doctors and nurses by expending support for community health centers. it also improves the efficiency of our health-care system. it makes a landmark investment of $350 million over a decade to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. there were strategic investments in electronic medical systems that would allow medical records -- all of these in

combination will extend, perfect, and implement this plan are bill. it is not perfect. there are problems with that. rather than turning it back and repealing and going for another year or two of partisan bickering, this is a landmark legislation. >> we are now to be part of the discussion on it. the issue was brought up about malpractice reform. democrats had been accused of being too close to trial lawyers. republicans say that is why there has not been any opportunity for reform in this area. if he were elected, would you include malpractice reform in the bill? >> i think it is critical that people be able to stand up and take on powerful interests. if they are able to go into court and sank -- since seek redress. -- seek redress.

i do not support putting caps on liabilities because i think in our current system is only the threat of the significant recovery that allows protections for consumers, for patients, for investors -- that is an important part of the american legal system. there are significant advances in this bill that allows us to make health care safer, a stronger, and more transparent. if i have a major concern about this bill, it is that it would reduce costs. >> that is what i was trying -- ok u say you are concerned about reducing cost, but reports say this bill has caused costs to skyrocket? >> i do not know what reports you are reading? >> some democrats have gone on record as saying they oppose obama care a that they made a bad mistake.

this bill gives a massive uncle sam has noe business coming between you and your doctor. >> that is a great slogan. utah sit around everywhere you go. uncdoes this bill put of operation the room? >> many branches of the state level, including here in delaware, say we d not support what the national office has done. it gives the government the ability to say what kind of treatment a doctor can and cannot do, to have to comply to the standards. there are many businesses here say they cannot afford to do it. >> the state chamber of commerce

-- >> we are down to the last 30 seconds of this discussion. >> the state chamber of commerce posted a debate earlier today. you chose not to join. it would have been great to hear your response to the physicians, the nurses, and the hospital administrators to yo suestion that they did not support this bill. >> you opposed the government mandating that everyone must purchase health insurance. is that right? >> yes. they areonfusing coverage with care. our goal is to make health care afrdable. >> let's say someone decides not to purchase health insurance. they make a conscientious decision, even though they can't afford health insurance. this person is critically ill and is worse -- and its rush to the emergency room. should we, the people who pay for health insurance, provide him or her with that kind of treatment where should we take them out of the emergency room?

>> if we do these things that i said it will help to address what i am proposing that will help to address the issue of health care, then that person can't afford to buy a catastrophic only poli from across state lines. >> what that person does not want to buy it? >> we have to adjust that. anything that they do when they have another bill that they cannotay, they can pay it. all them accountable for that. right now -- that is up to the hospital. right now we are forcing them to. we are forcing that they have to give care to illegal aliens. that is something we are already doing. what i am is proposing -- you are also talking about a small hypothetical, using scare tactics to make people support is health care bill. what i am proposing will help address the situation and help alleviate the situations. nobody should be forced to pay

for anyone else's health care. that is what obamacare is doing. >> before the health care reform bill passed, all of us -- all of us have been bearing the cost, paying the freight for those who do not have insurance and do not have coverage. they are getting health care to emergency rooms now. that is partly why small- business employers, like new castle county, have faced increases in our insuranceosts year after year. that is how we provide care now. it is inefficient, it is inhumane. >> one in four democrats agreed with me. >> this question will be for mr. coons. do you support a pathway to citizenship or illegal immigrants? >> no. >> what is your position on a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants? >> we have roughly 12 million

illegal immigrants in the united states today. this is a huge problem. immigration is a federal responsibility. i think we should look to the federal government to step up and fix it. the federal government has failed states like arizona. there are whole industries that rely on the labor of those who are here illegally. ere is a long history of failing to deliver border security. we have stepped up and invested millions of dollars in additional support at the border. i would strengthen the borders and make it tougher for people to come here illegally and increase the penalties when they do. second, hold employers accountable, particularly those routinely hire people here illegally. and then, allow those who a here illegally and do not commit further crimes to come out of the shadows that they will pay

taxes, learn english, pay a fine, say i committed a crime d pay a fine, and get to the back of the light behind those who applied to come here legally. i would give them a pathway toward legal residents. i respect the tradition of those who serve our nation and overseas, for example, being offered a chance at citizenship. the pathway i am suggesting is towards legal residents. i want to see us refocus our law enforcement resources on finding and employing -- finding an deporting those who threaten our neighborhoods. that should be our top priority. >> again, he is backtracking on things he said earlier on the campaign trail. i would ask you when you say that you support border enforcement, this ainistration recently stop the efforts to put a virtual stance on our border.

