we lowered personal income tax, capital gains tax, and we took the tax off of food and medicine. secondly, we put education first. 6% salary increases for teachers in new mexico. we fought hard to make sure that our teachers are getting fairly paid. third, we began to put the building blocks in placethose i, wind, biomass, geothermal. new mexico has an opportunity in the energy industry to do it all. our industries can stand shoulder to shoulder with the new emerging industries in new mexico, but we need to invest in those industries. we invested in the film industry, and today 10,000 people are employed full or part-time in the film industry. 12,000 kids are going to school to learn how to be part of the

film industry. that is what matters. but here is something that went wrong. three years ago there was an ethics course that said we need an independent ethics commission. i will not wait for the legislature is shameful they have not -- i will not wait for the legislature. it is shameful that have not passed an independent ethics commission. you as a private citizen out there will know that if you lodge a serious complaint, it will be investigated. it will be looked into. i do not think susana martinez supports that. it will not be independent, the state police offices, because guess what, state police are under control of the governor. she wants to control an ethics commission. i don't. >> ms. martinas, you do not have one positive thing to say

about the richardson administration, is that it? >> it is. when we continue to see the corruption that has taken place -- for example, brand cologne, you're good lieutenant governor candidate, just received a $4 million contract, just after being elected as the nominee for lieutenant governor, received a $4 million contract from the richardson/dennis administration -- richardson- denish administration. it makes it unattractive for businesses to stay in new mexico. i cannot imagine that there would be a complete that there there -- that some politician is going to look at it the way they shepard frankly, the best place -- frankly, the best place to take on corruption is by the attorney general post office if

we have a strong attorney general. >> you have a minute to respond. >> it is very clear to me that my opponent does not think much of what happened in the richardson administration, but we fought hard to lower your taxes, to put more money in your pockets. in her complaints, i think she wants you to think that we're hiring a prosecutor. we are hiring a governor. and if getting rid of corruption is important, on day one i will have an independent ethics commission that will be able to investigate those serious complaints. but let's be clear. you cannot prosecute your way to prosperity. this is a race about job creation, getting rid of corruption is important but this is a race about job creation. and our family's -- our families' economic security.

after the independent ethics commission, i put them to work investigating any claims, i will be focused on you and your families. >> it is time to wrap things up. each candidate will have two minutes for a closing statement. >> ms. martinas, we will start with you. >> thank you for giving us this opportunity to visit with you. we have a big choice to be made november 2. in fact, you can make those choices by going to the polls and voting early. we have to turn new mexico around and make it much more prosperous and we have seen in the last eight years. we can either get a promotion to someone who does not want to talk about the last eight years and how terribly we have failed, or someone who has delivered results to those in my community, and i give you my word i will fight long and hard to deliver those very same results for the state of new mexico. i have always argued to the point with diane denish about job creation. i said maybe you do create jobs,

but they are created in texas, colorado, and oklahoma. instead, we have lost 55,000 jobs in new mexico, and we cannot afford to lose another one. it is our state. we can take it back and turn things around for our kids to make sure that we are not exporting things for our children. we can keep small businesses, the backbone of those who create jobs in new mexico, focus on men to make sure out of state corporations are not being led by lobbyists who have an inside track to the administration. level the playing field for everyone so that at the end of the day the winners are all the mexicans, kids, and our small businesses come back, stay here, bring their families here, want to develop -- at the end of the day, i can deliver the results and i think you very much for

being here. i agree -- i thank you very much for being here. >> this denish, you have two minutes for your closing statement. >> the stakes are high, and i am not talking about for me or susana. i'm talking about you and your families. nobody is satisfied with the status quo. we are mad at washington, wall street, santa fe. over the next 12 days, think about what is truly best for you and your families. you know, my opponent has a lot of flash and things to say about taking new mexico back. but what does it really mean? she wants to cut public education, she wants to let the out of state corporations pay less while we pay more. she wants to roll back the rules so that our water and our land is polluted. that is not the kind of new mexico we want for our children. my grandparents came here

almost 100 years ago. one became a teacher, the other a small business owner, and they worked hard to raise their families and they wanted their children to have a better opportunity than they had. today, that is what new mexico families are thinking -- who is going to give my children a better opportunity? will they have a better opportunity than i did? susana martinez once this race to be about the past, not the future. she wanted to be about what has gone wrong, not what is going well in new mexico, and she wants this campaign to be about the current governor, not the next governor. you are smarter than that. you know that this is a race about new mexico's future. i am not the flashiest candidate, and i'm not a show horse. but i will be a workhorse for mexico families. i love our people, cultures, traditions.

it is my home and i would be on a beyond words to be your next governor. some of you may have already voted for me, and i'm grateful. for the rest of you, i hope you will vote for me on november 2. thank you, and god bless you. >> we want to thank our candidates and we want to thank you for joining us for tonight's's debate. >> a week from tonight, the candidates from the first congressional district will be here to debate. live in our studio next thursday at 7:00 p.m.. >> joined us at 10:00 tonight for a full analysis of tonight's debate. >> good night. >> from today's political headlines, the latest poll in california's governor's race has attorney-general jerry brown running eight points ahead of former ebay ceo meg whitman, but the poll by the public policy institute of california also shows 16% of likely voters are still undecided. president obama is in california

today campaigning for democrats. we will have live coverage of a rally at 5:00 eastern. the president is on a five- state four-campaign swing in the region. we will have covered about 9:00 eastern from nevada. he returns to the white house tomorrow night. each night on c-span we are showing debates from key races around the country. live at 7:00 eastern, the segment final televised debate between pennsylvania's u.s. senate, republican pat to me omey andblican pat to democrat joe six-pack. estak. six finally, the third and final debate between wisconsin senate

candidates. >> this weekend on booktv. -- on afterwards, denish desouza believes president obama poses an existential threat to the u.s. because of his father's anti colonialist ideology. on poisoning the press, mark feldstein examines the feud between president nixon and investigative journalist jack anderson. look for the entire "booktv" schedule online at booktv.org. >> saturdays, a landmark supreme court cases on c-span radio. >> decided it would where small black armbands to spread certain views which they had with regard to the war in vietnam. >> the principal suspended them, which led to tinker obverses the

moinesdes independent community school district. saturday on c-span radio, online on c-span3 of.org. -- on c-spanradio.org. >> massachusetts gubernatorial candidates debate last night. governor patrick is running for a second term 3 charlie baker is a former health care ceo. tim cahill is the state treasurer and a former supporter of governor patrick. the political report rates this race a tossup. the debate is about an hour. >> live from the 22 news broadcast center, the massachusetts gubernatorial debate with candidates incumbent deval patrick, charles baker,

tim cahill, and jill stein. >> welcome to the 22 broadcasts and in massachusetts. tonight's debate will be the only gubernatorial debate to take place here in western massachusetts, and will originate from our broadcast studios. the debate will be available tonight online, screen live on our web site, at wwlp.com. 22 news is working for you, committed to bringing you the candidates and what you need to know to make informed decisions on election day november 2. thank you for your participation.

>> good evening. i'm jim madigan and i will be the monitor this evening. -- the moderator deceiving. the candidates are deval patrick, breen rainbow candidate jill stein, a republican charlie baker, an independent candidate tim cahill. names were drawn to determine the order in which the candidates will speak. we'll start with one minute opening segments beginning with mr. patrick. >> jim, thank you and thanks to the panelists and all the viewers who have tended to buy. thank you so much for participating. four years ago i promised to whole state and i have kept that promise. i have been a friend to western massachusetts. i have been here in the schools and businesses. i have been here on the farms and in the streets. i have been at soldier sent offs and art performances and at the daycare centers.

western massachusetts has been included, and on my mind and heart. we have made strides in education and health care because you and i know that is how we will bid they stronger and better commonwealth, to lift ourselves out of how to build a stronger and better commonwealth. -- to lift ourselves out and build a better commonwealth. i want to finish what we started. i hope tonight we have an opportunity to talk about how we do that together. thank you. >> thank you, sir. one minute, jill stein. >> thank you to all of you in the viewing audience and out in the living rooms in massachusetts. as the only candidate who is not an insider, i am here to be a voice for change. business as usual is not working. it gives us record

foreclosures, starting health care costs. all the insider candidates want to cut the critical services that we need to stay afloat. instead, i will go after the -- the tax breaks for the well-connected. we can turn the billions in to secure green jobs around the commonwealth in clean energy and transportation, manufacturing, healthy food production. this makes us healthier, saves us money, and will provide secure jobs that western massachusetts and the whole commonwealth urgently needs. since i do not take money from lobbyists, i can advance the win-win solutions that business as usual keeps off the table. as a medical doctor i have been fighting for you, and i will continue to do that in the governor's office. >> thank you. one minute, mr. baker. >> thank you very much, jim and to channel 22 and the viewing audience as well.

i left this race 15 months ago and i entered this race because i was concerned about the direction -- i was concerned about the direction this country was heading in. nothing is happens to change my mind. the month of september saw the biggest largest job loss in massachusetts in 20 years, over 20,000 people lost their jobs last month. the governor believes we are on the mend and on the move. i do not think we are doing and were near enough to get our economy going again. despite billions of dollars in rainy day fund money and federal stimulus money, and over $1 billion in new taxes, massachusetts faces a $2 billion deficit next year at this governor has handed to the next governor to clean up. as someone who has been through two turnaround and knows how to make the tough decisions required to restore the fiscal health of the commonwealth, i look forward to the opportunity to discuss the issues tonight. >> thank you very much, and mr. cahill, one minute.

>> thank you very much. it is an honor to be here for this debate, and i look forward to a spirited debate. i'm in this race to give the state independent leadership. we need to go in a new direction, and to get different results with the different direction. we need independent leadership in the state to solve our fiscal crisis. western massachusetts, despite all the best efforts of government, has been left behind. despite what is happening east in the 120 beltway, but the point is twice the national high in massachusetts, -- unemployment is twice the national high and massachusetts. we need to end the partisanship and bickering, go in a different direction with independent leadership so we can break down the barriers that have held us back in massachusetts, especially in western massachusetts. invest in the government structures that we need like university and health-care systems, and make sure the government does not waste money because it is not enough to go

around and we cannot continue to raise taxes as we go forward. >> we will move to questions from our panel of journalists. they are laura hutchinson of 22 news. fred dicker from 88.5 fm. barry krieger -- fred becker. >> our first question goes to mr. baker from laura pattinson. >> mr. baker, you signed a no new taxes' pledge. considering the slow economic recovery and what is facing state government, how will you keep that pledge? should you be presented with tax increases, would you veto it? >> think we should send a strong message that beacon hill will not dibail the state out.

our competitive position has declined relative to other states. if we truly want to give those 300,000 people back to work that are out of work, if we truly want to head in a positive direction as a state, we have to stop going back to the taxpayers over and over again to stall the state's fiscal problems. the only candidate in the race -- i am the only candidate in the race -- i want to send a loud and clear message to everybody that business as usual has to stop. we have to spend send a loud and clear message to taxpayers and small businesses and families in massachusetts that the state will balance its books and live within its means the same way everybody else does. the biggest problem we face right now is people do not know what will happen on beacon hill next, but there certainly will be bad and will cost them money. >> ms. stein, one minute. >> i would just add that, charlie, i too have proposed $1

billion in savings, from cutting the whistle health-insurance prophecy. instead of coming -- from cutting health insurance, -- particularly in the area of health care, 10 years ago health care was 35% of the budget. this year it is 50% of the budget. it has been growing. it is the one thing that has been growing. everything else has been shrinking. why not go after the race -- the waist and the red tape that is costing us billions. at mass general hospital, it takes 275 people to file the port and track payments. at toronto general, it takes three. there are enormous savings there, and we also need to go after the tax giveaways for the well-connected. $300 million every year for jobs that were never -- >> time, please.

mr. patrick, one minute. >> first of all, if we accept and enact the fiscal proposals of my opponent, charlie baker, party taxes go up -- property taxes go up, then polls go up, with the treasury if a boast about, gimmicks don't solve problems. the difference between us is not tax problems. isarlie has shown he wil willing to raise taxes. i'm willing to cut taxes when i think it is wise. we have done it by cutting the business tax per the question is what is the right balance. the choice that charlie is advocating is basically to cut education so that we can do the polls for big businesses. i think we should be investing in education. that is a better choice for the people of the commonwealth for right now and the future. >> mr. cahill, a minute.

>> former governor romney said a pledge would give massachusetts nothing more than a gimmick. but i am pledging not to raise taxes for the next four years because our small businessmen and women and a middle-class cannot afford it. we have to make government work better than it does today. they were cheaper, less expensive the, and if we have to make cuts, we have to make cuts and live within our means. we have to let small businesses and individuals striving to keep more of their money. it cannot keep going to boston in beacon hill, it must stay with the taxpayer, it must stay with the owner. i do not think we can keep going back to individuals and small businesses every time we cannot get a budget right. we have to be better at protecting our numbers, the more conservative. so that if we miss, we missed under and not over. raising the sales tax was a long thing to do -- was the wrong

thing to do last year and that is why i left the democratic party. >> jill stein. >> the on a point rate dropped from 8.8% to 8.4%, so it is a mixed report. out here we are not feeling it so much. the unemployment rate getting better. in fact, mr. cahill said it is worse here than elsewhere in the state. other towns like springfield have similar problems elsewhere in the state. you talk about a green jobs in the economy, but what specifically, what plans do you have for creating jobs in western massachusetts, and how would you pay for it? >> the wonderful thing about green jobs is they tend to pay for themselves. it is very true that the recovery to the extent it has been a recovery is mostly in the boston area, mostly high-tech

corporate services and business services, probably dependent a lot on the stimulus package itself. that recovery that is occurring at a snail's pace is not adequate. green jobs can apply all over the commonwealth, and especially in western massachusetts for the healthy food economy and the agricultural economy is really thriving even without support. i would like to take some of the supports which are being given to, shall we say, unprotected areas of the economy. $2 million for shopping malls and office parks is not a way to jump-start the economy. i would like to direct that into a zero-interest loan fund so that we can start up the small businesses in healthy food, had to transportation and bike paths, safe sidewalks, and create those jobs that pay for themselves. >> mr. patrick? >> you cannot grow jobs without a growth strategy, and our strategy is iemphasized educatin and infrastructure. we have taylor that to be

specific for regions including out here in western massachusetts. we have invested at the highest level even with the bottom was falling out of so much else of the state budget. innovation -- companies in the green tax bases is an area where dr. stein and i agree, have taken hold here and been invented here in western massachusetts. broadband expansion, investment in the data center in springfield, the high- performance computing center. jobs have come to springfield because of liberty mutual moving facilities here. progress of coming in here. because we are expanding the market for auto insurance because we introduced competition, which has also brought rates down. we have core operating with chicopee on the uniroyal site. >> one minute for mr. cahill.

>> how can we lose 20,000 jobs and unemployment down? i do not know if anyone really knows, but it is because people are dropping out of the job market. they are leaving, quitting. we have to give them something to hope for. i have called for entrepreneurial tax relief, which would incent people to start their own businesses like i did in 1982. given a break on income tax, sales tax, just when they are starting out so they can become part of our our society. they do not need to rely on big business or tax credits, or beacon hill bailing them out. they do not need to rely as much on to petition getting to and from jobs when they start businesses in their home community as i did in 1982. -- on transportation getting to and from jobs when they start businesses in their home community as i did in 1982.

>> mr. baker? >> i agree with the treasurer on this. i do not think the news is mixed at all. i think the news is bad. in september we lost 3000 jobs. more and more people were discouraged and stopped looking, period. in western massachusetts, we for all the talk about green jobs and clean tech and all the rest, i find it ironic that the high-tech computing center, which is a major development, part of the reason that will work is because of low-cost hydroelectric power from the connecticut river. we will all be paying a pretty penny, hundreds of millions of dollars to support tape wind -- wind.port cape the final thing i will say about this, there is a lot of manufacturing out here, and we should be figuring out

strategies that help the manufacturers growth. the thing i hear from a from them is that it is cost, cost, and cost. >> question now from barrie krieger. >> governor patrick, the massachusetts state sales tax will be reduced from -- you have been asked if you would enact question 3 if voters approve it. will you go on the record tonight and tell us if you will implement the will of the people if that is what the majority decides in november? >> yes, i have been clear on that and that any responsible candidate and leader needs to be clear with the voters about what the climate would be questioned three past. about the same kind of impact of the fiscal policies proposed by my opponents. we are talking about the school

building assistance program disappearing, and we are talking about local service is getting worse or going away. i think we have got to be candid with people about that. what has been fascinating is that we talk about -- i think everybody has agreed that question 3 is drastic, and get the 555 plan proposed by charlie would have the same impact. so let's choose. let's be honest with people. i think people are hungry for us to be candid with them about the consequences of the choices before us. if it passes, i will implement it. but if it -- it seems to me we ought to be clear in advocating to the public about the calamity if it did. >> thank you very much. now to mr. cahill. >> thank you for the question. i am not going to vote for question 3 because i think it moves too quickly, too fast, and ties the had not just of government but it will have an impact on local government. especially when it comes down to local aid, police, fire,

teachers. but if it passes, we will do our best in the cahill administration to implement it quickly, fairly across the board. i cannot say honestly there is one thing in our budget today that would not be impacted if question three passes, and i want to be straight with people with that. everything will suffer, everything in government would suffer. the same thing as a tax break, it would be a long time to catch up, and i do not think we should do it that drastically. i am not going to vote for it. hopefully it will not pass, but we can still bring in tax relief over a period of time and grow jobs. question three i think goes too far, too fast. >> mr. baker? s makeeed, but let' one thing clear. governor baker did not pursue the kinds of reforms he should have pursued to preserve local aid. as a result, property taxes went

up 11% over the last four years when property values fell. yes, question 3 would add $2 billion to that problem. that does indeed go too far. but if we are serious about creating a climate in massachusetts that is competitive and get people back to work, yes, we need to reduce our tax burden. i have proposed giving 5% on the business tax, which many manufacturers have told me that would be a huge boon to their ability to grow and create jobs. voters voted on a 10 years ago, a little overdue. >> thank you very much. >> it does go quickly. >> ms. stein? >> thank you, jim indeed, question 3 goes too far, too fast. if it passes, i will respect the

will of the voters and implement it. i have long advocated for an adjustment in our tax structure altogether because when you step back and look at how all state and local taxes add up, middle income and working families are paying at twice the rates that millionaires are. so cutting the sales tax will go a long way to rectify the excessive burden on lower income tax payers, but i will not implement that by itself. if it comes to pass, i will work very hard to compensate for its by increasing the tax contribution at the high end, millionaires and so on. there are many ways to do that, so it will be one more reason to pull back on the tax giveaways, the $300 million for raytheon and finality and so on. >> thank you very much. question to mr. cahill. >> thank you, jim. on monday in springfield, the district attorney revealed that

convicted murderer alfred j. gaynor has admitted that he killed nine women in springfield during the 1990's. massachusetts does not have capital punishment. under what circumstances would you support the death penalty? would you support the death penalty for someone who killed nine people? >> yes, i would support the death penalty for a case just like alfred j. gaynor's case. i honestly do not think we have to go that far. there are certain cases here, premeditated murder being one of them, that i think we do need a death penalty here in massachusetts, and i would sign it if it comes before us. we have to be obviously careful about putting innocent people to death, and that has been a challenge over the years it in other states, it even in this state.