when barack obama is standing with you on the campaignrail this friday, are you going to say that you disagree with him on his immigration reform efforts? i believe, however, the securing our borders should be our first priority before getting any -- before getting into any discussion about getting social security benefits to illegal aliens. america is a magnet for those all over the world that believes that america does stand as a beacon of hope and justice for the world. therefore, i support a legal pathway for those who are coming over here, especially for political asylum, to seek a better life in is country, and reward those who under our laws. this is not a message that our federal government -- >> use a that you agree to the pathway for citizenship, but you do not want to provide amnesty? >> i do not want to provide amnesty. we have to get rid of all the

bureaucratic mess is that make the legal pathway difficult. when someone willingly breaks our laws, that is something that domestic debt -- do not worry about the laws that we have set up. do not worry about those who have a long waiting list for political asylum. break our laws and will give you these benefits. it is sending the wrong message. it is national security issue. i do support resnsible guest rker programs. that is the difference. >> if you can reconcile all those comments, you are a more talented reporter then i think you are, nancy. when challenge we have for getting past a partisan divide and the bickering -- jn mccain had been a real advocate for working with the business community, working with democrats in congress to find a path forward. as years and years have rolled by, the number of people here illegally answer -- and propose a threat to our community is

beginning to grow. we're not taking the actions we need to. i would rather began to prode a path said that those here illegally can stand up and take respsibility for that or be deported. that we can make progress. >> you just took a hard-line position. again, what are you going to tell president obama? but we have to keep in mind that when we try to understand, it backfires did it only increases the problem. we have to address the issue of securing our borders. that is something the president obama's administration stock this year. we have to secure our borders first and then begin a disk is -- begin a discussion on a guest worker programs and help to eliminate some of the bureaucracy that keeps the legal

pathway to citizenship so difficult. >> i want to clarify one thing on the national security front on china, which is a huge issue right now. in 2006, correct me if i am wrong, he said that china has a carefully thought al and strategic plan to take over america and as they pretend to be our friend, it is because they have something up their sleeve. he also said it you wish you were not privy to some of the classified information i am predicted -- i am agreed to. >> i was talking about when i was working with a groupoing to china. we were given some security briefs about china's positions. we do have to look at china very seriously because they owned some much of our debt. it prohibits a lot of decisions

that we need to make in regard to our caller policy. no. 1 is iran with nuclear weapons. china stands in a big way there. the sanctions are not enforced as they should be because we have our allies participating in the gasoline embargo, but china comes in and swoops up all that business. we need to be putting sanctions on these chinese companies. iran is getting nuclear weapons is the biggest threat to our national security. when we get to china and ask them to stop the companies, they probably smart. we are not economically in the position to hold them to that. china could be a bigger ally to us, but they are not. they are not putting the pressure on north korea. we have toackle that national debt. we have to stop things like reckless spending bills comin

from washington that only contribute to further our national debt because it is -- >> on the specific work that you say china has a plan to take over america, do you know about this plan? >> look at what is going on. right now, monetarily, china could take us over monetarily before they could militarily. >> the 1 t respond? >> it is hard for me to respond effectively to all the different issues my opponent has raised. i would just let that stand. i do not have any classified information about china or its plan. what i think we need to focus on in this debate on this particular question is the steady degradation of our security policy in the pacific rim. we joined -- where this excluded from military at exercises. it the chinese had become economically stronger, and are

seekg to become militarily stronger. they are pushing the envelope on issues like taiwan. they are a profound threat, not just to the vitality of our economy, but also to our safety and security. they have widespread counterfeiting of everything from pharmaceuticals to garments. >> we are out of ti. are you saying that china has a plot to take over america? >> and move on to the student questions. we do want to involve the university of delaware students. a student brings us an issue of d't ask don't tell. >> i was wondering if you're going to bring up the issue on don't ask don't tell as a possible bridge -- repeal? >> i would moved swiftly as a senator to repeal a don't ask don't tell. it is discrimination plain and simple. i've spoken to veterans in

delaware, several with top- secret clearances, who could only do the work by denying he they were. we should be making progress in this country towards recognizing the full range of human experience and repealing the don't ask don't tell is an important next debt in the civil-rights movement. >> a federal judge recently moved that we have to repeal don't ask don't tell. judges should not be legislating from the bench. the military says the policy that they believed espy in the interest of the military resident -- military readiness. it does not allow affairso go on within your chain of command. it does not allow it you are married to have an adulterous affair within the military. the military already regulates personal behavior because it feels it is in the best interest of our military readiness. i do not think that congress should be fair -- forcing a

social agenda on the military. it should be left to the military to decide. >> with the question on embryonic stem cell research. >> what is your view on the federal use of funds for stem cell research? >> i support federal funding for medical research that includes embryonic stem cell research. i think there are critical advances that are being made and can be made in addressing the most difficult diseases that afct many americans. if it is possible to do so, we should be investing in this critical area of research. >> look at the research that has been put out there. you'll see that there are incredible advances with adults stem cell research, not as much as embryonic stem cell research. that is in the private sector. that is where investors should be putting their money. the federal government should not be in the business of creating life simply to destroy

it. when it comes to the issue of medical waste, i would point to a program called the "snowflake baby." they had used human embryos that were going to be discarded as medical waste. they had given and for all couples the opportunity to have babies. it is a wonderful program. >> our next to that question brings us the issue of abortion. >> what is our stance on abortion, including in cases of rape and incest? >> i believe there has been a profound loss of respect for the dignity of human life and that is reflected in a lot of our policies, whether it is cutting tax exemptions for dabd, low-income citizens in new castle county, or with abortion. i respect the human dignity all levels. my opponent and others to use

the scare tactics about raping and incest, that is less than 1% of all abortions per -- performed in america. >> i strongly support a woman's right to choose. it is federal constitutional law. i personally am opposed to abortion, but i do not think it is my place to put that view on women. i think abortion could be safe and legal. >> let's get into some of these issues and we will go back to more students questions. on the issue of gays serving openly in the united states military, almost all nato allies allow gays to serve openly in their militaries. israel allows gays to serve openly in the military. why, specifically, do you believe gays should not be allowed to say openly in our military? >> it is a military policy that our military set forth. it is the same thing i said about adultery not being allowed in the military. it is a military policy that

they regulate because they believe is in the best interest of unit cesiveness and our effective military. >> if the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says he believes days should be allowed to serve in the military, would that be ok with you? >> if the heads of all four branches of the military said that, then it would be up to them, not me as a u.s. senator to oppose -- to propose my moral agenda. >> what it the respective germs said, "you know what, we would do whatever the commander in chief tells us to do, but we do not think it is a good idea because of these issues that mrs. o'donnell resist peer "what would you say then? >> when my heroes is harry truman. he made the difficult decision to compel the adoration of the u.s. armed forces at a time when most of the generals said, are the exact same reasons, unit

cohesion -- we should not have a raally integrated military. that was an important decision. the ultimate long term and that has made our military was the most progressive in terms of promotion and advancement opportunities. as you said earlier, most of our nato allies long ago realized that we are giving up on the service of thousands of potential volunteers who could be serving our nation at home and abroad. i do not think it makes any sense to continue to exclude them from open service in our military. >> we are not necessarily going to open discussion on that, because we want to get tested and questions. this comes on the issue of campaign finance reform. >> what is your position on campaign finance reform and what is your reaction to the recent supreme court ruling allowing corporations to donate to political campaigns? >> mr. coons, you have one

minute. >> i believe it was in default -- it was unfortunate decision that opens the floodgates to increase corporate contributions that could have an unintended consequences of distorting our electoral process here in the united states. i would support reforms that further disclose who is behind these groups, whether individuals or corporations who are trying to influence our elections by pouring mey into it. it is best for us to disclose as fully as broadly as possible who is making contributions. >> yet the legislative efforts have failed to do that. harry reid has put out there to do just that has exempte the major corporations from disclosing it. instead, it only serves to entrench of the first amendment