but once convicted and decided by a jury that these people should be put to death, i would support that in massachusetts. it is high time to bring it back so that people like mr. gaynor do not have a ability to get away with that. >> i'm a big believer that the d.a.'s have the jurisdiction and the appropriate jurisdiction to make the determination whether to pursue a death penalty or not. the situation has been debated in massachusetts for many years. i think the original filing missed by one vote in the house, and that would have been an acceptable bill with the right kinds of protections and constraints, that it was appropriately administered. but the crime justifies the ultimate punishment. the final thing i would say about this is i think one of the things we need to do, not just to deal with folks like this

but lawbreaker's anchor roles generally, is reinvest in our district attorneys and our law enforcement generally. the da but it -- the g8 budget has gone down in the last four years, and we need to reinvest in that if we want to keep our streets safe. ms. stein, one minute. >> this is one case where woulone would want to apply the death penalty because it is so horrendous. but we know that where it is used it is not a deterrent. i think we do not want our justice system to be about revenge. it should be about effective deterrents and rehabilitation when that is possible. in this case, i think it is clear that while it would be satisfying in some ways to have the death penalty, we know that it actually does not function as a deterrent, so i would not support the death penalty under any circumstances. we also know mistakes occur, and

you do not know until after the fact. so, no, i do not support it, and it is important for us to go upstream and think about particularly a wave of crime and violence and murders taking place now especially among youth, where poverty and hopelessness have come together. >> one minute, mr. patrick. >> look, this is a horrible crime, and there are instances of real animals out there committing crimes like this. for them, i believe death by incarceration is the right answer. as a prosecutor, i had to make decisions in the federal government about the use of the death penalty. i have defended against the death penalty, and i am persuaded that this is one of a handful of areas where government cannot be relied upon to make a wise decision every time. so i do not support the death penalty. i do support life without the

most heinous crimes like the one you referred to. >> now a question from fred to mr. baker. >> there has been a debate over whether the state should stick solidly with cast tests or participate in a federal regime. what you think about standardized testing in principle? in springfield it actually lead to cheating on the tests. >> that is probably not a good idea. >> what are your thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of the mcas? >> i think the most important thing about it was the bipartisan support it had from state, local officials and teachers. to raise the standard and create a common standard in massachusetts and use it as a standard to measure performance as kids went through the school system. you could wrap professional and

curriculum development and around it as well. if you look at the state track record over the last 16 years, and it took a pretty good system and made it the number 1 system in the country. we still have a long way to go in our educational achievement gap. that is the next frontier in my view, but i think the governor's decision to join the national consortium enjoy the other 22 states in the government was a bad idea. high-tax, high-cost, heavily regulated. the separate thing that makes us competitive is the quality of our schools and our kids. joining this national consortium will absolutely boost the performance over time. >> thank you very much. ms. stein? >> i think the record is actually pretty clear. if you look at the studies of what standardized tests accomplice, they pretty much improved performance on that very standardized test.

but in reducing the need for remedial education, mcas that is a deterrent for many students for staying in school it and can be defeating for students from trying hard. i think it's useful for comparing across schools, but to use it as a high-stakes test is entirely unjustified by the data. coming from the area of medicine, my background, i am accustomed to looking at evidence-based materials and the -- >> time. mr. patrick? >> fred, as someone who personally sting set standardized tests, a number of us -- as some of the persian

least thinks -- as somebody who personally stinks at standardized test, a number -- i supported. we are number one in student achievement. we continue to invest in public schools at the highest level in the history of the commonwealth, as i said, even when there have enormous challenges across the budget because of the global economic collapse. i think it is completely a false premise to suggest that leading the nation in a review of common standards is somehow a retreat from what we have been doing here in the commonwealth, and there is no evidence that it is. so i am proud of our leadership role, i am proud of the fact that we continue to lift standards in the commonwealth and for the country. >> thank you. mr. cahill? >> a good question, and one that

will be debated not only in the campaign about as we go forward. i am a firm believer that we need high-stakes tests, we need to raise the bar as much as we can, but obviously that test has not done a whole lot for people in the inner city in springfield in particular. part of the reason for that is that as we spend all this time on testing and trying to refine the test, whether it comes from washington or beacon hill, we are not spending as much money and time or focus on teachers to give them the tools not just to teach for the test, but also to try to lift these children who come from broken homes and different circumstances than we here at this table to really give those kids, especially those inner-city kids, the tools they need as they go forward. there is a big achievement cgap, and the wealthy are doing fine, but the inner cities are not doing as well. i do not want to lower the standards, but we need to give the teachers tools and support. we cannot just say you have to teach this test.

>> thank you very much. we will take a brief pause and the back in one minute. welcome back. we continue now with our western massachusetts gubernatorial debate. the question now from barry krieger, we will go first to dr. jill stein. >> a lot of opposition has brought against biomass, wood burning power plants in western massachusetts. now there is expressed concern about plans for a wind farm on a rage in their town. viewers have asked us to ask you if you favor large wind power projects, and where would you site. do you favor wood-burning biomass plans? >> wood-burning biomass i think is unjustified by the data. it is polluting in terms of its carbon footprint. the studies have been comparing

it to call and using them as a standard, so the studies make it look better than it actually is. it is a problem, and it is also very bad in terms of the traditional air pollutants and the impact on respiratory disease. i think the valley has enough air pollution as it is. biomass will promote excessive use in wasting of those forests. yes, we need wind, but communities should have a role in where wind should be sited. committees have been able to find workable sites themselves, and it is important and we need offshore wind -- communities have been able to find workable sites themselves, and it is important. >> i think small-scaled biomass makes sense. that is what the data seems to point to and there is a process under way of sorting out what the rules are that makes sense

for us in massachusetts. for the russell, palmer, and greenfield proposals. dr. stein and i may agree on one thing. in western massachusetts, they seem to think that wind is a great idea for the cape. on-shore wind has a lot of local involvement, the sort of thing that happened with the project. not seven years of litigation and multiple appeals before we make a decision. so deferring to local choices, the host community and the surrounding communities, one or two levels of appeals is what the wind-citing appeal is about. >> mr. cahill? >> i hope it does not pass and i would not sign the bill if i become governor, because i do not think we should take local control away.

i think people need to have some control over their lives come over their livelihoods. it is also very, very costly. it may work in some ways only because of the subsidies of the federal government and the state government, but it is not a path to energy independence. wind alone is not going to solve our problems. we have a plant in plymouth mideast to be reconditioned and read licensed. we need to look at natural gas and out-of-state sources for cheaper electricity. that is one of the reasons why our jobs are not growing here in massachusetts, because we have the highest electricity rates in the country. they are not going to go down. if you try to put manufacturing jobs back, meeting these energy goals i think will not work and will not help us grow jobs. >> mr. baker? >> i agree with the treasurer on the wind-siting bill. i would not sign the bill if it

got to my desk. these are their role locations and we will have to shoot our way through a tremendous amount of national capacihabitat to hae capacity to get in there. one of the highest costs to electricity in the country here, and it affects our ability to grow jobs in many sectors including manufacturing. that is why i do not support cape wind. i think it's a bad idea. fundamentally we ought to be choosing less expensive renewable alternatives. that is a good deal for massachusetts, that is a good deal for job creation, that is a good deal for reducing our carbon footprint. those of the types of issues we should be pursuing. >> next question for mr. patrick. >> governor, it is estimated

that the budget deficit for the next fiscal year that begins july 1 is approximately $2 billion. how would you close that deficit, and please be specific. >> thanks for the question because it gives me a great opportunity to clear up misunderstandings. our budget has been balanced in ways that my opposition has criticized, which is that in addition to the investments we have made to grow jobs and the $4.3 billion in cuts we have made to make those investments, we have used rainy-day funds and federal stimulus funds. but those funds were there to be used precisely this way, in order to maintain essential services at a time of revenue drop. we had the steepest decline in revenue in the history of the commonwealth. because we made those investments in job growth, education, and in infrastructure and health care, we are seeing the benefit in revenue. we had $200 million as a

benchmark in september alone. part of this for next year is going to be the use of new revenue from growth. part of it will also come because with the support we got from the federal government through all this, we were able to back out of rainy day fund this year and put it back in the bank. >> thank you very much. mr. cahill? >> i think we have had a structurally ballot -- a structurally in balanced budget since i have been on beacon hill. we have a surplus, we spend it if we have rainy-day money or surplus money, we spend it, but the problem keeps recurring. we have to restructure how we deliver health care in massachusetts. we are spending an extra $4.5 billion we were not spending prior to health care reform to subsidize insurance companies that then subsidize people who need insurance companies or are

mandated by it. we are spending $1 billion over the next five years, are we transportation employees. that has to end. it started in the mid-1990's, has grown to epic proportions. it is not good budgeting for us to pay for. employees would borrow money because it adds 30% to 50% for each employee going forward. >> mr. baker? >> i am glad you brought it up because it is an important question. the next governor will face a $2 billion deficit because of this governor. i am the only candidate -- excuse me, jill and i are the only to the bureau candidates opposing reforms -- are the only two candidates who are concerned about performing this problem. i am not going to raise taxes. the governor will raise taxes to solve this problem if he is

reelected. that is simply what has happened in the last four years and will happen in the next four years. i will not do that because the families in massachusetts cannot afford it. the businesses cannot afford it. if we are serious about getting people back to work and creating an affordable business climate, we cannot raise taxes again. i have put $1 billion of proposals on the table, and that is where we need to go to create a structural balance. >> thank you. ms. stein? >> it is pretty simple, actually. if you look at the big picture -- and again, in the big picture, what has been growing while everything else has been shrinking for the past 10 years is health care, which is now 50% of the budget. one out of every two tax dollars is paying for this system. we can save at least $1 billion by moving to a single-payer

system. a report came out recently estimating that the state of maine would save $1 billion moving to single-payer. you apply that to our $14 billion budget in health care, and we would certainly gained $1 billion there, the other billion dollars from the tax expenditures which do not benefit, have not deliver the jobs summit and have not created a healthy, viable economy. we have to use that particularly in our small businesses. that is where we should be providing support. >> thank you very much. laura hutchinson, a question to tim cahill. >> several surrounding states have offered to trim spending by forcing state workers to take furloughs. do you think forcing unpaid furloughs is a good idea for massachusetts? >> no, it is an ok idea but it does not release all the long- term problem because these people are still on the books for next year and after that.

i did not support it as a work by cutting our administrative costs, by leaving jobs unfilled over the last year. we have a 14% lower budget at our lottery. furloughs are a short-term solution, not long term. long term, if we have too many employees, we have to find out who is intentional and who is non-essential. -- who is essential and who is non-essential. when it snows out, if everyone things when the governor calls off the work day and says non- essential employees do not come to work, if my people do not come to work, that means they are defining themselves as non- essential. guess what, everyone comes to work, no matter how long it takes, no matter how much snow we have. >> mr. baker? >> furloughs are a temporary solution, not a permanent fix.

we need to primarily deal with our fiscal prices -- with our fiscal crisis so that the people do not think the state will come back to them looking for more money. i have talked about a lot of reforms. i have talked about pension reform, agency consolidation. we have 100 operating agencies in state government. structure was designed in the 1970's. a lot has happened in terms of information technology and all the rest. we should be able to come up with a leader and simpler bureaucracy than the one we have now. we also need to run at reforming care -- our welfare system. we also have issues with the health-care system. we spend $3 million on lease parking spaces that are generally and the. $3 million on an empty building. $3 million on -- there are lots

of places we can go. >> thank you. ms. stein? >> i agree that unpaid furloughs are not a good idea. we have actually been cutting state workers and public workers by the thousands over the past many years, and i am not -- there is a lot more room to cut. there is the occasional patronage for a job, but i do ot to cut there is a lac their. i think it adds a real burden to state workers who are actually underpaid. a recent study from umass documented that while they are much maligned, state workers, when you consider their age and experience, they are actually being underpaid. furloughs are not a good way to go after waste. >> mr. patrick? >> we have had to do furloughs,

we've had to do pay freezes, got a contract concessions from the unions. we have reduced headcount by over 3000 positions now and cut , and all those measures are part of $4.3 billion in cuts. in fact, we have closed and balanced the budget not with tax increases. that represents 9 cents of every dollar it has taken to close these gaps, but mostly with cuts and the use of rainy-day funds, the sort of thing that is criticized by opponents. but what has maintain essential services to vulnerable people. you have earned some of the other candidates talk about pension reform, and we have capped pensions and ended the abuse in the pension system. you have heard folks talk about consolidating agencies. we have consolidated or eliminated 20 different agencies. a lot of folks talk. we do. that is why there is a difference. that is why we balanced the

budget and earned aa bond ratings from all the independent agencies. >> next question is for mr. baker. >> the government speaker of the house could not come to terms. as governor, would you provide the casino gambling in massachusetts? what is your vision for expanded gambling in massachusetts, and what will you do to work with the speaker to make it happen? >> i am not a big believer that gambling and casinos are a fundamental solution to any of our economic problems. if we create a more affordable client -- climate in terms of tax and regulatory policy and business costs, those costs will grow and expand. half the businesses in massachusetts, to get them to think they can grow and expand, you have solved the problem and a lot more quickly than you will with casinos. i think a lot of people go to connecticut and rhode island. they have massachusetts license

plates, and going to one casino in massachusetts to give them a place to gamble in 0assachusetts, putting 100 sloth out there, i think we can do that. but there are other businesses that compete for that and a timid dollar here, and i also worry that we are focusing too much on one solution with the real solution is to cut spending, fix our fiscal problems, and get serious about regulation and business costs. >> ms. stein? >> thank you for the question, barry. i strongly believe that expanded gaming is not a good thing for massachusetts. one needs to look no further for nevada, the poster child for casino economy, to see where casino economy leads. it is a scavenger economy, and it tends to draw discretionary income from other areas of the economy. when you create a job with casinos, you have killed other

jobs, usually in small businesses and entertainment establishments. looking at the bottom, they have the highest rate of foreclosures and bankruptcies and unemployment than other states with high gambling casino resort numbers of casinos, which have similar problems. what tends to happen is when the industry comes in, they tend to get their way. they are very powerful and influential. massachusetts does not need it. we need green jobs that strengthen our community, make them healthier. >> mr. patrick? >> i think you know my position on expanded gaming. if we do it in the form of destination resort casinos and have few in number, it can be good for us in terms of job creation and revenues, but it is not the centerpiece of our economic strategy. things that were stuck behind it include the economic development bill, enormously important tax

changes and extensions of permits to developers to enable them to get on the ground and not have them expire because of the difficulty for getting financing. import measures to make working capital available for small businesses, to commit small businesses to aggregate and get the buying power for their health insurance costs. we did the autism bill, the core reform, the fourth straight budget was balanced is possible -- there's an awful lot of good work we have done with the legislature. the second session that was the most productive in 30 years. we cannot get together on that, we may yet, but there is a lot of other important work. >> mr. cahill? >> thanks for the question. unlike my opponents, that would be the first bill i signed in january because it creates 15,000 jobs. we all talk about jobs, but when there is a proposal in front of us, we get a little squeamish. jobs are jobs, and i think all

jobs have value. we also bring $100 million in local aid. i would like to fight for more money, and we can talk about bringing money back to local aid, but that will do it. i think it's a great way to start by putting casinos, slot machines, two race tracks in eastern massachusetts. one of these casinos would be here in western massachusetts. if it is locally approved, they will get a casino. that is the only way we can compete and get people who want to gamble not having to go to connecticut to do it. >> the final question of the evening, you will have only 30 seconds to respond so we have enough time for closing statements. >> this is a question from two leaders of masslive.com, the

website for the republican daily newspaper in springfield. in 1996, then-governor weld abolish tolls for passenger vehicles between exits 1 and 6 on the massachusetts turnpike, between west stockbridge and chicopee, no tolls were past two vehicles. joe and eric want to know if you would support restoring those polls, it would raise approximately $12 million, and put the money back into the western end of the turnpike for operation and maintenance. >> that sounds reasonable. i would have to look into the particular is a little more to know. i think we need to fund our public highway system and our

public transportation system, which has enormous problems with its operating budget, and also with maintenance. the problem certainly applies to western massachusetts, but really throughout the commonwealth. we need to free up the resources to properly -- >> i'm sorry, only 30 seconds. >> no. >> thank you. the directors happy with you. mr. cahill? >> i would not support increasing tolls or bringing them back. we can find $12 million in the rest of the turnpike the governor says he did away with. we still have a turnpike and we are still paying tolls in the rest of the state. we can certainly put the $12 million back to western mass without raising tolls. >> mr. baker? >> i made a commitment not to raise tolls. that was a particular promise that should be maintained. i think we should seek other

ways to generate additional revenues to support the entire length of the roadway. >> closing statement? mr. baker's first. >> thanks for turning in this evening and thanks to the studio audience and panelists for being here. this is a very important election in the next 12 days. people have a clear twins. the governor thinks we're headed in the right direction. the fact is there are more people out of work right now than any time in recent history. we have the biggest deficit going forward than we have had in recent history. we have had eight tax hikes over the past four years. we still have a deficit. ford. i think massachusetts can do better. i do not think massachusetts is heading in the right direction. the choice is clear. four more years of the governor and you get four more years of what you just got. i think we can do a lot better. state government needs to live within its means. we need to be aggressive about creating a business climate here

of affordability that can compete with other states. we don't, we won't get the 300,000 people out of work back to work. that need to be the fundamental focus of the next administration. people are not working. >> time, sir. >> if you're happy with the way things are, vote for any one of the insider candidates. they share similar agendas. casinos, more profiteering health care, more tax giveaways to the well-connected. if you think we can do better, you have an opportunity right now to put massachusetts on a different path. for secure green jobs, for health care that is affordable, for teaching to the whole student, and for cutting the tax giveaways. if you want change, you cannot vote for the political machines that have gotten us into this mess and will keep us there. people worry that they vote their values, it could help the candidate they do not like. all three candidates are supporting the same failing policy.

this is massachusetts, where the huge democratic majority can still pass any law and overwrite any veto. if you don't bring your values and to the voting booth, everything you do for your values outside the voting booth will not count for much. the commonwealth need your vision to get us back on track. i ask for your vote. >> mr. cahill? >> thank you very much to the folks of western mass. this has been very informative and i hope you get a sense of who we are and our commitment beyond beacon hill. for the last eight years, the treasury has made a commitment to western massachusetts. almost $400 million have been invested here in western mass, in springfield, chicopee, in holyoke. we opened up an office and the treasury to deal with issues in 2006 and we kept it open, not by adding employees, but by taking

two western mass employees and putting them here so you do not have to go to beacon hill. we have invested state pension fund money here in massachusetts in the community health center that has created 300 jobs. i want you to look at who has put his money where his mouth is. you're looking at a leader who will not just talk about the leader of the state, but someone who has been the treasurer and want to be the governor of the whole state. >> mr. patrick? >> thanks to the panelists and everyone for tuning in. i did not cause the global economic collapse, but nobody is working harder to help us get out of it. we are investing in education, in innovation, and in infrastructure. that is what the computing center is about in holyoke and the data center in springfield. it is why we are investing in school buildings, laboratories, in universities and campuses. it is what is bringing liberty mutual and other companies to

western massachusetts. it is what the bridge and bike path projects are about around the commonwealth. i believe government is about people. it is it about you. we have a plan. that is why we are getting projects and making project. they have slogans, cliches, and of the promises. i know western massachusetts. if you want us to finish what we started and you want western massachusetts to be a part of it, i ask for your support, your prayers, and your vote on november 2. thank you very much and good evening. [applause] >> hold your applause for one minute. everyone has been well that the gate. we have extra time, but it goes to me. we want to thank everyone. you have been so will be taped. we appreciate it -- so well- behaved. we appreciate it. a lot of work goes into putting on an event like this and they have done a lot of work to do it.

we thank them. we thank our panelists for their questions. thank you to those who sent in questions. we thank all of our candidates. we wish them well in their travels the next couple of weeks. we thank you for watching, investing time and one hour in democracy me. -- democracy. get out on november 2. be sure to vote. good night from chicopee. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in other governors' races, illinois republican candidate bill bradley -- brady is the leading -- is leading the incumbent democrat governor pat quinn. it is reported to mr. craig -- mr. brady has 42% within the poll plus a margin of error. analysts say voters who support the third-party candidates do

not care for the democratic incumbent, but cannot bring themselves to support the republican challenger. charlie cook says it is mathematically possible for republicans to gain enough seats in the senate to take control. republicans need to win 10 of the 11 competitive races. mr. cook says five of those races are too close to call. he says republicans are likely to fall asleep or two short of majority control in the senate. each night on c-span, we are shown debate from key races across the country. live at 7:00 p.m. eastern, the final televised debate between pennsylvania's u.s. senate candidates. at 8:00 p.m., a profile of indiana's ninth house district race, followed by the candidates debate, and live at 9:00 eastern, president obama is in nevada for a get-out-the-vote

rally with senate democratic leader harry reid. that is followed by the final debate between wisconsin senate candidates. >> this week on "q&a," former parliamentarians, one british, one american, comparing contrast the house of representatives and the house of commons. they talk about the rules that run parliament and congress, sunday night on "q&a." >> this weekend, c-span3's american history tv takes a look at pre-civil war virginia and how it struggled with the abolition of slavery and the idea of secession. we will visit richmond for one of the largest civil war arms and antique shows. we're back to the classroom with a former civil rights leader, julian bond, for look at the montgomery bus boycott. american history tb, every weekend on c-span3.