rights of private citizens. i use my ow campaign as an example. by supporters haveeen getting harassing phone calls, not just from reporters, but from all kinds ofeople who oppose my candidacy. they are using intimidation tactics because we are forced to disclose it is contributing to my campaign. this so-called campaign finance reform is exempng the corporations whether on the left or the right. it is those who are in washington already, those who are over 10-years old who have over half a millionembers and are playing in the back room deals -- this is a misguided attempt. >> to the american people have a right to know where this money is coming from? >> yes and no. i believe there are ways to do that where we can report to the sec. we do not have to make them public unless there is the question of corruption. that would prevent a lot of the

harassment that my supporters are getting. that would prevent a lot of the discussion about our first amendment ghts. we can't disclose that to the sec, but they do not have to put it on the website that makes anyone vulnerable to further fund raising calls. that is a repeated violation in many campaigns, not my own. even my own party has said look on somebody's at sec report and called in for a donation. that is against the law. it is being abused. >> i don't know. [laughter] frankly, i support full disclosure of campaign contributions. i think it is the best way to ensure that we have fair, open, and clean campaigns. people should know who is contributing to campaigns. it is an important way to hold candidates and elected officials accountable. >> we have another student question about the sensitive issue of religion in america. >> in light of the events of the

past decade, islam has been viewed as extremists. muslims can attest that as long as far from that. there has been much controversy about the mosque being built in the vicinity of grounds he wrote. my question to you is, as senator, where is the line between the freedom of speech and the respect for other or -- for other religions, both of which are found in the first amendment of the constitution? >> that is a great question and a difficult one. th florida pastor at 212 bundy crime -- the floor that pastor who wanted to burn the koran deserve our condemnation. at that sort of pastorate wanted to make the right point, he should have threatened to burn the teachings of a son of bin

laden or other parts of the extremist group. it is an important challenge for the supreme court to continue to draw the line between those who would do the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater and those to pass up scripture, religious traditions that are deserving of broad support. those are difficult lines to police. that is the role the supreme court place in our democracy. >> the supreme court has said that there are restrictions on our first amendment rights. you cannot go into a crowded theater and yell fire. you cannot stand up on a plane and yell hijack. you cannot libel someone. however, where the question has come between "what is protected speech and what is not protected speech, the supreme court has always ruled that the local community has the right to decide.

the issue of the 9/11 mosque, that is where the battle is being fought -- by the community. i support that. >> the committee members, at least the city council, mayor, and elected representatives, support this mosque, a community center. >> a lot of the people on the grou do not. they will have a lot to face from their constituents. maybe there reelection will be jeopardized. >> should this cultural center and must be built? >> there is alreadyosques in many locations in manhattan. the people collected by that committee should make the decisions. i do not think it was a wise choice of locations, but i cannot stay here and say that we should prevent people from practicing their religion anywhere in the united states. to say you cannot build a mosque here violates one of our most fundamental principles.

>> what opinions, of late, that have come from our high court do you support? >> give me a specific one, i am sorry? >> i need you to tell me which one you object to. >> i am very sorry, right off the top of my head i know that there are a lot, i will put it on my website. i promise you. >> we knowou and disagree with roe vs. wade. >> she said a recent one. >> roe vs. wade if that were overturned, would not make abortion illegal in the united states. it would put the power back to the states. >> is there anything else? >> there are several. when it comes to pornography, when it comes to court decisions -- not the supreme

court, but federal court decisions to mirandize terrorists. this california decision to overturn don't ask don't tell. i believe lots of federal judges are legislating from the bench. >> which supreme court decisions do you disagree with? >> the most recent one i have been engaged in is citizens united. it takes a logical extension in the law and takes it to a ridiculous extreme. corporations are not entitled to these same free-speech rights as people. but they would be fighting for the rights of corporations, but in terms of political contributions and freeze break its rights of contributions i do not think deserve -- free speech righ of corporations i do not think is free speech. that is the most important.