>> one of the close house races is in virginia's fifth congressional district. congressman tom perriello is running against republican state senator robert hurt. this race is rated leaning republican. they debated recently and this is about 20 minutes. >> good evening and welcome to a special edition of "on your side." we welcome the candidates for the fifth congressional district to our studio. we are on your side, dedicating the next half hour of our newscast to the issues that matter the most to you. decision 2010 political races are heating up across the country and the commonwealth is no different. tonight, questions from you on the issues that impact your lives. on the table, balancing the

budget, taxes, health care, and jobs. in the fifth district, incumbent tom perriello was being challenged by republican senator robert hurt. it is the third degree, fifth district. thank you for joining us for what i think you can say it will not be your grandmother is debate. we have taken the rules and thrown them out the window. there is no opening statement, there are no closing statements. there's no timekeeper. we will make sure no one filibusters' tonight. we will delve into the issues that will impact the country and commonwealth. hopefully, we will learn how you will address those issues if you are elected to congress. we have gotten dozens of questions from viewers. i will read those into our conversation tonight. on the top of the mind of many viewers as the budget. i think we can start with common ground between you. do you agree that we should balance the budget?

>> i certainly believe we should balance the budget. >> i agree. >> if we start with that, let me show you a picture of our congressional money is spent. the taxpayer dollars. 56% of our taxpayer dollars goes to what is non-discretionary, otherwise known as mandatory spending. social security, medicare, and medicaid. 23% goes to defense. 7% goes to debt interest. 13% and of going to what congress fights over most of the time, discretionary spending, transportation, education, commerce department. let's put this another way. of the part that is not mandatory or defense-related, the budget is only $520 billion, when the budget deficit was $1.40 trillion. gentleman, if you take a look at that and you are truly serious about balancing the budget, which you both said you were, it

seems meet -- it seems we will either have to raise taxes or get more revenue. you have to cut defense spending, or you will have to look at the entitlements and how we get a hold of them. we will delve into all of those. are you amenable to any of those three things? >> let me say i'm surprised to hear congressman perriello is in favor balancing the budget. he said this week he thought having a balanced budget was unrealistic. that is a slap in the face to the people he represent and the people that centex out to washington and expect our congressmen to be a good steward of them. >> are you willing to do any of the three? >> we will have to make tough decisions. we have to look at getting into entitlement spending. when it comes to medicare and medicaid, we have got to find ways to make health care cost less, not more. if you look a health care bill, congressman perriello, nancy pelosi, and barack obama have

jammed down our throats a decrease health care -- >> would you support a defense cut? >> i am not in favor of cutting defense. i'm not in favor of raising taxes. >> let's stick to those three things. entitlement spending. are you addressing that? >> not only do i believe everything has to be on the table, i have fought for that and fought for the bipartisan balanced budget commission that will be reporting back in the next few weeks. the sums it up. senator hurt refused to support the governor on his budget last year and refused to us now to agree to any of the things you put on the table. we don't need politicians that think solutions fit on a bumper sticker. we need leaders and fighters to make tough decisions. we need something for an up or down vote. you will hear from my opponent about the balanced budget. it will take 10 years to pass. we do not have 10 years to get this under control. we need to do it now.

>> you would support attacking entitlements? >> absolutely. everything has to be on the table. we have to find efficiency gains to be there. i have done it on the transportation committee. i went out for over $100 million in spending last year that we can cut out the programs, ran the most efficient office of the delegation in virginia, and blocked congressional pay increases. we have to look at entitlements. we do have to look at defense. we have to make investments to save the money over time. we have to make tough choices. >> let's look at entitlements. tell me exactly what you would do. raise the retirement age? would you be willing to do that? >> no, i think social security is a promise made and a promise that must be kept. where i do think we can find savings is in health care costs. i think congressman perriello would agree that is the importance of the true reform. the problem is what he and nancy pelosi have given us is not

reform. it has driven costs up. what we need are reforms that will drive costs down. >> what does that mean? >> that means it would reduce the cost of health care and reduce the medicare budget. >> how you do that? >> you do it in several ways. you incorporate market-based solutions into the health care reform system. you have to offer solutions, focused solutions, like allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, creating competition, driving premiums down. people have opened mailboxes in recent weeks, opened their checks, opened their envelops, to find they have an increased health insurance premium. that comes directly from the health bill. that is not what congressman perriello promised us. it is not what barack obama promised us. they promised us we would have reduced premiums and we do not have it. it will kill small businesses and individuals.

>> it is true. premiums have gone up. did you expect that when you voted for the bill? >> this is the first time senator curt has heard about premiums going up, -- if this is the first time senator curt has heard about premiums going up, he has not been paying attention. this has been crushing our families. it has been crushing competitiveness. he would raise taxes on small business. this adds $1 trillion to the national deficit. it does not reduce it. the republican plan that came out a few weeks ago where nottor heurt would differentiate himself -- we do not need to go back to the tired policies that got us into this hole in the first place. we need to fight both political parties to make the choices. his plan would cut help for seniors. it increases the cost of prescription drugs. that is not the right thing to

do. >> is that true? >> i don't know what he is talking about. what i do know is the plan he has supported has led to higher premiums and higher health care costs. if we are serious about getting medicare costs under control, and that is what the president and congressman perriello said reform was about, why don't we adopt targeted solutions that will actually drive the cost of health care down? the idea is that imposing $500 billion in new taxes on individuals and small businesses as a part of this bill is going to do anything except kill jobs, i think it's ludicrous. in addition, if i may, you talked about cutting spending. let's also talk about the good benefit of increasing jobs. that is another thing that congressman perriello has had a deaf ear to. >> want to stick with cuts for a second. we talked about the entitlement

of all of that. let's talk about discretion are spending. is there one program that you can say tonight, if i'm elected to congress, i will cut? >> i would vote to reduce the salary of congressmen. congressman perriello has seen his salary growth. >> that is untrue. we have seen a lot of that from the center post a campaign. i have twice led the fight to block the pay increases. have you read the health care bill? >> i have read the one bill that the people want me to read as it relates to health care. that is repeal the health care bill. >> you did not read the bill. that is why you don't understand your plan cuts benefits to seniors. it cuts prescription drug benefits to seniors. this is a disaster. you're talking about going to a plan that just sits years. you have to read these bills before you say you are against

them. >> the only plan that i have endorsed is to repeal the health care bill, despite the fact -- we had 22 town halls. those people, the people made it clear to you that they did not want you to vote for that health care bill. you voted for it. what you have done is you have increased the cost of health care. you have increased the cost of health insurance premiums. all you're doing is passing a legacy of debt and out of control spending to our children. >> their great talking points, but ticket to the facts. did you talk to the biggest employers in your district? >> i have been all across this district. >> you need to understand your plan raises taxes on small business. you have raised taxes on va 27 times. that is not new for you.

>> let me focus this health care debate for second. i think this is important for us to do. senate hurt, you favor repeal in health care. we want to show you the specific things that are part of the bill that some voters would say, i like this, including the pre- existing conditions that would be covered as a result of this bill. kids with pre-existing conditions, covered. up to 26 years old, those kids can be on their parents' health plan. do you support those ideas? >> those are things we can work toward if we start from scratch. we have to repeal this bill. we have to start over. we have to look at market- oriented solutions that include allowing competition among insurance companies, to reduce the cost of premiums. we need reform. that is something congressman perriello and his colleagues in congress have refused to look at. >> are there problems you see

with it rather than repeal will whole thing? >> there is no way to save a bill that is by thunder billion dollars in new taxes that congressman perriello has voted for. any waythink there is to fix such a horrendous bill. it costs $500 billion out of medicare. >> senator hurt, a perfect segue. >> i think you have to go back and read the bill, not a talking point. the $500 billion is from people abusing the system. >> this is my question. >> we must live up to that promise. >> your colleague in the neighboring district voted against the health care reform bill in large part because of the impact it could have on seniors on medicare. in a letter, he said, "my opposition largely centers on the dramatic reductions in medicare funding it imposes. over the next 10 years, the bill

requires the medicare funding be reduced by four moderate $50 million." this is from a democrat who is saying this. is he right? >> he is wrong. this is a place where you have to make tough choices and go after the people abusing the system to create a better system. there is not one benefit cut you can show me that cuts benefits to seniors. when we came in, republicans have three problems. medicare would go bankrupt in eight years. they were going to cut payments to doctors by 21%. how many doctors do you think would stay in the medicare system under the republican plan? they tried to kill it before and they could not do it. now they're trying to cut the payments to doctors. we make sure medicare is there. we have taken the money people were using a credit for the people who are working hard and playing by the rules.

-- people were using inappropriately and given it to the people who are working hard and play by the rules. >> welcome back to our conversation with the candidates. we've been talking about spending. we have talked about ending earmarks. you have pledged you would do that. you sought to attach $150 million worth of spending items to the budget. $9.2 million for the advanced learning center, $50,000 for the henry county walking track. as you look at those numbers, how can you be honest about wanting to eliminate earmarks when you have been prompting them yourself? >> let's be clear about something. what goes on in richmond is different than what goes on with congressman perriello in washington. >> they are still taxpayer dollars. >> the big differences that we balance our budget in richmond.

in washington, they don't. congressman perriello says it is unrealistic to think we can balance the budget. the truth of it is the earmark processes corrupt. it needs to end. we need transparency in the budgeting process so there are not the back room deals, tit- for-tat, that politicians use. the most important thing is that the spending is sought by any individual legislator needs to be in the context of the balanced budget. how're you to ever prioritize anything if you do not do it within the context of the balanced budget? congressman perriello does not understand that. >> her track record shows in two months, $193 million in earmarked for things like a runway, improvements to downtown areas, and a water treatment plant. you said you're committed to a balanced budget. how do do that but spend $193 million? >> three weeks is what it took

me to start doing your mark reform. the senator has not reduced -- has not reform bennie of those. what we see is i have gone up there and i have challenged those. i voted to investigate corrupt members of my own party. i have looked at the earmark process. i have put rolls up there myself. when i thought businesses -- when i talk to businesses, they say we need broadband here, we need a national gas pipeline. i try to work with officials to work together to create jobs and competitive the vantage. i have done it in a transparent way. >> people are skeptical of these election-year conversions. senator hurt suddenly suggests that is the way to get there, and he did not support the balanced budget. he did not make those tough choices. >> let's talk about tough choices. i did not get a clear answer on

this question. we have a few seconds. if you could give me a clear answer, one program that you be willing to cut. >> we have to look at all of bureaucracy. we need to look at the federal regulatory agencies that i think are doing a great deal of harm to the process. look at some of the things the epa is doing. >> one program. >> i don't think you can say just one program. europe to look at everything. you have to do it in a systematic way. you have to be guided by the bottom line. we need to achieve a balanced budget. >> corn and ethanol subsidies. we have a lot of potential and bio-diesel. it has been costly and it has cost farmers. we can look at across the board cuts, like bloomberg did. >> this is coming from congressman perriello, the man who cannot get the budget.

we have to be reminded that in washington, d.c., we don't even have a budget. >> we will be right back with our last segment. welcome back for last remaining minutes. we have gotten calls into our newsroom already from seniors to say we're not getting a cost of living increase. it has happened two years in a row. is that the right move? did the government to the right thing? >> it is attached to the consumer price index. we have congress in office that is refusing to take measures that will promote job growth. it we would have job growth, which is what the people of the fifth district desperately want, we would see that. >> leaving the circular logic aside, they do deserve the cost of living increase. i have challenged the formula. i think it is outdated. it does not reflect the true cost. i think we need a social

security system that reflects it. >> it was considered that don't ask, don't tell should be thrown out. did the judge make the right move? >> it should be the military protocol. hesitant to tell anyone they cannot risk their life for that country, but i think it is the military's call. >> i think it is something the military should be left to. >> would you vote to have nancy pelosi as the speaker? >> the cream does not always rise to the top of the washington. i vote with myself and my district. >> give me one issue where you would not vote with your leadership. >> guns, abortion, bailout possibly -- policy, really challenging those parties that have lined up with the elites. we have to get back to growing things in america.

we need to get back to manufacturing, construction, and agriculture. >> can you give me one issue that you would not vote with your leadership on? >> congressman perriello says he has been independent. it does not tell the story. that is what this election is about. he was elected to be an independent voice and has not been there. >> is there one issue where you would not? >> we need to balance the budget. >> you agree with your party on that? >> we need to balance the budget regardless of what party leaders would think. >> thank you for being a part of this. it has been informative discussion. wsls "on your side." the take-all for you at home, we have the interactive newscast. the news is on next week from 6:00 until 6:30. good night. thanks for watching, everybody.

contentn's local vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to them november midterm election. >> it has been a very interesting race for the sixth district congressional seat. through the primaries, both parties were hotly contested. both of the nominees won by the slimmest margins. this has been an area that has been dominant lead democrat -- that has been dominant lead democrat -- dominantly democrat. people are standing on the corners, holding signs, shaking hands.

everything you can imagine, this race has had. >> i am running for the a [inaudible] i got out and i had not eaten any barbecue. >> [unintelligible] >> thank you. >> diane black is the state senator. she knows politics. she has been around. she is a former nurse. she has been able to use her medical background to repeal the anti-obamacare. she is a mother, grandmother, very down to work. she is a person the voters can relate to. >> the government is spending too much money.

they're going into places we don't feel they should be come a taking of the banking industry, the car industry, energy. people are saying, government, stop. slow down. don't spend so much. get out of our lives. >> brett carter is kind of ban on know. he came out of nowhere. k -- ind of -- kind of an unknown. he came out of nowhere. he had been in the navy. brett carter edges his competition. he is connecting with the rural folks and has been very plain- spoken, does not seem to be a politician, kind of your average joe out there talking to everybody and trying to get the vote. >> the people of this district are tired of career politicians.

they want new faces in washington. that is what i offer. i have the accounting degree to make sure the money we have in washington is being spent wisely. i'm a veteran who will stand up to the special interests were doing things that are making -- stopping our economy from turning around. i have the backbone to do what we need to do. >> the district and several countiesc. ookeville -- counties. cookeville is the hub. it has always been a democrat. -- been democrat. it was a given that a republican would take over the previously-left seat in the house. brett carter is not a politician and has not been involved in

politics. you know what? i am a democrat and i think i will try to keep the seat a democratic seat in congress. carter and black are trying to disassociate themselves with politics in general and with washington politics. they're both running on the platform that when they go to washington, they will not be part of the washington regime. they will try to make a difference for our area. they're both very similar in a lot of things. brett carter had a press conference asking for nancy pelosi's resignation. in doing that, he is trying to disassociate himself with the washington democrat. he is focusing on the issues that people around here thereabout, like jobs, obamacare. diane black is against that. she wants to reform the health care thing all over again. you do not hear brett saying a

lot on the economics of, let's cut taxes, let's decrease spending. i think they agree on a lot of things. you do not hear a whole lot of back-and-forth between them so far. we're not privy to a lot of polls in this area, but i would say that diane black, looking at the primaries and name recognition, has to have a 10- point lead on brett carter right now. he is the underdog, but he knows that. he relishes that role as being the underdog. he came out of nowhere. there are not a lot of people who know him as well as they do her. she was in a very nasty primary race with some other republicans. you have to wonder, is that party -- have they come together? it will be interesting to see you who wins this. local content

vehicles are traveling the country as we look at some of the most closely contested races leading up to this november's midterm election. >> for more information on what the vehicles are up to this election season, visit our web site, c-span.org/lcv. >> voters had to the polls in less than two weeks. follow the races and candidates on the c-span networks with debates every night right up until election day. archive debates are online, and twitter feats, event coverage, campaign ads, and other resources are on the website. follow our election coverage through election day. >> this weekend on "booktv," whether american media and its goals are good for democracy. then, it is believed that president obama poses an

existential threat to the u.s. colonialf his father's ideology. then,mark feldstein. go to booktv.org. >> the obama administration is laying out a new, multi-year, $2 billion military aid package for pakistan. the islamabad government is being pressed to step up the fight against extremists. secretary of state hillary rodham clinton announced the plan this morning at the end of the latest round of strategic talks. at about 3:00 eastern, we will have live coverage as the answer reporter posed questions about the plan. first, this morning's announcement.

>> good morning and welcome. we are on the eighth floor of the state department in washington, d.c. it is an honor for me to open our third cabinet-level meeting this year of the strategic dialogue between the united states and pakistan. i am particularly delighted to have a number of u.s. cabinet officials joining us this morning, as well as so many ministers who have made the long trip from pakistan. the number of agencies and ministries participating in this dialogue is a testament to our shared commitment to a deep, broad, and enduring relationship between our two countries. i would particularly like to thank my colleague, the foreign minister, for his stewardship of this expanding enterprise. former minister qureshi. on a personal note, i want to

recognizeand ambassador ann patterson, -- recognize ambassador ann patterson, who has done an extraordinary job in representing the united states in islamabad at a critical time in our history. it will be my privilege to present you with the secretary's award for outstanding service. welcome home. [applause] i would also like to introduce our distinguished ambassador who will be departing on sunday to islamabad. cameron is looking forward to working with all the pakistani officials. in march we began to gather in the strategic dialogue to discuss how to help the pakistani people in the areas

that pakistani people themselves identified as their most important concerns. we thought we would try something different in the history of our relationship, and that is listening to each other and learning from each other. in july we announced a series of signature projects in water and electricity. this week we are going even further with new agreements to cooperate on projects ranging from building dams and water storage systems to expanding national radio coverage. in the time since we last met, one event, however, has dominated all of our work together -- the terrible floods of this summer, which covered more than 1/5 of the entire country and affected more than 20 million people. the american people were deeply saddened by the loss of life, destruction of so many houses, farms, and businesses, and

long-term damage to pakistan's infrastructure and economy. when i visited pakistan the first time last year, i met people whose lives had been shattered by the violence in south waziristan in the swat valley. many of those same areas have been flooded, and my heart goes out especially to those who have endured such terrible calamities. i know that there are so many stories of individual challenges, but also so many of resilience. one woman that i had met lived in the village where all of the roads and bridges have been washed away. the people have moved into temporary housing, but winter is approaching. they need concrete houses. after the snow falls and temporary roads are blocked, villages will be cut off and cement trucks will not be able to enter. communities throughout pakistan

are having similar problems. so we are celebrating efforts to -- accelerating our efforts to help provide cash to people whose houses have been destroyed so that they can quickly rebuild. this morning i want to send a special message to the people of pakistan. we have stood with you and we will keep standing with you to help you not just cope with the aftermath of the floods, but to get back on the path to prosperity. the united states is very proud working with the pakistani government and military to help with the rescue operations and to help pick up thousands and thousands of stranded pakistanis and to deliver millions of pounds of its refugee supplies as well as relief and recovery aid in the millions. there's so much more work to be done. in some places, aid has yet to arrive and millions of people are still homeless.

but we are working closely with the government of pakistan and international partners. we will continue to do all we can to help you. i believe that the need to look beyond the immediate to the future is a very important part of this help, because we have to begin to figure out how to help you rebuild the infrastructure and once again get commerce going, get the agricultural community replanted, and building toward a better harvest. since our last strategic dialogue meeting in july in islamabad, each of the 13 working groups has finalized a plan, a blueprint for cooperation between our two countries. now we have a plan to immunize against disease for 90% of pakistani children. we have a plan to improve the reliability of electricity

supplies for pakistani people. yesterday we began distributing wheat and vegetable seed as part of a broader plan to help half a million farming families get back on their feet. these plans are already being put into action. they are shoring up the country's existing energy structure and developing new sources of power. we have ordered equipment for four power plants. we will soon complete a public- private partnership that will build a 150-megawatt wind farm in a province to tap the enormous potential of the wind that blows down the pakistani coast. as these projects come on line, we will look to them to implement systematic reforms of the energy infrastructure. working groups have been

involved in collaborating on new scientific projects. in fact, 27 of them, including research on deadly diseases like hepatitis and tuberculosis, with joint funding from both governments. tomorrow, 6 water experts will visit new orleans to study release and reconstruction after hurricane katrina. we hope that pakistan can benefit from painful lessons we have learned and efforts we have made to rebuild a great city. finally, we are cooperating on military matters. i want to say publicly that the united states has no stronger partner when it comes to counter-terrorism efforts against the extremists who threaten us both. we appreciate the sacrifice and service the men and women,

particularly the soldiers of the military in pakistan, have made in order to restore order and go after those who threaten the institutions of the state of pakistan. the military working group has had a productive discussion about coming together to combat terrorism and eliminate violence extremism and organizations that promote it that are operating in pakistan. these groups threaten the security of the people of pakistan first and foremost, of neighbors of the united states, and of the world. in keeping with the enduring commitment to help pakistan plan for its defense needs, i am pleased to announce our multi-year security commitment. we will request $2 billion in foreign military assistance from congress for 2010 through

2016. -- 2012 through 2016. this will complement the $7.5 billion projects that has already been approved in legislation. later this morning, secretary gates will update you on other aspects of our bilateral military discussions. so, this is a full and comprehensive agenda. in this dialogue, we are very proud to be your partner. we will continue to support you as you take the tough decisions necessary to create progress and prosperity for the people of pakistan. reform in pakistan's tax system is one area where tough decisions will have to be made, because it will serve a broad double purpose. a broader tax base will mean more funding for roads, bridges, power plants, airports, all essential elements of a

growing economy. and it will demonstrate to the international community that all segments in society are willing to do their own parts to rebuild their country. so we are tackling some of the toughest problems. nothing is being swept under the rug. i am so impressed by the quality of our engagement from both the government and the people of pakistan. as we move ahead, let us be inspired by the people whose lives we have a chance to touch. the little boy recently heard about who goes back every day to play in the pile of bricks that used to be his house, his parents will soon be able to rebuild. the farmer whose fields were flooded will soon have seed and fertilizer to start again during -- start again. the baby's who will grow

healthy, girls who will go on to get an education, and all the people who will see that they can become part of a new future for pakistan. i want to invite my colleague and friend, minister kareshi, -- qurershi, who has coached in a dialogue with me to begin making comments. minister. >> secretary clinton, dear colleagues, ladies and gentleman. thank you, madam secretary, for your gracious remarks. i am delighted to be in washington again. grateful for the warm welcome and the gracious hospitality afforded to us since our arrival here. my delegation includes senior colleagues from the civil and military institutions of pakistan making an enormous contribution. i thank them for their efforts.

i also stressed our association for with contributions of so many senior members of the u.s. delegation who have been associated with this process from the start. this is the third time we are meeting for the and strategic -- for the strategic dialogue within a year. this, in itself, it is a significant achievement. but essentially it reflects the importance that both our nations attached to this vital relationship, so critical for peace and stability and beyond. it is a description of the broad range of areas in which we want fannie need to work together to -- we want and need to work together to broaden and deepen our multifaceted cooperation and to advance our share of goals of strategic partnership.

madam secretary, your personal support for this shared endeavor, thank you. your personal reaching out to the people of pakistan has left a deep imprint on the hearts and minds of our people. abiding good will and friendship among our people is indeed a critical parts of the success of -- critical content for the success of our efforts. madam secretary, we are meeting today in the backdrop of the devastating floods in pakistan. this has been a national calamity of unprecedented proportions. a few weeks and months, ravaging floodwaters ravaged our lands and displaced tens of millions of our people. the floods did not just claim buses lives and caused damage to -- claim precious lives and caused damage to homes and

infrastructure, it still dreams of millions of baucus sunnis and shattered to their hopes for a better future. the floods, also, decelerated the growth of our national economy and set back policy efforts and reversed years of development gains. madam secretary, the flood disaster has hurt the nation again and our people have proved their resilience yet again. the whole pakistani nation will mobilize with the government, armed forces, civil society, the media, and profits citizens -- and private citizens actively participating in the countrywide national effort for rescue and relief. what we could not have done, what we have not been able to do without the support and solidarity of our friends abroad. madam secretary, we truly appreciate the international community's efforts which were

spearheaded by the united states. i would be remiss if i did not acknowledge on behalf of the people and government of that is done, your personal leadership -- government of pakistan, your personal leadership and contribution to the efforts to keep a global spotlight on this disaster and to mobilize international support and assistance. i take this opportunity to express our profound gratitude for your role. i also express sincere thanks to the american people lose -- whose compassion has been deeply appreciated. remember the 2005 earthquake where the angels of mercy helped save thousands of lives. such angels of mercy reappeared on the horizon to evacuate tens of thousands of people to safer locations and to deliver relief

supplies to many more. this is a testament to the innate goodness of the american people and their commitment to humanitarian values. madam secretary, the waters are receding now and we have initiated a recovery phase. a long and hard road to rehabilitation and reconstruction lies ahead. the challenges are immense. we must help millions of evicted people to rebuild their houses, businesses, and communities. above all, we must help them renew their hopes. and restored their hopes it will -- and restart their lives. it will be difficult, we know, but we also know that we would not be alone in this undertaking. pakistan and the united states have been friends before. we have a history of cooperation in meeting some of

the greatest challenges of the first and second world wars. the kind of engagement we have as of the last few years has never been with us before. this is the first time that the relationship is founded on shared ideals of democracy, mutual respect, and trust. this is, also, the first time that on the pakistani side, the relationship is driven by a democratically elected government. this is the first time that the two sides are making a delibete effort to place the citizens of pakistan as the main beneficiaries of this relationship. i know that a relationship built on such foundations is bound to endorse. -- endure. just look at the range of issues we are looking at in the strategic dialogue.

13 areas. each of them is a world in itself. we are working groups on each of these areas. we have had at least two extensive sessions on identifying areas of cooperation. words and documents have been exchanged. i think this strategic dialogue marks the foundation of our partnership. this is an earnest exercised to -- ernest exercise to create a better understanding of each other's predicaments. this is necessary to bring about the policy alignments and take pragmatic steps for required cooperation and cooperation of the operational level. we have to move toward timeliness and benchmarks t measure progress and lend a result-oriented approach through the process. 10 of the 13 working groups met in the last two days. the report i received of their deliberations are encouraging.

tangibles should be coming out of these deliberations soon. there is much to celebrate in the pack a stun-u.s. friendship. -- pakistan-u.s. friendship. there always will, for both countries. never forget, we are once again engaged as partners in a moment as challenge, a momentous -- a momentous challenge, a momentous struggle. the defining struggle of our times. i am referring to our joint fight against terrorism. we are fighting an enemy that offers no borders, follows no laws, and holds nothing sacred. we have both lost valuable lives. in the case pakistan, nearly 30,000 civilians have lost their lives. ordinary pakistanis citizens face the daily threat of suicide bombings as they go about their lives.

nearly 7000 of valiant law enforcement officials have perished in this fight. more than the combined loss of lives of military forces in afghanistan. nonetheless, it unfortunately seems easy to dismiss what wastk problems, even in this capital, not reallytan's part being in this fight. we do not know what greater evidence to offer than the blood of our people madam secretary, we are determined to win this fight. it will not be pakistan that the vast majority of citizens want to live in. we have our doubts about who our enemy is and what we must do to

defeat it. i wish to assure you that pakistan will not allow any space for terrorists on its territory. violence against innocent peoples is unacceptable. it cannot be justified on any ground. as such, there can be no distinction between good and bad terrorist. pakistan and the u.s. share the goal of defeating terrorism. that is why close contact and constant coordination at the policy an act of operational levels, policy language and better communication and coordination are key to our mutual success in the fight against terror. pakistan and the u.s. need to cooperate more closely in bringing stability and peace. we also hope that our consultation and cooperation on issues of security and stability will continue to make

an impact on the overall environment. madam secretary, i also want to take this opportunity to underscore the importance that we attach to your support -- to your support. the elected government continues to pursue a macroeconomic stabilization program that has been talked out in consultation with international financial institutions. we are in the process of reporting -- reordering our policies and natural resources are being mobilized for the reconstruction effort. and we're mindful for the need for a cost-effective program delivery. transparency and efficient utilization of resources are very much an important part of the government's agenda, and we have developed effective mechanisms for these goals.

when we launched our dialogue earlier this year, we were cognizant of the challenges and the opportunities that lay before us. among other things, we recognized that there would be skepticism and setbacks. we knew that as friends and allies, we would have differences of opinion at times. indeed, honest disagreements. but we also knew that we have the political will and robust engagement to help us resolve such momentary challenges. today, more than ever before, we are convinced that a comprehensive, long-term, and enduring partnership is in the strategic interest of both our countries. we remain clear that such a partnership rests on the principles of mutual respect, mutual trust, and mutual benefit. we have stated it before, and i reiterate it again. pakistan's sovereignty is and

will remain not negotiable. i have no doubt, madam secretary, that we can surmount any momentary challenge with gravity and sensitivity about our respective concerns and core interests. some recent developments have prompted certain quarters to speculate on the strength and resilience of our relationship. doomsday scenarios about our alliance. they are dead wrong. i also have no doubt that we will, yet again, approved the naysayers wrong for the strength and the depth of our engagement and the endurance of our alliance. madam secretary and the united states and pakistan have a shared interest in a peaceful and stable south asia. unfortunately, the prospect has -- is there and begin by the

recent events in cashmere. people of conscience have protested the use of force the defense's people of kashmir and in targeting the kashmiri youth. it has taken hundreds of lives in the past three months. the mothers are baffled at the deafening silence of the world leadership. history has proved that the force of arms cannot suppress legitimate aspirations of the kashmiri people. it is in the u.s. interest to work for peace, stability, and resolution the disputes in south asia. the sparking point in this quest is justice for the kashmiri people. it is always understood the importance of the kashmir solution. the visit to the region is a time to begin to redeem the pledge president obama made earlier.

i wish to underline that this dialogue and the pakistan/u.s. partnership have profound consequences for our two nations and for international peace and security. the have the responsibility is on us to nurture it carefully. our determination that pakistan will do its utmost to contribute to this worthy cause and to make our partnership a critical factor of peace, stability, and prosperity at the international level. madam secretary, and i conclude, i want to express our appreciation and gratitude for your team for painstaking efforts for this round of meetings. they have drawn the most aggressive program designed to extract the most benefit out of the process. i look forward to welcoming you in islamabad for the next round and hope we will show the same

professionalism that your side put on display here. thank you. >> well, there is no worry about that, mr. qureshi. having been in islamabad for the last meeting and received the excellent work that your team has been doing. as the press it leaves, we're going to begin our discussion, and i will turn first to secretary gates. and then he will be followed by the defense minister. >> this is a look at the state department where we are expecting secretary of state clinton and the pakistan foreign minister to answer reporters' questions. the obama administration announced a five-year $2 million package of military aid for pakistan.

the new military aid replaces a similar but less valuable package that began in 2005 and expired on october 1. it will complement $7.5 billion in civilian assistance the administration has already committed to pakistan over five years. we are expecting secretary clinton momentarily, and we will bring you that life here at the state department. >> while we wait for secretary clinton and the pakistan foreign minister, we are going to show you a portion of this morning's "washington journal" about the

deepwater horizon oil spill report. we will show you as much of that as we can until the secretary comes to the podium. , the two co-chairs of the national oil spill commission, senator bob graham, and william reilly, the former epa administrator for the bush administration from 1989 to 1993. welcome to both of you. thank you for being he. i want to begin, if i could, with where you both are, where your commission is in this process of putting out your report. it is due out in january. the president is asking for it. you have finished your public hearings. mr. reilly, please talk about where you are in the process. guest: we are about halfway through. our report is due january 11. we then will have two months to communicate it. we have completed hearings in new orleans and in washington. we have had an extensive list of presente, public officials, and our organization group

leaders and others. a number of people from the region -- i think we have been careful to include the people most affected by the spill. next month, november 8, we'll have a full presentation of the details of what actually happened on the rig, the decisions that were made and the consequences for the technology, for the breakdown. then we will go to serious writing, and we will have recommendations no later tn early december for the president. we will meet with theresident late in november and let it all rollout in january. host: you will let him know privately sort of what you're -- guest: we will meetith the president to let him know some of the directions we are going, some of the recommendations, and i'm sure that the white house will be public about some of those. host: senator graham joins us

from miami this morning. what happens after you put the reportut in january? you will have a couple of months to communicate that report. how are you and mr. riley -- mr. reilly and the rest of this report count? how will you make sure that your reforms and suggestions get passed congress and the administration? guest: the first tt is the findings that support the recommendations, and do they make sense. are they persuasive to important decision makers, starting with the president. then congress, other members of the administration will be involved in implementing. number two is we will have an extensive set ofctivities with the american people. we have a number of presentations to univsity audiences and other groups that have had a special interest in this issue. one of the things that we have

not really talked about is what several other conditions, including the 9/11 commission and now the weapons of mass destruction commission have done, and that is set up some capacity to continue to influence public opinion on the topic after you go out of official business, which for us will be two months after january 11. that will be another way which a group can continue to press the importance of and the relevance of the recommendations that they are making. host: we are talking with former senator bob graham, talking to us from miami this morning, the co-chair of the national oil spill commission, along with william reilly, the epa administrator from the first bush administration. senator graham, you said it will be theuality of your report that you think will make a difference. mr. reilly, do we need to name

names, then? guest: we need to be specific, a truly to the proximate cause, of who did what. for that we would certainly name company names. beyond that, no, i would expect that we would be more policy- oriented than the justice partment may be in its lead oregon -- it's later o investigations. host: there will be a lot of legislative father and a report, you said. senator gramm, can you give us an idea of where it -- senator graham, can you give us an idea of where that will be? guest: congres -- last summer it did not pass the senate.

when the congress reconvenes, this will be among their higher priorities. some of the issues are going to relate back to the last big oil spill, which was exxon valdez. after that, congress passed legislion that was very much focused on the specific circumstances of exxon valde an accident that occurred by a tanker that went aground, spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into a small bay in alaska. much of the current legislation oil spill is based on that scenario. we had quite a different situation occur on april 20. we had not an oil spill by a tanker, but rather a rupture of a drilling rig, which is operating almost a mile below the surface of the water, where

there were very few contained in capabilities on site, and there was an immediate scramble to try to hold the damage down i think much of our report and recommendations will be focused on how to be able to respond to an incident without being unduly specif as to what the details of that will be, because i am confident that unfortunately there will unfortunately be another oil-related accident, but it will be neither like exxon valdez or like the april 20 bp spell. host: mr. reilly, when it comes specifically to the management service, what will it be? est: with respect to the adequacy of the regulatory process, the training, the performance capability of

spectors, i think we can infer that we will have strong recommendations with the reform of that enterprise. secretary salazar has already undertaken some of that, and we expect some of the things that he has said to us, that there will be proposals for better training. it is extraordinary that on-the- job training >> we will leave the "washington journal" to take you live to the state department. >> well, good afternoon. it has been in a great pleasure to be with minister qureshi once again. i am happy to extend the hospitality that he and his government so graciously extended to me during my last trip to pakistan in the summer. we have just wrapped up three days of intensive discussions in

our third u.s./pakistan strategic dialogue. each of these sessions has been more productive as the last as we deepen our understanding of each other's needs and discover new opportunities for cooperation. this time we have final blueprints for each of our 13 working groups. they lay out specific agreements, actions, and benchmarks for making tangible improvements in the lives of the pakistani people. these include projects in water, electricity, women's empowerment, health, agriculture, and most urgently, a jump starting pakistan's recovery from the catastrophic floods. i also wanted to express, on a personal note, my deep sorrow and my outrage at the killing of dr. muhammed faruk kahn by

taliban as assets on october 2. he was the vice chancellor of islamic university in slot. he was a medical doctor and humanitarian. and a religious leader who spoke out against the evils of suicide bombing. i had the pleasure of his company and the benefits of his insights during my visit to pakistan a year ago. i would like to extend my profound sympathy is to his family, his students, and his patients. our government's stand together in denouncing this murder, which unfortunately and tragically, is part of the taliban campaign of attacks against educators, against doctors, against people who are not on the front lines of any war but indeed are on the front

lines of mercy and compassion and education. and it strikes me as not just an assault on someone like him, but on the future of the youth of pakistan. to build the kind of future that young pakistanis deserve, people of courage must stand against these extremists. and our two governments are working closely together with governments around the world and millions and millions of people who understand the threat that is posed to eliminate terrorism. as we conclude this their strategic dialogue session in seven months, we can see that our intensive consultations, our frank discussions, our focus on cooperation have already yielded an improvement in our bilateral

relationship. thanks to the hard work of mr. qureshi and his team of ministers, paired with their u.s. counterparts, we have made strides on a number of projects that pakistanis have identified as priorities. such as increasing the vaccination rate for children and saving their lives, researching solutions to the arsenic contamination of drinking water, improving the productivity of wheat and cotton farms. we are also ensuring the events and of women is an integral part of all the projects we pursue together, because we know that when we elevate the role of women, it benefits their families and particularly their children, and those benefits expand to communities as well. i am also pleased that we have continued our emphasis on helping to improve the business climate.

and i am excited today to announce a new business development and mentor ship program, the 10,000 women and they should step run by goldman sacks. it will partner with the state department to bring pakistani women entrepreneurs for intensive training at the thunderbird school to global management in arizona. where the women will learn business and leadership skills, a financial management, strategic planning, and operations. the first group of businesswomen will arrive next spring, and we have to give them, as well as many other pakistanis, the support needed to grow their businesses, create more jobs, and invest in their communities. we can continue to work on the high priorities of energy and water. we had excellent presentations and reports today from our working groups on energy and water. we are focused on improving the electricity service, creating more opportunities for water

storage, the kind of initiatives that were important before the floods but now are absolutely essential. so i am looking forward to working with my counterpart and friend, mr. qureshi, and with the very dedicated teams of pakistani and american officials to continue to develop more ways to enhance our cooperation and produce results for the people of pakistan. now let me turn to the minister. >> thank you, madam secretary. thank you for the leadership you have provided. thank you for the understanding, and thank you for the friendship that you have extended. working with you has been, indeed, and wonderful experience. and i think, ladies and gentlemen, i would not be exaggerating if i said that literally, we have broken the

mold. it will only gain momentum with the passage of time. we have determined to transform this relationship, and we have collectively put together a unique format of engagement. what you saw today, what happened last night, the day before, visible, invisible, interaction. honest interaction. recognizing the fact that we can have differences. but knowing the fact that we have to move ahead in our mutual interest. this relationship suits the united states as much as it suits pakistan. we have built beneficiaries of that. the people of the united states have to understand that

investing in pakistan, the united states is a beneficiary. and the people of pakistan have to understand to have united states as an enduring partner, pakistan gains internationally and regionally. we have discussed a lot of things. lots of things, which are part of the dialogue and even beyond the 13 sectors that were discussed. the fact that we agreed to invite 200 journalists for a training program in the united states, because we realized that public -- that is so important in democracies, and at times the message does not get communicated.