>> plastic another question for the students on energy. my question is where do you think funding should be placed doors in decreasing our carbon footint? >> the most effective investment in reducing emissions of things that cause greenhouse gases forming is energy efficiency and conservation. there was a significant investment in the stimulus bill in getting municipalities and local governments to invest in efficiency and conservation. those would reduce emissions, put people to work, and develop cutting edge technologies that help our systems operate better and to reduce the emissions and the operating expenses. in new castle county, which that money from the grants and combined it with $4 million of our own. we retrofit 20 county buildings. we reduced our emissions. as you look at those kinds of

investments around the country, they are the most important. they have amassed an act of anything -- they have the most impact. >> i think the best way to address it that isost relevant to this race is to talk about the issue of cap and trade. the winner of this race will be immediately sworn in and will vote on gatt and trade. i do believe that we have to be good stewards of this earth. we do not need to do it at the expense of our citizens. cap and trade will do that. whether it isarmers, senior citizens, or realtors. this bill is a national energy tax that will ration energy use and increase our utility bills. senior citizens are concerned about the cost of their utility bills going up. we are concerned about the green compliance standards and be raised utility bills shutting

down operations. realtors are concerned about the standards hurng an already hurting housing market. i have to ask my opponents, speaking of cap and trade, your family business stance to financially benefit from some environmentalists. would your -- >> a fascinating question that really makes no sense. what are you talking about? >> i would like to know if your family business stance to have a nancial gain from cap and trade? >> a fascinating question. no, to the best of my knowledge there is no direct financial benefit. it is important for those in public office to be transparent and accountable for decisions that they make. i am someone that things that greenhouse gases or a concern for the long term. i think we need to take steps to rein them and then deal with

the embargo consequences they might present. >> but me ask miss o'donnell, what evidence do you have any family business that he has would stand to gain from cap and trade? >> they make fuel cells. do is they? >> they make some of the things that will be required by these businesses to regulate cap and trade. >> is that true? >> that is quite a stretch. we make over 1000 products. it was difficult for me to understand from your question what she was talking about. we make lots and lots of products from medical devices to some membranes that go into fuel cells. fuel cells are not currently used broadly in the united states. it's sunday as the promise of being a significant contributor to making a more energy efficient, planar transportation future. to me, the impact is so distant

from any proposal on capt. trade, it took a couple of minutes to understand what she was talking about. >> yesterday the obama administration announced it was lifting the moratorium on deep water oil drilling in the gulf of mexico. do you support this kind of offshore oil-drilling? >> that has raised the issue of whether we support it here in delaware. that move by obama would allow that. nope. i do not want to see oil rigs all the coast of delaware. however, it should be up to the states to decide. if the governor passed legislation for that, i should not as a congressman overstepped a states' rights. not only that, we have got to begin to wean ourselves off of foreign oil. we are dependent on potentially hostile countries like russia and venezue while our own homeland is rich with natural resources.

there is oil and natural g. there are states that wanto begin exploration. we as the government be to support the states that do what it. >> if you agree or disagree? >> i oppose the president's proposal to open up the continental shelf off the delaware to oil drilling. i think that delaware's world- class beaches should not be at risk for being spoiled by oil spills. we depend on tourism and our fisheries. i do not think it makes sense for most of the atlantic coast. i think there are natural energy resources in this coury that we should begin to explore more fully. i also prioritize investments in alternative energy technology. we have been a leader in solar power and can make wind power real. these are the sorts of areas where i prefer to see federal investment and new innovative opportunities that could create new jobs for the long term. >> we have oneore issue.

we are going down on time. this is an issue i think can illustrate the differences between the two of you. what specifically would you and could you do to actually help and any of the bitter bipartisan not partisanship in washington? what would you be able to do once you arrive in washington? >> i have had to fight my party to be here on the stage. to some extent i am still fighting my party. when i get to washington, might allegiance will be to the voters of delaware, not any special interest. my whole campaign has been about returning the political process back to the people of delaware. to me that is a great tng. i would stand song on legislation that benefits the interest of our citizens, not the special interest in washington, d.c. i would stand there to vote against the legislation and make

the floor speeches that would try to convince my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have lost thr way and given in to partisanship so much that it has caused stalemates, as to why it is in the best interest of their constituents. i would stand firm in doing what is right for the people of delaware, not the interest in washington. >> i do not think my opponent can or has cite one single example where they supports the current administration or the democratic party. i had a real practical record of having reached bipartisan cooperation. i have eight real hands on record here in the private sector and in light service in partnership with the private sector of reaching out to people from different political backgrounds, from different political experience, and different world views. i think that is the kind of record the people of delaware

will look at in judging if i had the capacity. >> miss o'donnell raise this issue earlier. all give you a chance clarify and explain. harry reid has told you his pet. >> i do not know why harry reid said that. i am nobody's pat. i am running to represent all the people from delaware. i have a significant amount of support from dependent -- from independence, up from republicans, and from democrats. i have a record for fighting for the public interest. i will continue that in washington. >> just to clarify a point from earlier, you said you did not want to have to talk about comments he made years ago about witchcraft and stuff like that, but in this commercial, you begin this commercial with the words "i am not a whh." >> to put it behind me.