we have to communicate the message. you have to commute -- communicate the message. but we're giving the right message. the message is that we're going to transform this relationship into a people-centric relationship. we're making an investment. we're making not a five-year investment, we are making an investment which is a generational and asthma. and that is what we are talking about. that is why when we're talking about water, we're talking about the improvement of productivity in pakistan. when we talk about social sectors, we're talking about an improvement on the quality of life in pakistan. when we're talking about giving the 50% -- [unintelligible] that is a difference that this relationship is taking a u-turn. i also have shared with the

secretary of state that when i was here in new york for the un, i met pakistanis, and they had meetings with attorneys, with lawyers, and they shared with me that if there is a natural disaster, there are provisions within the u.s. law of tps. i had a word with the ambassador. the ambassador had a word with the attorney. and this could be an opportunity to give many pakistanis, who are contributing to american society and the american economy, to get legal status. she has been kind enough and has agreed to examine it. i think that will also improve our relations. and we have talked about a number of regional initiatives that we feel it put into place

can be a game changer. so thank you. thank you for the full support and understanding. >> thank you, minister. >> thank you. >> two questions -- >> i have a question for both of you. mr. qureshi, this morning you had stern comments about the naysayers in the province of doom, as you put it, in washington who publicly doubt pakistan's commitment to the anti-terrified. i would like to ask both of you why you think these attitudes persist in what both sides can do to turn the perception around? madam secretary, i wonder if you have any comments that of the wikileaks release this weekend? thank you. >> i think the quality of our relationship, the depth, the understanding that we have developed over the last two years should not be judged by

pure media reports. we need them. people write to them. and we benefit from them. but i think our relationship is stronger than what is believed to be. i think at the working level, there is a greater understanding. perhaps it is often misunderstood. many felt when i was leaving for washington that it is going to be tough talking. friends talk. what is tough talking? yes, there was a friendly talking. yes, there were concerns on both sides, and we share them. and why not? but our relationship is often misunderstood with what is reported in the media. [laughter] >> i have nothing to add to that. [laughter]

i am very pleased by the progress that we have made in a deepening and broadening our cooperation and our understanding. as minister qureshi has said, we engaged in a very comprehensive discussions that go into great depth on a full range of issues. one thing that is not often reported enough is that the united states has no stronger partner than pakistan in fighting the mutual threat we face from extremism. and the cooperation is a very deep and very broad. but as my friend said, it does not mean we will agree on everything. friendship is a two-way street.

we both have to work hard to maintain this french ship. and in fact, it is something that we are committed to doing, as mr. qureshi said, it is a generational commitment. but we are two different countries. we have two different traditions. we have two different histories. that does not mean we are going to agree on everything. but it means, as you do with friends, that you did not jump to conclusions, and you do not resume before you have actually had a chance to explain. and we laugh often, the minister and i, about the intensity of the free press environment in which both of us exist. i am well familiar with the vigor of the pakistani press, and i have lots of experience with the vigor of the u.s. press. so we know, and sometimes it is hard to explain. neither of us and neither of

our government's control those respective prices. so if something is printed in one of our countries, people jump to all kinds of conclusions. and i think that is why is it to just take some time to think through the basis of this very important relationship and how committed we both are to moving forward despite the challenges. so i certainly endorse mr. qureshi's comments. with respect to your question, as a matter of policy, the department of state does not comment on allegedly leaked documents. i would refer you to the department of defense for any further comment. but i do have a strong opinion that we should condemn in the

most clear terms that exclosure of any classified information by individuals and organizations, which puts the lives of united states and partners, service members, and civilians at risk. threatening our national security and national security of those with whom we are working. so that is where i think this matter stands. >> i must say that the trip was fine -- the triplets are fine. >> i was going to ask you. this man has triplets. >> you always ask. these stocks were very successful. but two issues did not get enough attention. foris pakistan's request nuclear, the deals with india. the other is the roadmap for

afghanistan and the leaders talking between the afghan and taliban. if there is a place for pakistan on this road map, and will these two issues be discussed during these talks? >> i can assure you that all issues have been discussed, and it is not just what we talked about here in washington for two days, but it is what we continue to talk about between meetings, between our experts and our officials. and yes, there was a very long discussion about afghanistan. both the united states and pakistan have very important national security interests with respect to afghanistan. we are working together, and we are consulting very closely on any road map for work. >> i would like to just add something. what we need to understand is

that this is a process, and we have begun the process. you cannot expect results in it two or three sittings. but the interesting thing is, i have often read that the u.s. has been blasting seats in the pakistani mines. -- blasting season -- seeds in pakistan and minds. i would like to try things in a different way, things we have tried in the past have not worked. that does not mean we give up. we are persistent. and it commands success. so i am not giving up. >> a question for both first. i was wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about this security assistance

package that the madam secretary announced today? the u.s. already is pakistan a lot of military aid. how is this package going to make a difference? what sort of concrete actions do think it will result in on the ground. and can you confirm that the u.s. is planning to withhold military aid from pakistani military units engaged in human rights abuses? >> let me take both of those. you know, this morning i announced the administration's multi-year security assistance commitment to pakistan. that does include a commitment to request $2 billion in foreign military assistance from our congress for the years 2012 through 2016. that money for military assistance complement's the $7.5 billion commitment to end

civilian projects that has already been approved the legislation. specifically, this commitment includes $2 billion in foreign military financing, and $29 million in international military education and training. we also have made a strong commitment to continue the pakistan counterinsurgency capability fund assistance based upon the ground requirements and the year to year needs with fiscal year 2012 funding of no less than in recent years. our long-tment _ is term relationship -- this commitment underscores our long-term relationship. we know pakistan has suffered a lot because its courageous battle against extremists. i think i heard the figure that in recent times 30,000

pakistanis have been killed by the taliban extremists. some of those are of course military. some of those are police. and many of those are just innocent civilians going about their daily lives. pakistan is such a close partner with us in the fight against terrorism and in the counter insurgency efforts that we know are necessary, and we want to support pakistan in its fight. and to do that, we want to provide the training and equipment that they have asked for. now all u.s. security assistance must be provided in accordance with u.s. laws and regulations, including what are called the leahy vetting requirements.

and we will continue to ensure that all the assistance provided to the multi-year security assistance commitment that i am announcing today will also comply with u.s. laws and regulations. we take all allegations of human rights abuses seriously, and we discuss them with the government of pakistan, and we followed the law and work with our partners in pakistan to deal with any issues that come to our attention. >> ma'am, when you saw this report, you know, on human rights, we have dealt with it. and we have dealt with it effectively. an investigation has been ordered by a very senior officer of the pakistan army. and i can assure you that there will be zero tolerance. but we have to first see the

report and verify and see with the truth is. and if there is excellent -- action required, the government of action will take action. we are aware of the leahy amendment. two, the secretary has just said that pakistan today is the most important partner the united states has in counter-terrorism. that has lost 7000 lives in counter-terrorism. that partner has been saying that we have capacity needs. we have defense needs. and i am so happy that this administration has recognized the legitimate defense needs of pakistan. we have had six rounds of talks through the defense working

groups, and we have reached an understanding that training is required, and i am sure this equipment in training in this multi-year program, pakistan will be able to deliver in a more effective manner. you have seen our delivery in many agencies of the tribal belt, and we intend to do our job seriously. >> [inaudible] >> yes, we have met before. >> secretary, a specific question on dialogue. the pakistani delegation if you has been that the project has been discussed and will have additional funding. but it looks like the view of the american side is that funding will be diverted, not only for these projects but for the flood reconstruction, the funding will be directed from

the lugar legislation. but if so, that will be changed but what is the view of your administration? >> i am and ensure that i agree with the question. because of course, the projects that we had already announced from that were products for the entire country. they were projects on electricity, water, agriculture, and the big projects. and many of those projects have been severely affected by the floods. although the united states gave over $380 million in direct flood assistance, in order to assist the people of pakistan to do what we said we would do, it is both flood relief and it is projects. but at the same time, it may be that something we prioritized last summer is no longer a

priority because there is a higher priority because of the needs of the people. so we are in close consultation with the government of pakistan. this money is meant to help the people of pakistan to really create a positive impact of three civilian projects. and the list is going to be affected by the floods. but the money is going to the same purposes. >> you see a friend of pakistan here. i can assure you that as many friends of pakistan in the u.s. congress, and let me name one. a senator called john kerry. and i had a meeting with him when i was here earlier on in september, and we discussed the flood situation and the impact it had on pakistan's economy. cognizant of the fact that the $7.5 billion package was for a need, and now there are

compounded problems, and we need to have a new look. we understand the difficulties. but this is an ongoing process. it does not begin with john kerry or liquor, it will not end with them. it saves by years but also saves at least another five years. i think it goes beyond another five years. i am talking about a generation investment. >> thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> c-span, bringing in politics and public affairs. every morning is "washington journal" for live calls about the news of the day.

on weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house of representatives. and weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forums. every weekend, look for our signature interview program. "the communicators on saturday evening. "newsmakers" on sunday. through november, coverage of campaign 2010, as the political parties battle for control of congress. our programs are available any time at c-span.org, and you can search for them at the c-span video library. c-span, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> in political news about the midterm elections, the conservative group, let freedom ring, says house speaker nancy pelosi violated federal election commission rules, specifically dealing with coordination between candidates and outside political organizations. it cites news reports in which speaker pelosi vowed to seek

help from liberal-leaning organizations. and it lists political expenditures by those groups after her comments. a spokeswoman for speaker pelosi calls the complaint a stunt. house republican whip eric cantor is speaking in exception to democratic assertions that the party members are outside the mainstream of american politics. he says they are concerned about fiscal responsibility. he tells cbs news said if republicans recapture the house, he would be willing and able to work closely with the new tea party-backed republican members as they're likely new majority leader. each night on c-span, we're showing debates from key races around the country. here's tonight's schedule. live at 7:00 p.m., the second and final televised debate between pennsylvania's senate candidates. at 8:00 p.m., a profile of the indiana ninth district house

race. followed by the candidates' debates. live at 9:00 p.m. eastern, president obama is in nevada for a get out the vote rally was senate democratic leader harry reid. if that is followed by the third and final debate between wisconsin's senate candidates. >> this week on q&a, two former parliamentarians, one british, one american, compare and contrast the house of representatives and the house of commons. on the roles that run parliament and congress, denied on q&a. -- sunday night on q&a. >> a look at the potential impact of the midterm elections on congress. with former hillary clinton adviser and a former adviser to president george w. bush. nbc news deputy political director is the moderator. from george washington university in washington, d.c., this is about an hour and a half.

>> this evening and welcome. mr. the acting director of the political school. we're pleased to have our guests here this evening to do the second installment of midterm examinations and give their thoughts about what is happening the next couple weeks. it is exactly this kind of event and this kind of conversation that we like to post here at the gspm, which is the nation's premier school a practical politics. the first school founded 23 years ago to teach people how the business of politics operates and to we're able to knows this because of two wonderful mentors to the school.

both of them had it their respective political parties in the 1980's and have been tremendous political leaders in their own right and the electorate -- supporting good financial education over the last three decades but as a place to introduce ambassador jack moneta -- ambassador monnett will get us started. >> thank you, director. antiwhite to our special panel for being here tonight. i think it will be a lot of fun. perhaps two weeks from now, you might see a grown man cry. and that would be me. i am glad we're here before the election. my joy really with the students tonight is what i would like to focus on. i am sure we have many good students here with us. and i really only had one campaign while a student at george washington university. i was sort of in the second year of law school with the kennedy

campaign. kennedy and nixon. we debated with a wonderful man who is in heaven now, a future congressmen, and he advised president nixon. i had jack kennedy. we debated a small catholic girls' schools. it was done -- one of the best experiences i have ever had in my life. i also got to show for mrs. pearson and mrs. bawes. it is the first time i ever met a bloody mary. i have many fond memories of the good campaigning in 1960, which was hard fought in very close the graduate school, there is frankly nothing like it. his position is correct. his location is right. the focus on ethics, on indecency, and on trying to do a good job and supporting one's family. -- the focus on ethics and decency.

this is just about the right kind of thing that if you are interested in the field, i would suggest every consideration you give to the greater school of political management. i have identified my friend frank he started fighting in the young republicans when i was fighting the young democrats. we met many years later and have had a good, positive, and a strong personal friendship ever since then. i only wish other politicians could do that. frank fahrenkopf. [applause] >> thank you. one of the reasons that chuck and i, through our original involvement here, decided to endow this lecture series is because of our concern for something i think that may be on the front burner in this election campaign more than i have ever seen it. in and that is the inability of members of the republican and

democratic party to disagree agreeably. i have been to a lot of campaigns, and this is a pretty nasty campaign. it does not necessarily have to be that way. we met when he was the chairman of the democratic national committee. i was the chairman of the republican national committee. we fought like cats and dogs. i think i won 49 states then. [laughter] if you have not mentioned the 1984 race, but i thought i would throw that in. despite that, we worked together as chairman to help create the national endowment for democracy, the national democratic institute of international affairs, the international republican institute, and worked together on things we thought were the best interest of our nation. and the young people of this country. i then served four years with a man named paul kirk, who became

the chair of the democratic national committee. some of you may recall just recently he filled in senator kennedy's seed after teddy's death until the election in massachusetts with the election of senator brown. but again, while paul and i fought tooth and nail in 1985, we created the commission on presidential debates, which is sponsored every general election debate in presidential politics since 1988. we are friends. our wives get along. we go out to dinner. we play golf. in other words, we can be friends even though we disagree on the political direction that each of us would take. we think that more and more the question of comedy in politics should be addressed. you'll see a little bit of that tonight, because the two people that will be introduced in a moment, the were the stars of this program, are from different

political parties. it is my final task to introduce our moderator for this evening's presentation. mark murray is the political director for news on nbc. he has recorded and written about political races, trends, and issues. he is the co-author of nbc's daily political newsletter and blog and is a frequent on-air contributor to msnbc. i saw you this morning talking about the next governor of nevada who is hispanic and who may be breaking some real posts from the standpoint of hispanics being represented in the governor's mansions built before covering nbc, he spent five years as a reporter for the national journal. he has been a free-lance writer for atlantic monthly, the washington monthly, and the washingtonian magazine. that makes one of our guests are very happy. he is a native texan and a

1996 graduate from the university of texas in austin. it is a pleasure to introduce mark murray. [applause] >> thank you for the very kind of tradition. -- introduction. we will start with mark penn, a strategic research performed ceo. he is a strategic consultant to many forced fortune 500 companies, and his adviser to corporate leaders like bill gates, steve ballmer, a and bill ford. he was part of hillary clinton's presidential campaign and served as senior adviser to bill clinton and former british prime minister tony blair. he is the co offer of "micro trends. he writes a weekly micra trend column for the wall street journal. now want to karen hughes. chairman global vice

of for company and served as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy from 2005 to 2007. she also served as counselor -- for president george w. bush, advising the president on policy and communications. she returned to her native state of texas in 2002 but continued serving as informal adviser of the president. she was a consultant to the 2004 bush-jenny reelection campaign. she served as director of communications for the new governor bush in the state of texas. she's the past executive director of the republican party of texas and a former tv news reporter with an nbc affiliate in dallas/fort worth. she is the author of "10 minutes from normal." about working with president bush. they both have opening remarks to make. i will turn it over to mark. >> i think that as we look at the likely results of the midterms, and i think karen was going to go through in a little

more detail the current republican projections. every day, the republicans come out another 10, 50, 60, 70 -- i do not know exactly where it is going to come out. we think expectations have run away a little bit from the polling, which shows most of the race is very close, within the margin of error, and were turnout and the final five days are going to make a tremendous difference in the outcome of this race. what i want to hit upon our couple of important overriding trends about this election. i think it is important that even if the republicans win a significant victory, i do not think it should be interpreted as a victory for the republican philosophy anymore than i think 2008 should be interpreted as a victory for the progressive left. the truth is that it is the increasingly independent voters who will be making the decisions here, and increasingly, they are

looking for a centrist brand of politics. and when they're dissatisfied that they do not have centrist leadership, the 10th to go back and forth. -- they tend to go back and forth. independents were at a record historical high since we have been measured. if you go back to the 1930's, it really was a red or blue country. about 85% belong to one of the two major parties. today, depending upon the poll, it is close to 30% to 40% who are independent. the biggest party in america is no party. and particularly among younger voters, those numbers are off the chart in terms of younger voters being more independent than ever before. i think you're seeing some of the balkanization of the parties. remember, first, i think you're seeing the impact here, but even though so many more voters are independent, they said the

republican party is 26%. as a practical matter, it only takes 14% of the country to have a majority of the republican party. and since typically there's only democrat and republican on the ballot, that 14% then can run the entire country. i think that is precisely where the electorate is getting more and more frustrated. and that is why you're seeing that politics is probably one of the few things left in your life where there are only two flavors. that, and i think lightning. i think they're 155 different varieties of coffee. if there's one thing the voters are demanding is more and more choice. there's obviously a huge wave of discontent. i think it is the longest sustained timespan of discontent i have seen in my lifetime, which goes back now about 35 years. if we have seen two or three- year times fans, but we really see about a six-year time span of discontent.

this could well be a decade of discontent unless the economy picks up, and that will have long-term affects on both the american psyche and on politics today. there is continued demand for change. they continue to be dissatisfied with what government is doing. and finally, i think there's more partisanship than ever. i find that people are digging more and more into personal backgrounds. the politics of personal destruction is out there stronger than ever. what the ads are saying now, i think they're certainly going back to college and probably too high school long before, but there's nothing really that seems to be out of bounds for wholesale distribution over the internet. and i think that that is deteriorated some of the discussion issues. let me just say that people often ask, what is it that people want?

i took a poll from the aspen institute earlier this year, and we went in with a theory that people wanted more decisive government. in fact, there were probably impatient with checks and balances and wanted the president to have more power. well, that was completely wrong. people reaffirmed checks and balances and said they did not want the president to have more power and said fundamentally that they wanted, if anything, i think to have a greater role themselves. . they back to the election of supreme court justices, direct election of the president without the electoral college, and national referendums. they said don't give more power to the politicians come and give more power to the people. with the growth that we have seen, whether or not the tea party is the ultimate movement

or just a second generation in what could be a series of movements, people want more power. when the constitution was written, typically it relied on a few elise that went to college. today, voters are more aware of the issues and they are georgia what is going on. i read it but in college that said that that the voters are not floodools. they are increasingly astute and they feel that they should have a bigger share of the power. i think that this underscores what they are looking for. at the end of the day, they're looking for both parties to solve immigration, health care, and do it in a strong bipartisan fashion.

the voters essentially get their way and that is what they are sending. >> thank you so much, mark. i want to thank chuck and frank for endowing this program. we have been doing things like this around the country and we both have very different perspectives but we found that we can disagree agreeably and of course we work together every day, he is my boss this panel is about adding value to our clients. this panel is about understanding the implications of the midterm elections and they are really great. the one that you hear about is the potential to change the balance of power here in washington which will affect what legislation is and is not able to be passed. it will also set the tone for the final two years of the obama

administration and the starting gun for the 2012 presidential race and my party's efforts to find the best republican to run against barack obama. we will be electing governors in 37 states including 15 of the 18 that will redistrict next year. that will determine the boundaries for the next 10 years. republicans have their opportunity to pick up 20-25 seats in congress and that will affect elections for the next 10 years. this is a time of great disillusionment and deep anxiety. voters are frustrated and angry. there is discontent. for the first time that i can remember, i truly believe that my generation of americans are worried that the country that we leave to our children will not be as stable or peaceful or

prosperous as the one that we have enjoyed the opportunity to live and. people are worried that the federal government is on a path that is simply not sustainable and that they feel an urgency about that. i think that there is a feeling among republicans and independents and even democrats that president obama's policies have made things worse. he was elected on an idea of hope and change that our politicians could be higher and better. he was not enacted to enact trillions of dollars in spending and piled up the national debt. there is a big difference between delivering speeches and delivering good government. after two years, many people are disillusioned. this is across the political

spectrum. instead of seeing the best of our politics, which is what people wanted, they have seen the worst of washington. the health-care debate, the legislation passed in the middle of the night. also the backroom deals, trying to buy votes for the legislation. the stimulus that was a pork barrel exercise. people feel like they have seen the worst of washington. that adds up to a climate which will produce gains for republicans. i believe that we will win back the house. the senate, we need it 10 seats and right now it looks like maybe 8. every time the house this changed hands since world war

ii, the senate has changed hands. there are many races that are close. we will be back here a couple of days after the election to talk about who was right and who is wrong. >> now we will have some questions. we have a new poll out today that actually shows that republicans probably might meet your predictions. they also show that the republican party is you'd still more on favorably than the democratic party -- is viewed still more unfavorably than the democratic party. how would you advise them to try to change the mood? people are very discontent. how should the republicans' approach power if they are able to get it? >> we need to show that we are

listening to what people want. i would recommend that we start enacting some things. i would do a bill a day to cut spending. we need to extend the tax cuts. i have been traveling around the country and every businessman that i talk to says that they cannot believe that congress went home without knowing what kind of taxes they would be making. right now, we are scheduled to have a six trillion dollar tax increase on january 1st. i would suggest that a lame duck congress, republicans need to work with democrats to extend those tax cuts and make sure that we don't face a massive tax

increase on january 1st. i also would look at some of the worst aspects of the health care bill and is trying to work with democrats to fix it and to begin to replace the onerous parts of it with much more market- friendly legislation. >> what do you think that that will happen? republicans working on deficit reduction, tax cuts, maybe a compromise? >> it takes two. if i was advising republican leaders -- i'm hearing some of that. we have a lot of potentially new member of congress who have experience working in state legislatures. in state legislatures, republicans and democrats are accustomed to working together. they have worked pretty

effectively across the country. i would recommend that republicans approached this in the spirit of finding areas of compromise, places we can work together. is president obama willing to work with republicans? is he willing to compromise and recognize and listen to the people. he has done a lot of talking but is he willing to listen to the people? >> in 1994, bill clinton and the democrats lost control of the senate. you helped advise clinton in 1996 in getting reelected. how would you advise president obama if the republicans take back control? >> if republicans take back control, i think that there will be a moment of truth for both parties. maybe they will want to cooperate and make a political

calculation. either way, the president's job in those circumstances would be to neutralize some of the growing negatives that he has experienced. he should also suspend a tax cuts for a year. people believe that the system is unfair, has many loopholes, not workable, benefits those it should not benefit. may be extended them for the economy but then come back with a tax reform bill and put it to the republicans. on health care, he has to continue to monitor health care. i think that expanded coverage but not enough to control costs. he will face this issue before it gets out of control and blows back. i think that he can to more in

terms of the values issues. president clinton did a lot of issues. this is a tougher approach to violence in our schools. the administration hasn't been strong enough and they understand the concerns. on the deficit, ip think that the administration has to stop the basic policy of trying to prime the pump. finally, the administration has to move up a more comprehensive economic strategy. in 1994, clinton had the expansion of trade, innovation,

closing the deficit. some of them were really favored by democrats, others were favored by republicans. with places like china and india really leapfrogging the economic growth, it is important that the u.s. remains competitive and the president gets out ahead of the wave of global innovation. i think that if he neutralizes those weaknesses, the truth of the matter is that this will not be an endorsement of the property -- of the republican party. this will be an expression of malcontent. he can come back from this with a two-year time. >> often times the conventional wisdom in washington can be

wrong. we thought that mike castle was going to be christine of donald. we thought that murkowski was going to beat joe miller. -- we thought that mike castle was going to beat christine o'donnell. >> most of these races are really within two or three points. they're mostly in the low 40's. there is still a good 10%-50% undecided and every district. the real question is that you have to balance against a growing fear that you will bring back the policies of the bush administration that remain as unpopular as ever and put in power and unstable party that has lost control of themselves.

the headlines by candidate start a turnoff. i saw sarah palin out there stumping. that is what the reason why it might turn out for democrats. she is a turnoff to younger people, young professionals, better-educated. those people that obama won in 2008 and that have been peeling off. the more they see the sarah palin and the tea party, the more the last couple of days could break the democratic way. >> listening to his litany of what president obama should do differently this shows how far that the mainstream president obama's policies are. the health care costs, this was sold as a way of reforming costs and it does nothing to control costs. i think that the tea party has

energized our party and reminded the republican party of what it stands for. we're the party of lower taxes and limited government. we need to examine ourselves and look at the last. i remember being the executive director of the republican party in texas one another tea party movement ended up costing us the presidential election. i am grateful that they decided to remain in the republican party and become an energizing force reminding our party of what we really stand for which is a strong national defense, less spending, more power to the states and local governments and less power to washington. i think that this has been in energizing force for our party. the momentum is on our side. we have a great opportunity

here and we have to work hard to turn out the independence and to the conservative democrats to agree with us because this is important for our country. >> are there some drawbacks for the tea party because some might be too conservative to win in a state like delaware with christine o'donnell. and that the party is just plain to the republican base. are there some potential drawbacks? -- the tea party is just playing puck to the republican base. >> as a former executive director of the republican party, when candidates run in our primary and they are elected by our voters, we have an

obligation to support them and try to elect them. if we want someone different, we have a chance. >> i am fascinated by karen's hi dean of the tea party at how this time of the decision -- hugging of the tea party in this time of in decision. >> many of them have been republicans all of their lives. they are concerned about the future of the country. we need to change the direction of our country. >> are there some certain ways in which elected leaders, people in the media, can actually reduce the partisanship and change the tone? in california, they aren't trying to tinker with redistricting congressional districts are set up where the most conservative person wins

conservative districts, the most liberal person wins liberal districts and when you get those two people in a room, they don't agree on anything. when you change the districts, you get some more central -- centrist candidates. is there a way that we can reduce person should in washington? >> -- partisanship in washington? >> by nature, which contain will be made of two camps. -- washington is made of two camps. i think structurally, calif. it is interesting. you have to redo the districting. you see it passed by 50% in a referendum so they will have non-partisan primaries. that will bring the power of moderate voters.

this will enhance the power of those voters in the primaries. again, i go back to that poll. no one is really behind the things that the people ask for. the california system seems to be ahead of things in terms of both election and beginning to change the system to make it more 21st century. >> some critics have said that the referendum process in california has made that state ungovernable because you have so many pieces coming and this has burdens on the elected leaders and states are able to produce a budget. is it possible to have the voice of democracy and make this a more smooth process? >> national referendum would have to be worked out. voters are asking for more direct power.

they don't want to just to let people. they want to directly elect the president and then they want to have more input whether it is some kind of tailored referendum. we cannot be afraid of democracy. democracies sometimes makes bad choices. not having democracy makes consistently worse choices. >> the selection, they are talking about 95 or 100 house districts which are still in play which is a huge number at this point. that is less than 1/4 of the seats. that means that more than 75% of the seats are so one-sided that even in this very contentious year that today are a lot for either party and i don't think that is good for democracy.

in texas there are some very gerrymandered districts. we really do need better-drawn districts. having come from a state where it is hard for people to remember there but when my boss, president bush, was elected in 2000, one of the things that appealed to him is that he had worked with democrats in texas to get things done. the problem is that from both the media perspective and the special interest, you come to washington and you get pushed to the far extremes. the special interest groups expect strict adherence and the media covers the most strident voices. we get pushed to the extremes. >> talk about the way the media has changed from the time that

you have left the white house. the news cycle has changed. if you had to gopac and to work on a campaign and -- if you had to go back and work on the campaign, what would you do differently? >> in the 2000 presidential campaign, none of us had a blackberry. we thought that he was a -- we thought that al gore was a little weird using this. by the 2004 campaign, i could not imagine life without it. you are right, one of my colleagues says that there is no longer a 24-hour news cycle, it is a 1440 minute news cycle. this is a very -- when i got

involved in the news process, the newspapers dominated the political process. this was a once a week political news magazine. what was on the cover of "time," "newsweek," or what people were looking at. you see things going out on the news and the wire services. the explosion of information is good. mark made the point is that voters are very informed and they have a lot of information and that is very healthy. i worry about whether people have time to think when i was in the white house, there was a problem on the electric grid sometime after september 11th. a lot of the power went out in

the northeast. there was some concern about whether it would have been a terrorist attack. president bush did not say anything while he was waiting to find out what had caused it. it took four hours. the media was just appalled. four hours. the white house with four hours, it is unbelievable. four hours is not very long to assess the situation and think about what you want to say. we have to think through the ramifications on decisionmaking when things are so frenetic. >> for our list is the length of two disaster movies. >> he mentioned some ways that the obama administration can use 2011, 2012 to there is advantage. talk about how sometimes the political mood, perhaps in

dealing with 10% unemployment, how hard it would be for the white house to change the overall dynamics of the race if the unemployment does not go down. are these may be outside their control? if it stays around where it is, is he in trouble? >> let me pick up on where karen was in the things in the media and roll that into the change in the environment. when i was working in the clinton white house, i would look at the newspapers and it was hard for people to understand that "usa today, as" had would people with thinking about -- that the headline on

"usa today," had what people were thinking about. the only speech anyone heard was one that he gave to scandinavian students. someone can say something anywhere and that can become a national news story of great importance. never before have we had this kind of political connection across people that is easy and convenient. there is no question that the primary source over the next few years will become the smart phone. the old pattern was that you worked all day, you got home, you had a little dinner, that was the most important event of the day. by the time you get to the nightly news, it is done. you have had a flash of news and

interest all through the day. people cartoon in and plug in in a way before that only people inside the bubble work. this is a totally different news environment. it is interesting, we did one focus group and this was a discussion of newspapers. people said, what is the newspaper? what do you name our news source now? this is not a newspaper, this is not a television station, how do we get our news? this is the new environment that we are still really learning how to handle and deal with. the news environment can create a greater capacity for what you would call mass action in a moment and of this -- in a

moment's notice. information will spread within hours to huge segments of the population. what is the president to do in a highly volatile news environment. clinton survived the events of 1998 because it created 24 million jobs and he had promised to these. that is also why bush in 2006 had such problems. he did not end the iraq war and he did not end either the partisanship in washington. at that point, he had not done it after six years.

president obama has kept some basic commitments. he is not getting the full credit. if you were sitting at the white house and you said we did financial reform, health care reform, stimulus package. this stomped and economic collapse. they are sitting there and saying that if we continue the policies they will bear fruit and show that we are the right direction to keep moving the country. this will be a basic choice between forward and back. the question that you raise is what happens if they don't have that kind of economic improvement. this comes down to difference in philosophy.

sarah palin is the republican nominee for president, i don't care whether unemployment is 15%, i do not believe she would be elected. >> how do you look at the 2012 republican field? as mark was mentioning, there are some people who see republicans as the bush campaign in 2004, you need to win 40% or more of the latino voters. you have to make inroads in places where you have not been able to before. as we head into 2012, what does the republican party need to do to be able to win? >> we have to show that we can make government work. that is what people are frustrated about. government is not working. there is no jobs, no improvement.

people described this as an anti-incumbent election but that does not sum it up, especially when you look at the governors' races. we are poised to have 30 republican governors after this election? why? six of the six incumbent republican governors are expected to win their reelection. of the salmon democrat, sixth of seven are looked at as hon.. the difference is that the republicans are making government work based on limited government, focusing on education, health. the governor of indiana inherited its budget deficit and he got rid of the deficit and

has worked to create jobs in that state. we are looking at republican governors across the country who have really made government work for people and made it effective. they have a record to run on and results to run on. >> you think the future of the republican party is with the governors? >> i might be prejudiced because i came from the governor's office. a governor has experience working with legislators, setting a direction and achieving results. that is why you have seen president obama's weakness. he sublet his program to nancy pelosi and the house to write his legislation. that is why we are not seeing the kind of policies and

leadership that he would have expected. i personally think that the governors are really this ceo of a state and people will be suspicious about rhetoric in 2012. maybe their expectations were too high but they have definitely been dashed. >> many people will parachute into new hampshire, south carolina, looking at what happened in the republican primaries where in most cases the most conservative republican has won. george w. bush did not win his primary by being the most conservative. he tried to position him to be the most general candidate. does it concern you that this is

the race of who is the most conservative? >> what work for governor bush is compassionate conservatism. i believe that the conservative philosophy can be compassionate and hopeful. i would hope that would be the tell we would said. in 2012, people will be looking for someone who can make our government work. there are many republican governors to have great records to run on and they will be running not on who is the most conservative but on what they have done. it looked at what we have achieved it in our state. >> what is your thoughts on the republican party going into 2012? >> 2/3 of those people who

consider themselves republicans are conservative. there are almost zero liberals. that means that they have with 13%, you can't dominate the republican primary. we have seen the most conservative movement gathered the most energy and enthusiasm in the party. you have seen the tea party not nominate established governors like karen went through but the o'donnells of the world. it might not come out in this election but it will definitely come out in the presidential

election. whatever moderate leanings there was and the ability for bush to ran as a moderate and took a lot of moderates in order to bring to the 2000 election to at least a draw, i think that right now there is a war within the party and because people want some of these choices, the party is dissembling. what is the party going to do it if in fact sarah palin with growing name recognition, enthusiasm, i bet she has an incredible organization in iowa, she wins the primary. what are they going to do? will they backed their candidate to the end? she does not have a chance of winning. she is becoming emblematic of the republican party whose ratings have fallen even lower than the democratic party. the party itself has some

structural problems that are coming out. this is not unusual for the party that is out of power to have these problems. democrats had these problems until they resolved it. >> all of the governors would be offended if you did not say there was strong conservatives because they are. they ran with great conservative support. what a think is important for our party and what the tea party has reminded our party is that we need to go back to our core believes in limited government and cutting spending. some of the frustration have seen is that when we controlled congress, we spent too much money. our governors have taken heat about that. the 2012 presidential election will be a great and true philosophical debate. we did not see that in 2008

because a lot of people thought that president obama was a lot more moderate than his policies have turned out to be. clearly, he likes spending money and he believes in government solutions to problems. republicans believe in unleashing the private sector and that the private sector creates jobs. the need to properly limited government. there will be a great debate in 2012 and i believe that puts republicans at a natural advantage. >> there are many who feel he did not go left enough on health care. they're people who have said that one of the front runners, mitt romney, the health care that he initiated in massachusetts is very similar to what president obama did on the federal level. >> that is why markets talking about fissures in the party.

there are some fissures in the republican party. many liberals feel he is not liberal enough. they are disappointed in him. . .

>> can hillary clinton decide to do that or perhaps run for president in 2016? >> i sent and then having fun with the media had tried to build tens of on speculation i don't intend that that is happening. the president has a strong team and held his to win a good job of has a team and forward with that team. >> we have questions and the audience. so please fire away. we have microphones right up there. >> don't be shy. >> i guess this question is directed to ms hughes. if a lot of these tea party-

backed candidates win their senate and congressional races, do you think they will win an overly proportional power in congress and do you envision a shutdown of congress like in 1995? >> what i hope is that they will demand some changes. i think they will shake things up a little bit. voters did not want business as usual. that is what they said in 2008 and no one seems to be listening. i do think they will come to washington and they will try to shake things up a little, and frankly, that is probably a healthy. we have seen a sometimes people can be an office for a long period of time and get used to the way things have always been done. it might be a breath of fresh air. i do not think you will see the kind of government shut down efforts that you saw in the past. again, if what happens it cup --

if republicans take the house and not the senate or both the house and senate, i still think it is in neither party's interest to shut the government down. that's not to the republicans a benefit the last time that happens. ed. i do think they will be a voice of conscience and remind their colleagues of what the voters said in this election. >> a quick follow-up on that. aren't there some inherent contradictions? on the one hand, we want to change the town, but then there are candidates who might end up winning that say that my entire rationale for running it is to oppose president obama on all of these policies. >> let me disagree. let's get realistic about a tea party right. in florida, we have and hispanic republican marco rubio.

a great guy. worked closely with popular incumbent governor jeb bush. he has not only talk about the way we need to change things in washington. he has given ideas for things we can do better perigee as florida voters -- he did an idea razor and published a book with 100 ideas that floridians had to improve their state. that's a look at what is really happening and a lot of these races -- let's look at what is really happening in a lot of these races. we have a very charismatic -- i think when he wins that florida senate race, and the polls show he is ahead, will become a big leader and republican party. and that is good for the thpart, the outreach to hispanic voters in 2012. >> in fairness, he is not a tea

party candidate. implied in the question is that fear and concern, who exactly are you collecting? i think that put the brakes on the momentum that the republicans have. going into the summer, the republicans had an unbelievable all that. i was there in 1994 when newt gingrich thought it was a good idea to shut down the government. we told him that would boomerang. i doubt the republicans will do that again. they will come up with something else. there will stop the national debt in some way, some other trip wire that could be seen as a destructive rather than constructive. i do not know what they're going to do, but implied in his question is the fear and concern that maybe there is a rubio in florida, but there is an

aware.ell in del >> canyon names of individual races that might be under the radar that on election day -- can your name at some individual races that might be under their radar that on election day might surprise us? >> there are a couple of races i am watching. i was in alabama just yesterday campaigning for or woman named martha robie, who is running for the second congressional district. i think it is a good representative raised because the democrat is a first term, one in 2008. he is a former mayor of montgomery. she is a very effective city councilwoman in montgomery who has a very diverse district. she is able to work with people. a very attractive candidate. it is sort of represent a phrase about whether democrats can win seats outside of urban or

minority districts in the south. that is one of the ones i am watching. i am watching a race in texas where there is a longtime incumbent democrats chet edwards. it is one of the most republican congressional seats in the country still held by democrat. we have a very strong challenger -- a businessman. i think this might be the year that we can elect a republican in that district. there are a couple at large seats in north and south dakota. in north dakota, a longtime congressman has been there nine terms. he is facing or real fight in their congressional seat. there are couple of races in florida, in ohio. from the house, you are probably not hearing as much about the individual races as you may have the senate. in terms of governor, you hear about california. i think that is a really

interesting race. it is interesting because the polls would show that jerry brown has the edge, but when i talk to my friends in california, they tell me that even a democrat friends are voting for meg whitman because they know that california has enormous problems occurred on cannot imagine a state facing the kind of enormous problems the state is facing and go back to jerry brown. and of course, the governor's race in florida is very interesting. the governor's race -- we were there last night -- is viewed as being tied. talk about an ugly race. the ads are really negative. florida and ohio, because of our experiences in the 2000 and 2004 presidential race, are races are watch for a closely. i think my friends are about to be elected governor and senator there, in florida.