we are moving past that. we are talking about the issues. i would like to address what my opponent just said about the bulldog for delaware, yet in a letter he proposes to support the obama, pelosi agenda. why is the democratic party pulling out all the stops to get him elected? because they see him as a rubber-stamp for their agenda. there are many things have publicly said that i support the obama administration on. i support his decision to send troops to afghanistan. i support obama's decision on drones. i support oma's decision to treat americans -- i support the decision for our intelligence agencies to do whatever it takes to take them out. i will promise support when it is in theest interest of the people of delaware. i believe a lot of the policies

coming from this administration are not in the best interest of the people of delaware. most of them are the failed stimulus bills where we had been promised one thing and it received another. breaking promises is something th might open on that is comfortable doing. >> even local party leaders have questioned her candidacy, especially after the primary. he criticized the man you beat in that primary for being someone who went with what he felt was in the best interest of the people of delaware, for being someone who is borrowing republican principles, but going with the democrats. >> what i did in the republican primary and what i will continue to do is expose the back room deals. a lot of our leader seven obnoxious sense of entitlement about who should be in office and who should represent them on the ballot. >> we have to get to the closing statements. >> we will begin the closing statements, but the deal will

have a chance to make your final comments. >> once aga, i would like to thank the host of this debate and i hope now that the delaware of voters better understand the clear choice they face in november. my opponent has a record of raising taxes and date record of wasteful spending. like so many career politicians, he says he did one thing and all the breaks his promises. my opponent will rubber-stamp the same failed policies that have caused unemployment and our national debt to skyrocket. he is in lock step with barack obama and harry reid, and that is why harry reid has told him his pet. i am not against pets, but i know what is happeni in this country right now is not what my democratic friends voted for when they voted for change in 2008. washington needs new voices and new ideas that speak for the people and not for the government.

my opponent is an addictive to a culture of spending, waste, fraud, and abuse. whether it is spending tax dollars on fashion shows, where paying off his cronies. we already have enough politicians in washington like that. i want to be the voice of the people of delaware, not in a party of special interest groups. i want to go to washington and represent the people who put me on the stage tonight and you are willing to work hard to get our couny back on track again. it will not be easy, but i do believe that america is the greatest force of good in the world. i have never questioned whether america is a beacon of freedom and justice. we will get our financial house in order. we will cut spending. we will reform our government and we will defeat our enemies and achieved a tryout over freedom. i hope he will cast your vote for me. god bless you and god bless

delaware. >> i appreciate your attention to tonight's debate. i thank you for the tough questions you have asked them for the top of it -- for the conversation we have had. there is a real a clear difference between my opponent and made. our values are our experience and approach. mrs. o'donnell has the experience of running for office, but not really running anything. frankly, she sharpens the partisan divid and not bridging it did she has focused too little on the issues that matter to delawareans. i think what delaware means and what delaware deserves is someone who has real, hands-on experience. experience solving problems, fixing what is wrong, here in our community and in washington, and tackling the real problems that face us in america. i am the only candidate on the stage tonight with experience working in and with the private sector. i would be grateful for your

vote. >> time is up. it has been a pleasure. for all of you are watching, thank you for joining us. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> christine o'donnell beat mr. president coons.

now to the governor's race in florida. politico reportling today that democrat alex smith continues to lead republican sink. still talking about independence, bloomberg reports four out of every five tea party supporters planning to vote will back republicans, believing the economy will improve with republicans in control of congress. midterm elections are november 2, and each night c-span will be showing debates from around the country. beginning at 7:45 eastern, you can begin watching debates with and then live at 9:00 eastern, harry reid and sharon angle face off in their own scheduled

debate. then watch the final debate for tennessee's governor. rounding up our debate block is nevada's third congressional district. first lady michelle obama continues on the campaign trail. she heads to chicago, denver, ohio, washington state, california and connecticut. she was in milwaukee yesterday for a fundraiser to help senator russ feingold. here's a look. it's about half an hour.