that is good news for our party. if we can solidify our leadership in ohio. >> i have been traveling to a lot of the same places. we have been polling 42 marginal districts and i think we will come out with another 10 tomorrow or the day after. if you go through those races, you will find that there are five or six that the democrats are clearly winning. and the original 42. fundamentally, i think the untold story -- you can check these races -- when the republicans expanded their target, they had to, because there were not going to get a transfer in congress out of the districts they had targeted. to me, the reid race is really fascinating. that will be a big reaffirmation

of democrats and the direction of the senate. again, i think this is where the tea party came in and changed the nominating process. the race is still polling extremely close, i think the likelihood here that you will have the clash between core democratic leadership versus tea party in nevada. if reid wins, i think that will be a very big reaffirmation for the party. >> i think very bad for the country. other than speaker nancy pelosi, harry reid is one of the least, has one of soloists favorable s --one of the least favorables. i encourage my republicans in nevada to do everything they can. >> i encourage the democrats in nevada to do everything they can office. reid in

talkingace they are about is the alaska senate race. republican john miller, lisa murkowski running as of write- in. if there is one race that will complete surprise you, that is one you can rely on. >> it stayed up late at night because of all those absentee ballots, and places like florida. there is a lot of accounting to do. >> thank you for being here today. one of other things i have heard that staunch supporters of the obama have said, although there will lose the house, it would be good for democrats. what do think about that theory? >> we think that's a bit of spin. it'd be better for the president

to keep both houses of congress, if possible. again, that would be a reaffirmation of his leadership, the direction he is taking the country. it would then strengthen the resolve of those democrats who are there who did not lose to say, hey, we're there, we have the majority. let's move forward. let's press the accelerator pedal, because we need -- we know we can do that even with 10% unemployment. i think that would be a powerful message. i think if you wind up losing the house, as i said before, republicans have to make a key decision -- sit there and say no for three years or work the way clinton and newt gingrich did. republicans will have subpoena power. they have not had it in a few years. the question is whether you go back in 1954 on, which is every

time you get the subpoena power, we go back to a series of investigations. so that may play out. that may backfire. i think that will be one of the big changes that would happen here if the republicans win the house. >> i have republican friends who better fort it's president obama because we do not win the house because that would force him to compromise and would therefore set him up better for re-election. i did not agree. i think that we really cannot afford what is happening in washington, and we need to take the house at least so we can begin to chip away and change these massive pieces of legislation that have been passed without much regard for the incredible consequences. i think we need to start, beginning to chip away at those and beginning to challenge, at least, the president by proposing cuts in spending, by proposing cuts in the deficit

and changes to the health care bill. >> you could propose that even without the house. >> hi. there has been a lot of discontent with a two-party system. some people say that the tea party is the answer. do you think that is the case? if not, what do think is out there? >> i think the tea party -- we have seen the rise of two big populist movements in the last two years. the first one rose up to elect president obama because people were hungry for a change and he was able to inspire people. the second rose up in direct opposition to the president's policies. i think it's by and large a movement that is basically trying to restore the republican party to core principles of less government, less spending, lower taxes. so i do not really see it as a separate party. i see it as more of a reminder

to republicans of what we really stand for. >> look, i think if you look back here from 98, an >> president obama is expected to speak to this live event. right now, joan brown. -- jill r. browjerry brown. look around. look around at the people that are here. look at the democrats gathered here to take control of their country, their state. the other side, there was one

good line from a former republican, i will not mention his name, but he talked about in the nattering nabobs of negativity. we are the positive force of change for everyone. all of the diversity of this state. we don't scapegoat anyone, not public workers, not immigrants, not anyone. we are all californians to get there. we don't need a saudi arabian oil or texas gas, we have california sun. this can fuel the economy. this can fuel on electric automobile industry that is born again right here in california. we can create the green jobs of the future for everyone who is

here. we are all god's children. every man, woman, and child has a place for all of us. to have most of the resources. the country works when we share. condi says we have enough for our needs but of enough for our grief. that is the spirit of collaboration, of justice, of the movement forward. -- gone bghandi

>> i was at the inauguration. there was barack obama buttons, halfs, everything. i need that enthusiasm. if you are going to vote democrat, i need you to chant with me, yup, that's me, yup. the president is here.

[applause] he is looking smoothe. i see some of you in the front, you are up here for a reason. he is married, backed off. the president said [imitating obama] if there is any indication that usc is not the greatest school in the world, yes it is. yes

give me five minutes to tell you that these are difficult times and i don't sugarcoat it. if ever we needed leaders who

are fighting for the middle- class and for students and four seniors and for all of our families, if ever we needed to those in public office, it is now. that is what this election is about. the other side, they want to take us back. they want to take us back to the bush policies. . .

>> they have already decided who is going to win. they have already decided who is going to lose. there is only one problem. we have not voted yet. the american people and the people of california and the middle-class and our students and seniors and families will win. we are not going to go back to the days when women and doctors were criminals. we support roe vs wade, a woman's right to choose. privacty rights.

we respect our environment, we respect our beautiful coast, and we respect the 400,000 workers. even though sarah palin says droll, baby, drill. she does not speak for california. when you boil it down, the questions that we all have to ask and answer, who is on our side. i believe that when that question is asked, we will see a big democrat. the other side has a giant, wealthy, unlimited spending special interests with them. they have karl rove with them. that is what i would thought -- that is what i thought you would say.

they have the outside polluters , and i know they have a lot of money because i see their ads on television. they also have dick armey with them. here is the point. we have our own army. the army of the students and people and families and diversity and excitement and president. that is to we have with us. here is the deal. we are getting very close to the moment you have been waiting for. i know. but i am going to build it up. it is no secret that when our great president obama was sworn into office, he inherited some of the most difficult challenges in american history. the other side wants us to

forget. let's just say that we remember. we remember. he was left with a deep and dark recession. banks no longer lending. a couple of wars on the credit card. he is bringing our troops to crack -- back rom -- from iraq. he saw the budget services -- a surplus that bill clinton had. george bush turned them into deficits and debt. our president even faced a flu pandemic and a pirate attack. but listen to what martin luther king once said. listen to this. the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but

where he stands in times of controversy and challenge. let us welcome to california, our courageous and wonderful president, barack obama. [applause] ♪

>> hello, l.a. oh. this is a trojan kind of welcome right here. fight on -- fight on! i'm fired up! you know, he was pretty good at this. we might have to recruit him. he might have to shave his ability -- goatee.

it is nice to see all of you. let me say how proud i am to be here with some of the finest elected officials that i know. the next governor of the great state of california, jerry brown. your outstanding mayor! speaker of the california assembly. l.a. city council president. the dear friend of mine, i want everybody to do right by her. san francisco district attorney. an outstanding congressional delegation.

the unbelievable secretary of labor. and somebody who has been fighting on your behalf for many years and needs to keep on fighting for the next six years, senator barbara boxer. it is great to be with all of you on this beautiful day. we are going to need everybody. i love you back. [applause] we need all of you. we need all of you fired up. we need you ready to go. in just 11 days, you have the

chance to choose the direction of this state and of this country for the next five years, 10 years, 20 years. and just like you did in 2008, you can defy conventional wisdom. the conventional wisdom that says that young people are apathetic. the conventional wisdom that says you can't see the citizens in politics. you can't overcome the special interests. you have the chance to say, yes, we can. [applause] >> yes, we can. yes, we can. >> yes, we can. si se puede. look, i don't want to fool

anybody. even though this is an incredible crowd, and magnificent grout, but let me be clear. this is going to be a difficult election. we have been through an incredibly difficult time as a nation. for most of the last decade, the middle-class has been hurting. families saw their incomes, between 2001 and 2009, about 5%. those are not by statistics. that is the wall street journal talking. job growth was more sluggish than any time since world war two. jobs were being moved overseas. parents could not afford to send their kids to college. families could not afford to send somebody in their family

-- americans were working multiple jobs just to try to make ends meet. this all culminated in the worst economic crisis since the great depression. understand, we lost 4 million jobs in the six months before i took office. 750,000 a month when i was sworn in. 600,000 the month after that. we haven't seen anything like this since the 1930's. we lost 8 million jobs before any of my economic policies had a chance to be put into place. now my hope was that in this moment, we could come together, and both parties would put politics aside. that we would come together to meet this challenge because although we are proud

democrats, we're prouder to be americans. [applause] andy know, there are plenty of republicans that feel the same way out there. but the republican leaders in calculation. they looked around at the mess that they had made, the mess that they have left me, and they said, this is a really big mess. and they said it is going to take a long time to fix. unemployment will probably be high for a while. and in the meantime, people are going to get angry and frustrated. if we just sit on the sidelines , point our fingers at obama and say, he is to blame, they figure that maybe you wouldn't forget -- maybe you would forget that they caused the mass in the

first place. and they could ride anchor all the way to the election cycle. but loss angeles, -- los angeles, you have not forgotten. their whole campaign strategy is amnesia. and so you need to remember that this election is a choice. between the policies that got us into this mess and the policies that are leading out of this mess. a choice between the past and the future. a choice between hope and fear. the choice between moving forward and going backwards. i want to move forward, trojans. i want to move forward. luck, it would be one thing if the republicans hadn't made this mess.

they went off into the desert or they meditated and they admitted they screwed up. let's come up with some new ideas because we recognize the error of our ways. that is not what is going on. the republican campaign committee chairman promised the exact same agenda if they win back the house and if they win back the senate. the same agenda of cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires, cutting rules for the special interests. cutting middle-class families loose to fend for themselves. their basic philosophy is that you are on your own. care, don't have health too bad. if you don't have a job, them's the breaks.

if you want to go to usc but can't afford it, tough love. it is the same agenda that turned a record surplus into a record deficit. the same agenda that allows will streak to run wild. -- the wall street to run wild. i bring it up because i don't want to relive the past. we can't afford it. triednot as if we haven't what they are selling. we tried it, we didn't like it, and we are not going back to it. [applause] i want you to think about it this way. imagine that these folks drove a car into the ditch. and it was a really deep ditch.

and somehow, they were able to walk away from the accident, but they did nothing to get the car out of the ditch. me, barbara, jerry, antonio all put on our boots. we climbed into the ditch. we are sweating, but we are pushing to get the car out of the ditch. even though barbara is small, she is pushing, too. we are all pushing. as we are pushing, we looked up at the republicans that are all standing there at the top of the ditch. we say, why don't you come out and help? they say, that's all right. and they kick some dirt out of the ditch. they are fanning themselves.

you're not pushing hard enough, they say. you're not pushing the right way. we still get the car out of the ditch, and it is finally on level ground. and the car is a little banged up, i had met. -- i admit. it will have to go to the shop and get a tune up, but it is on level ground and pointed in the right direction. suddenly, we get this attack on our shoulder, and it is the republicans. and they say, we want the keys back. and we have to tell them, you can't have the keys back. you don't know how to drive. you can ride with us, but you

have to be in the back seat, because we have middle-class america and the front seat. you ever noticed when you want to go forward, you put your car in d. if you put it in backwardsityou -- backwards, you put it in r. that is not a coincidence. we want to go forward. >> yes, we can. yes, we can. [chanting] >> because of the steps we have taken, we no longer face the possibility of a second depression. the economy is growing again. the private sector has seen job growth in nine months in a row. we still have a long way to go. we have a lot of work to do.

there are a lot of people out there still hurting. families are hanging on by a thread. that is what keeps me fighting. you know we have more work to do. understand that we have a different idea about what the future holds. it is an idea rooted in our belief about how this country was built. we know that the government doesn't have the answers to all of our problems. we believe government should be lean and efficient. in the words of the first republican president, abraham lincoln, who would not get a nomination into de's republican party, we also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. we believe that the hard work and responsibility, also to put

a hand up to help people live out their dreams. we believe in an america that invest in its people and its future. the education of our children, the skills of our work force. we believe in a country that we look after one another, where i am my brother's keeper. where i am by sister's keeper. that is the america that i know, and that is the choice in this election. the selection is a choice. if we give them the keys, which will happen if you don't vote, they will keep giving tax breaks to companies that give jobs overseas. we want to give tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the united states, small businesses, and american manufacturers.

panels andt when wind turbines in the solar panels and electric cars made in europe or asia, i want them built here in the united states. by american workers for the united states of america. that is the choice in this election. if we give them the keys back, and we will if you don't vote, the other side has said that they are going to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires costing $700 billion, and they will cut education spending by 20%. think about this. this is at a time where the question of whether a country competes almost entirely depends on how well we educate our children. you think china wants to cut education by 20%? is south korea cutting education by 20%?

those countries are not playing for second place. america doesn't play for second place, we play for first place. >> usa! usa! >> we play for first. instead of giving unwarranted subsidies to the banks, we have taken tens of billions of dollars, and we are not putting them where they should go. to students like you. tuition tax credits for every young person in america so you can get the education you deserve. that is the choice in this election. we want tax cuts for middle- class families. .e don't want special interests the other side has already promised to roll back wall

street reform, rollback of insurance reform. we refuse to let that happen. we want to make sure that insurance companies can't deny you coverage when you get sick. we want to make sure that the law we passed to make sure you can stay on your parents' health insurance until you're 26, that that remains the law of the land. we want to make sure that the credit-card companies can't take you with hidden fees without notice. we are going to fight the efforts of privatized social security, because as long as i am president, no one is going to take a generation worth of retirement savings and handed them to wall street. not on my watch. that weing to make sure continue to invest in clean

energy. and we enforce the clean air and clean water laws. you see what they're trying to do here in california, trying to roll back was that will keep california at the cutting edge. and now, we have special interests spending millions of dollars out there for this clean energy spending. they are doing the same thing all across the country. millions of dollars of special interest money using front groups whose names you do not know. they call themselves americans for prosperity, mothers for motherhood. i made that last one out, but it might as well be. you do not know who is behind it. is it an insurance company, who is financing these negative ads? who is financing these negative ads against barbara boxer? they are able to do this without disclosing their donors because

of the supreme court ruling which shows you how important it is who is making appointments on the supreme court. i am proud that i appointed sonia sotomayor and elena kagan. all of this money pouring into these elections by these phony front groups, it is a threat to our democracy. the only way to fight it is all of you, all these voices matching those millions of dollars. all of you being committed to finish what we started in 2008. that is why it is so important for all of you to get out and vote. if everybody who fought for change in 2008, turns out this time we will win this election.

and so i want to remind you why you got involved. you didn't just get involved and to elect a president. he got involved because you believe that we were the defining moment. that this was the time when the decisions we make, the challenges we face are going to shape the lives of our children, great-grandchildren for decades. that is why you made phone calls. that is why some of you cast your vote for the very first time. and look, i understand the last couple of years have not been easy. i know that a lot of you, you're thinking back to election night or inauguration day, how much fun that was. beyonce was singing, it felt like a big party. i told you this was going to be

hard. i told you that it would be a fight. inch by inch, week by week, we have been grinding it out because that is the nature of change in a big, complex democracy. i recognized some of you might feel that it seems so distant from those wonderful memories. interchanges harder than i expected it to be. we haven't gotten everything done that we have hoped for yet. maybe you know someone in your family is out of a job, or someone in your neighborhood has put up a foreclosure sign. we are not moving as quick as we want. i understand that. but don't let anybody tell you that our fight has not been worth it. the let them tell you that we are not making a difference. because of you, there are people here in california that don't have to choose between getting

treatment for their cancer or going bankrupt. because of you, their parents were able to love their children in the eye and say, yes, you will go to college. we are getting help. because of you, small businesses are able to keep their doors open in the midst of a recession. because of you, we have brought home nearly 100,000 brave men and women from iraq. because of you, we are going to continue to fight to end the don't ask, don't tell. because of view, we will make sure that we have an energy policy for the future of america. because of view, so don't let them tell you that change is not possible. because here is what i know. change is always hard.

and if our pants, great grandparents, if they had listened 50 years ago, 100 years ago, we would not be here today. think about it. this country was founded on the 13 colonies coming together to do what had never been done before. declaring a revolution, throwing off tyranny, battling the biggest empire on earth. and they decide that we will try to form a new type of government. and a row on paper, in their declaration, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

they did not believe it. and what we had to perfect that union and fight a civil war, they did not think that we could free the slaves. if our ancestors have given up, we could not have gotten through it. lee could not have gotten through the depression. we would not have been able to battle and achieved civil- rights, women's rights, and workers' rights. that is the spirit we have to summon today. the journey we begin together was not just about putting the president in the white house. it was about building a movement for change, it was about realizing the promise of the united states of america.

an understanding that if we are willing to work for it, there is nothing we cannot achieve. i need you to keep believing, keep hoping. if you knock on some doors and make some phone calls, keep marching, keyboard us, we will not just win this election. we will restore the american dream for every person in this great land. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. ♪

♪

>> president obama will travel tonight to nevada for senator harry reid. the nine's prime time campaign coverage starts in about an hour and half at 7:00 eastern. for the final televised debate between pennsylvania senate candidates. an hour later, a profile of the indiana's ninth district debate.

more about the pennsylvania senate debate. with thebegin pennsylvania senate race. the two candidates there already debated earlier this week. what came out of it. how did voters react? >> use of both of them trying to paint each other out of the mainstream. that is a lot of attack that has gotten assessed with some friction. k with traction. he was attacki ining taoply for business ties and working for the club for growth in washington. toomey tried to argue that sestak's votes on stimulus and healthcare and the democratic congress is what is making the congressman out of the mainstream. it is a battle for both sides. you look at the new polls from

pennsylvania, you see that the democratic base has come home. they have overwhelmingly decided to support sestak. toomey has an overwhelming support from the republican base and this will be decided by independent voters who are debating who is more mainstream and reflective of my values. you look at the quinnipiac numbers, they favor toomey by over 20 points. so the argument of who is more mainstream will be played out in the elections and 20-plus-point lead for toomey is good for him. we will see the messages attacking each candidate as extreme in the coming final weeks. >> the two also are going to have a debate tonight. we are covering it live on c-span. what do you expect to be the issues tonight? >> i think you will hear a lot about trade and china from sestak. the one narrative we are hearing from democrats across the

country especially in blue color states and districts is that the trade message is the onlyhing they have left. the notion that republicans are businessmen and favor business and will be responsible for the mess we are in. you saw sestak talk about toomey favoring outsourcing jobs to china and he will probably hammer that home tonight. but the mental for the republicans -- the message for the republicans is simple. they will try sestak and to his votes and stimulus is not popular in pennsylvania. healthcare is not popular and the financial reform bill is not a plus. so it will be an issue oriented messageor toomey and attack from sestak on business, china. host: that is live tonight 7:00 p.m. we are covering this debate between the pennsylvania senate candidat

candidates. let's move on to nevada now. president obama will be in that state tonight for a rally with the senate majority leader harry reid. why is he going there again? >> nevada is one of the states where democrats feel if they can get the base energized and labor, public sector, hispanics which comprise a pretty decent size of the electorate there, if they can get them excited about harry reid he has a shot at winning. if not, they are in deep trouble. this is a race where democrats absolutely need to get the base rallied. on the other side, this is a very polarize iing election and sharon angle's election is a national one. they have the highest unemployment rate inhe country, she is out with a really devastating hit connecting reid to obama. so, ironically the mental that the democrats want is the same message that sharon angle and the republs. it will be a very close

election. but the base of both sides will be the key. host: the latest poll on october 18 shows that sharon angle is leading harry reid by three points. >> yes, if you look at the most recent polls there's a slight momentum to the republican though i would caution that this still a very close race. both candidates are very unpopular and this is probably going to be one of the closest races we see election night. the big turning point looks like it could be the debate last week, the one debate they held in this contest where harry id, for a senate majority leader looked awfully unprepared and ill at ease. that was his one big advantage is he knows how to bring the money home to nevada. he has a lot of clout in washington. he didn't look like it in the debate and angle who people say is not ready for prime time and not ready to be a politician in washington, she seemed like she

passed the bar. she had a low bar to pass but sealed to do it -- seemed to do it. so the trend is favoring the republicans but it is close. host: they say it will come down to a ground game in nevada. how do you watch it? >> see how much money thenions are spending in the final weeks of the election. so far colorado has been the one state where a lot of third parties have spent millions of dollars. expect a ton of money the final week into nevada. the ground game is essential for reid to win. we are seeing a lot of boasting from labor it is not so much the ads but the turnout. getting their core members to the polls. look atarly voting and how many democrats have gone early. if if behind past elections, that is not a good sign for reid. host: josh, thanks for your time. for more information about josh, thanks for your time. for more information about

>> just a reminder of campaign coverage tonight. it begins with the pennsylvania senate debate and about an hour from now. next, economic reporters from the wall street journal and the new york times -- >> one of the great abilities is the ability to collect and share with your friends. if you are new to of all, watch the tutorial on how to clip and share with the cspan video library. talks aboutstory tv how the most populous state -- slave state struggled with secession. learn the motive behind the

buying and selling historical items. we're back to the classroom with a unique look at the montgomery bus boycott. american history tv on c-span 3. >> next, economic reporters from the wall street journal and the new york times on congressional policy-making. from a conference on the global economic outlook, it is about an hour. >> i can promise you this will be the highlight of today. we have jokingly called -- i decided the david and david show.

in terms of the political dialogue, these gentlemen, i read them all the time. it is interesting because they write in publications and editorial pages as part of a shouting match. i am delighted to have both of them here. we have a longstanding relationship with. -- with both gentlemen. i have given them all kinds of commissions to a range however they want to talk about, and the question is, after the election, then what? what can we expect out of washington after the midterm election? let's start.

>> if you think i am going to give you a definitive answers to a close to an election, you are really -- [laughter] it is very good to be here. i am glad that my wife talked me into buying a gps or i would still be trying to find exit 1a or 1b. look, david and i are both lucky to have ringside seats in this circus. if we were only journalists, we could really enjoy it. unfortunately, we are citizens and fathers as well. it is on that side of things that you can get a little bit nervous. we have an election where we have an enormous amount of --

you might have had an argument about big government against a small government. we are saying that we won't raise taxes and we will cut spending but we cannot tell you what spending it is because someone might vote against that. and we never sought a tax , andase they didn't like maybe they would cut the defense budget, but everything the government spends money on is great. it would be convenient if we were at a time of great prosperity like we were at the end of the clinton administration. if gridlock meant that we had a sound fiscal policy, but we are not. the founders left us a system that is very good at not doing things at time when we need them to do something. one reason the federal reserve

is moving so aggressively on quantitative easing is the realization that they will not get much fiscal policy, so they are mandating sustainable employment and they will have to try to deliver it with their policy which is going to be tough. the second thing you can look at, what do the people want out there? that is also a bit perplexing. would you like to see the tax cut and or not? pollsters say that they should ask it slightly differently. they have a couple of ridiculous statements to choose from. looking at the tax cuts for

people over $250,000 a year, should we and it because it is not fair to borrow? or keep it in place because in the difficult economy, we should not be increasing taxes in this economy. 47%. each one of those centers. -- 47% picked each one of those answers. he mistook it for a mandate, and they tried to govern for to the left of people. i think the republicans are going to make the same mistake. we're going to think a vote for change is a vote for whatever their economic policy is, and they will make the same mistake. when you have such a closely divided populace, you have

economic policy, and no wonder people talk about uncertainty. i think the tea party thing adds a wild card. a lot of them are running on very simple platforms. and as angry as you are. that might be a good way to get elected, but it doesn't give you a guide on what they will do when they get to office when they get back to town. you can see the republican leadership being a little bit terrified. we might have a bunch of people that don't believe in most of the things that we thought republicans believed. the house will probably be able to control it, because the leadership will -- you are

likely to have a couple of crazy people. if you imagining a post-election scenario where president obama says, i get it. we will tax towards the middle and look towards some confidence building things. we will do the correa-free trade deal. -- korea-free trade deal. that will be enough to get it through. i am not convinced become -- or the republicans will be able to deliver. the certainly can't promise that some senator they ran will filibuster this thing in the senate. it is difficult for the president to help the other side meet him halfway. on the republican side, the leadership has a similar problem. on both sides need to show that they can govern.

obama needs to show that he can get something done. there is nothing he can do about unemployment making people vote against the democrats, but he wants to show that he could get something done so that if unemployment is 8.4% in a couple of years, he has accomplished something. in the republican leadership wants to say that they got something done. .e're not just the party of no there is a happy scenario and an unpleasant scenario. the happy scenario is bad impulses -- in the cold light of day, they decide that they have to get something done because if we don't get anything done, i am not sure that my side will suffer more than the other side. it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that they extend the tax cuts for everybody for a couple of years. what else can be built into

that? is there something like the investment tax breaks that obama proposed, finding something that republicans have supported before. do they do something on deficit reduction, so they can say they have done something. that is the happy scenario. they will do more next year, and maybe they will get a share of the market and think maybe we should not open the endless amounts of money forever. the unhappy scenario, it is about going for position. obama can't control the democrats and republicans can't control republicans in the house. nobody controls the senate. you end up with gridlock that persists for a couple of years further undermining a very serious loss of confidence in an hour institutions by the american people.

-- in our institutions by the american people. it is hard to tell which way it is going to go. there are people on both sides that don't want this to be a couple of years of gridlock. we are the largest sum prime our work. -- subprime borrower. these seem to be trying to at least not kill each other before they get to the point of making decisions. they are kind of surprised about what it is like to be in a room with other people to talk about these things. there is this weird romance between andy stone and -- maybe some sober minds are prevailing. there is so much anger out there in the public, so much distrust of institutions. in my mind, it is just as likely

to disintegrate if we have a couple of years of gridlock that will not be welcome. and you should read the "new york times," or the "wall street journal." >> or ignore the editorials. [laughter] >> thank you for having us. it is a pleasure to talk to david in public or private. i will also give a short introduction and we will open it up for questions. questions, comments, different things like that. i will start out with what i think should be the three goals of the policy. let me talk a little bit about where we're likely to get a policy that addresses these

goals. the first one is to deal with the cyclical moment that we are in. the harvard labor economist has a nice way of capturing just how bad the job market is. we essentially need job growth as rapid as we have had from 1997 through 2000 to get unemployment down close to where it was before this recession began. we are not going to start having for years of job growth like that next month. we are a long way away from that. we are many years away from having job markets that feel healthy. it is the most tangible manifestation of the economy of the weakness. capital is not being used. workers are not being used. on the one hand, toward

my favorite example of that is that in 1996, it did not feel like the great 1990's internet boma. pat buchanan won the new hampshire primary. we ran a big series called the downsizing of america. when times are bad like that, it is much easier to look at the reasons why that is to see the good news that might be around the corner. in that case, the internet.

given that the way that we have gotten ourselves out of down cycles over the last 25 years has been part to a big buildup of debt. we cannot repeat that. we have to get out of that and that is why some of the work says that the aftermath is so bad. we have this deficit problem. both the medium term and long term. i will not linger on that. we have this long term growth problem. if you look at average annual economic growth from 2001-2007 -- i am putting it off before the great recession. i am trying to make the last

decade look as good as possible. it was slower than any decade since world war ii. if you include the rest of the decade, it is really a lot slower. if you control for population, but then beats the 1970's. but that is the lobar. we're coming out of the time in which growth has not been great. we are in a period in which the moment itself is a really weak economy. we have to figure out how to get ourselves out of this at the same time we face real long-term issues. i think it should not be all that difficult to come to an agreement about what the ideal policy should look like. it looks like you spend some money in the short term to try to deal with the cyclical

moment, but you do some kind of combination in order to put more people back to work. in the long term, you try to cut the deficit in ways that don't hurt our ability to grow. you try to find the resources to invest at the same time you're cutting. in some ways, it means we have to make even larger cuts than some of the things that bill was outlining. we do not want us to -- we do not want to just get rid of the deficit and assume everybody -- everything will be fine. to me, that is the challenge that we face. it is possible to sketch a fairly optimistic scenario for how the two parties could get there. that is not the scenario i will

give you today. i have been watching the debates that have been going on. i have a hard time seeing how we get there in the next two years. i think we are much more likely to end up with this jockeying for 2012 pass and a new crisis. that could force a kind of more responsible for their looking policy response then we would see if interest rates remained as low as they are. there are a couple of different reasons for that. i do not disagree with david about too much, but we're supposed to disagree about something. i did not been the main problem was how obama and the democrats have governed. if they were not effective up enough about resuscitating the economy. that has led to large amounts of

frustration. again and again, when push comes to shove, the house leadership felt in . senate democrats were willing to compromise. if you go down issue after issue, it is the same list that you see that real liberals hate. they forgot about the public option on health care reform. the offer to negotiate on medical malpractice. they have never even voted on the idea of hardship. they did not break up [inaudible] they have a filibuster, they never voted to get rid of the bush tax cut on the wealthiest households. that is just domestic policy. the republicans came -- the republican leadership in congress came up with a political strategy that has been

quite effective. if we do not compromise, it makes it very hard for them to get credit for what they're doing. republicans are been a tough position. -- are in a tough position. but their interest is really in it not so much compromise. and they didn't. it has worked quite well. not only has worked quite well, if you look at the very nice tea party poll, you can really see that it will be very difficult to do so. they are not such risk for facing primary challenges. on philosophical grounds, it will be very difficult for them to do. that is why i assume the republicans will take over the house. i think they have a decent

chance of getting the senate. i think that is going to happen and we will have to years of jockeying. there will be a lot of preening on the deficit. obama will try to make republicans look bad on the deficit by suggesting that this production is that the republicans are not actually four. and i think the republicans will try to make obama look bad by coming up with the least popular aspects of spending and trying to send those up for targeted votes and forcing him to defend things. i think in terms of winning the public debate, the states are a little bit of a model for what we will be for a republican congress. governors like chris christie have found effective ways to get people upset. reasonably of said about some of the things that government has done. the haunted thousand 12, we

catamounts and is an area where we will have more progress -- beyond 2012, we can imagine where we will have a more -- more progress. i think you can imagine a second term of president obama compromising with republicans on some of these issues. bill had a nice line at the end of this presentation. he said, the public is not ready to have this discussion about deficit reduction. it means they are not willing to support politicians who are in favor of deficit reduction. that is why we do not have politicians in favor of deficit reductions. we have the republicans promising to make the budget deficit go away without actually raising taxes or cutting specific programs. that is impossible.

my greatest concern is that our public discussion of policy a gun to a place for it is very difficult to imagine this sort of moment where as a country we are willing to make the sacrifices that are needed. it makes me nervous that we will need a new kind of crisis brought on by the deficit that would give us to the plate or we're willing to do that. where we would need a -- or we would need an uncommonly gifted politician that is able to persuade people to do that. >> thank you, david. for a while, you talked about an uncommonly gifted politician. there was a thought that obama might fit that bill. he won by a fairly sizable margin. much bigger than -- in terms of non incumbent presidents. he did a largely by trying to --

he talked about bipartisanship. the disappointment for a lot of people is that is not what he did when he came into office. maybe it is unfair. if you look at the campaign rhetoric, how anti business he has been, how he really drew the line in the sand with the extension of the tax cuts, why was he doing this? why is he doing this rather than trying to appeal to the center again? i am curious as to what your take of this is. >> i think is a good observation. first of all, the expectation for what he could do in changing washington more way out of what courage is obama did not block on the surface of the reflecting pool, people would say, he is disappointing the. or something to that. secondly, david makes a good

point that unemployment and slow recovery overwhelmed everything. in a obama personality -- it is kind of bizarre that you find people saying, this obama guy, we never thought we could say, he could get stuff through congress, but he cannot communicate. there is been a lot of teasing of the president about his inability to get this -- and this -- empathize with stuff. there is a cop -- a cartoon where they are trying to get and to be more like bill clinton. it turns out that he was inspirational about himself, but

he has not been able to be inspirational about the country and the policies. maybe she is baptistery broke. i do not know what -- maybe he is to answer regrow. -- too cerebral. he wants to have an argument. it turns out they would rather be lied to then have an argument. the point you make about -- you could argue this lots of ways. how far left should he go? we had the most popular president that we have had in decades. it was clearly a call for a stimulus. they decision to get the stimulus through. the stimulus god granted with

nancy pelosi and her face. -- the stimulus got to branded with the face of nancy pelosi. i would never deigned to say that the president made a mistake by doing health care. how could you argue that it is wrong for the president to be so ambitious? we all know that it needed fixing. but there are people in town who say it was kind of all downhill for there. he spent so much political capital on health care, he just does not have anything left. he is spent. >> i think be imagining an alternate reality is interesting. people in this country have been trying to get universal health coverage done forever. truman, nixon, clinton. they could not get it done.

this group did it. on the other hand, it is true that at a time of incredible economic trauma, it really just overwhelmed everything. it is interesting to think back, what if he had pursued the rahm strategy? he did not want to do help care reform. he wanted to do a whole lot of funding. he essentially wanted to put points on the floorboard. he wanted to get a lot of little victories. i do not think that would have mattered in terms of his popularity with one exception. if it had been that earlier this year, they could have come back

and then more on the economy, or late last year, they could then more on the economy, and the unemployment rate today was 8.6, that would feel like a very different -- it would feel like progress. we vastly understate the president's effect on the economy. george bush came into office with deep recession unbolting in that minute. it was in no way his fault whatsoever. there is a scenario in which that would have been better. 20 years from now, we may look back and say, that was bad for them. but we got universal healthcare coverage out of it. i do not know which is true. but it is fun to think about, though. >> interesting point. both of you have sort of spoken

specifically about this. what lessons are there from reagan in 1982 and clinton in 1994? what might obama draw from those? both of those are a slap in the face to the sitting president. but they managed to kind of work for both of them. >> even if i think it will be hard, obama has to try to cobble together a coalition that is more republican than democratic. clinton managed to do that with welfare reform. it could be something where even if they got very little republican cooperation, it will be different when republicans controlled something. if the economy is then turning around and they can get something, republicans can make the argument, look what happened when the democrats were in

control everything. now they can give us some control and things are getting a lot better. to me, that is probably -- he has to look for any area where it looks like it is possible to cobble together coalitions. >> i do not know if you agree. >> you can imagine some site -- some sort of tax cuts. they will have to do some business on the appropriation bills. shutting down the government is not a win. once you decide you have to pass an appropriations bill, you are in negotiations with the president. in my dreams, they come together and do something on social security, but i would not put anything -- but my personal ira

on that happening. jim card dealt was quoted -- he thought that clinton really enjoyed politics in a way that obama does not. clinton enjoyed the confrontation and cajoling. obama does not. when you are dealing with people you have no reason to be loyal to you and you have to make them like you, the way clinton managed to do business with newt gingrich on the mexico bailout, obama will now be tested. it is a lot easier when congress is run by a whole bunch of people who bought your stock. now that the people are peopled by the other's stock, we will see whether he can -- maybe he will rise to the occasion. that is the big test. >> if you look at some of the

tea party candidates, some of them have been willing to be a lot more specific about the deficit stuffed down the leadership in either party. go on paul's website and watched the speech he gives about the budget. it is really striking. for someone from the right. marco rubio always talks about raising the eligibility age for social security. i do not know how you get to 60 senators. >> another possibility is that we end up with some charismatic third-party person hemorrhaging. the ross perot kind of forces the republicans and democrats --

may be yelling at the other guy is not the solution. it could be glenn beck. [laughter] >> defy or a republican now and i worked -- if i were a republican now, i would spend a lot of money running as an independent. someone new is incredibly well respected, everybody thought he would trounce by 70%, he lost the primary. it is not at all difficult to imagine how we see a replay of that in 2012 republican primaries. it would be a gift to obama. i mentioned mitch daniels before. if i were a moderate republican, i would be so tempted to give a shot.

even though history says it is a long shot. >> we have run to the questions. i am very happy to take questions from the floor. i have a lot of questions bread but i do want to give everybody the chance to ask these two gentlemen, all kinds of questions. if you have a question, raise your hand. >> [inaudible] >> let me repeat the question. the issue is, the current unemployment rates is not there until we get down to 6%.

what is realistic? >> if we wait for the public to clamor for cutting their benefits and raising their taxes, we will definitely have a problem. right? the director of the congressional budget office says the deficit problem -- the american people are not willing to send washington and taxes in not to cover what they demand and benefits. we have to get there and leadership. george bush agreed to raise taxes to get the deficit deals to the congress. that explains ken not getting reelected. he put some things and that worked surprisingly well. caps on discretionary spending. there is the leadership thing. or there is a crisis that may

not have anything really to do with the deficit. maybe a crisis of wages or productivity or something like that. pressure to do something, the congress comes together with the president and says, we have to do something. after the 1989 many stock markets crashed, -- mini-stock market crash. it is either leadership or crisis. >> he just does not give enough credit for. then it is clinton and the democrats in congress. did they not have a republican votes in either house? i cannot remember. what is depressing about that is bad george bush suffered a

damaging primary challenge an. >> a good bubble or boom upgrade >> we just went through one of those. >> yes? [inaudible] >> [unintelligible] are they will be lost in the partisan debate? >> i think they can provide some options. it's the political system decides that they want to do something about the deficit, it will be very useful to have yet another set of options. i do not think it will cause it

to happen. i think it requires some sense on the part of the politicians. you cannot wake up one day and say, i want to reduce the deficit. you have to pull some ideas off the shelf. it is supple to have some ideas -- it is helpful to have some ideas that the commission has looked at. do you agree? >> yes, i do. i think there are two ways to reduce the deficit. cut spending and raise taxes. it cannot really deal with the long-term deficit. to get rid of that without raising taxes, you have to do something like paul ryan has sketched out. he is the ranking republican on the budget committee. he said that paul is a very thoughtful guy.

it is a radical plan that involves getting rid of medicare as we know it. it is a modest plan. but that is what you would need to do in order to balance the budget. that is the first real hurdle. the second hurdle is -- we already know what they're going to say. the options -- there is no secret plan to get rid of the deficit. the politics of that, the kinds of people do not ever have to run for office. >> right to there. >> one of the knocks on the obama administration is that he has relied on a very close-knit team inside the white house. now he has a chance to retool that team, maybe even to retool the cabinet. what suggestions would you have to how we could most effectively

do that to increase his ability to reach out to republicans? >> i think that is a fair critique. she had obvious reasons to do it. he thought they were in a real crisis. he needed the people who had doubled crises before that. individually, they are really excellent policy makers. i do not think that group has the biggest diversity of views. there was no one from business. i would hope they figure out a way to get someone in your bare -- in their u.s. more of that experience. it might be useful to have for people with executive experience. that strikes me as a reasonable criticism. i am not sure if it is fair to say that it falls on the cabinet forecastle much. i do not know how to sort that

out. >> thank you. this will come from a foreigner. i know for a policy does not count for much in the domestic election. you cannot help to -- obama is probably more popular abroad than he is in the u.s. from what you just picked it, after the great recession, we will not get a great withdrawal of the u.s. maybe what we can expect from this kind of battle would be just more protection? >> it is a good point.

someone had a column this morning saying how striking it was how little talk there was about iraq and afghanistan in the campaign. it is interesting. you could imagine different scenario. tom brokaw of wrote it. that is what happens when the economy tanks. one thing we have written about is the widespread bipartisan multi class, antipathy to trade and outsourcing and people planning now for the problem. well i think -- i do not the president is a reflexive -- the politics of that are very difficult. that is a concern. on the other hand, if we have learned anything over the last for five years, it is how vulnerable we are to the rest of the world and how much more integrat