9/11 against us. that is an approach where congressman hodes and i differ. >> bottom line, how open-ended should our commitment be in afghanistan? >> when it comes to our mission in afghanistan, the >> need to make sure that we are not allowing afghanistan to again become a launching pad for terrorist attacks against our country. >> i think this is an area where there is some disagreement between us. i supported an amendment that would move up the time to reassess our strategy in afghanistan. i do not think that military

means alone are going to accomplish an effective mission in afghanistan. i think that it is time that we have a definition of our mission. when it to reassess whether the current strategy is working to rid our troops are doing a magnificent job in afghanistan for the the have gone above and beyond. but we need to make sure that we are pursuing the right strategy and we have to make sure that there are time constraints third we cannot have an endless commitment to a third century country with a corrupt government. >> i think that one thing that we should not have done is to signal to our enemies exactly when we will leave. that's justin bolden's our enemy and we should not be doing that to our troops. we need to make sure that our military commanders are assessing the situation and reporting back to the president rather than announcing a deadline for win we're leaving. >> the next question comes from

the panel. >> the obama of administration has been working on a $60 billion arms deal. it will send fighter jets and bombs and missiles. congress can block the transaction, but little opposition has surfaced. where would you stand on selling tens of billions of dollars to saudi arabia? >> it is important to look at this strategy we face a serious issue with israel's security in a very hostile neighborhood. the folly that we engaged in iraq in bold and iran and we have a serious issue that we are dealing with in a very responsible way with significant sanctions with iran. the arms sold to the saudis is critical. we need to maintain israel's

qualitative military edge for and i have been in call up -- consultation with the israeli government and i believe that your not hearing much opposition coming from the opposition because they understand that while we are selling f-16s to the saudis, that is their hedge against tehran. -- iran. we according very significantly with intelligence to make sure that israel's security and stability is not threatened. >> your thoughts on that question? >> i think with respect to saudi arabia that we should ask hard questions of saudi arabia. i would want assurances from the saudi government that the arms we sell to them and the

equipment that we sell to them will not get in the wrong hands. with that i certainly would say i want very strong assurances as to say that those who should not have these weapons that saudi arabia will protect them and make sure that does not happen. >> we are going to go to a another viewer e-mail question. barbara says she is concerned about the future of social security. recently some politicians have been talking about cutting our benefits and raising the retirement age and the thing that money towards reducing the deficit. would you consider cutting social security benefits or raising the retirement age? >> i think it is very important that we preserve social security, but we should not be doing what politicians like congressman hodes as been doing and that is robbing our trust funds. those funds are in a deficit. we need to make sure we do not

continue to use it to pay for our general budget. i have met so many recipients of social security in our state. we should not make changes to those who are in the system or near retirement. to the younger generations, we have to address and reform social security or social security will not be there. to do that we need to have an honest discussion with all ideas on the table to make sure that we protect that for the younger generation while still protecting the seniors right now you are relying on social security. >> it is important that we preserve and strengthen social security for today and tomorrow. fiscal responsibility is job #1. we need to make sure, however, that we leave families on a firm foundation -- clean energy, health care, education -- said the people coming along all will have the jobs to pay into social security.

there is a condition that would give us recommendations in december. we have to listen to them. i am not in favor of raising the retirement age. we have to strengthen and preserve it. i would ever privatize it. ms. ayotte's party will do that. i will not cut it by 20% as ms. ayotte says she wants to do. that is not the way to strengthen and preserve social security. we cannot privatize it and we will not cut benefits by 20% as ms. ayotte suggested. >> congressman votes, you know that is a bunch of baloney. i never said i would cut social security by 20%. i do not support privatizing social security. but if we do not have a

discussion about social security than social security is not going to be there for them. we owe it to them to have really leadership on this issue unlike the time you have been in congress where we have continued to ring up the deficit 500%. >> let's get past the talking point. what about your proposal that we cut 20% out of social security? he said it is baloney, but he proposed it. >> congressman hodes, let me set the record straight. what i said is that we need to get ourself on a more responsible fiscal passed in this country. i said i would ask every agency to propose what it would like if they had to cut back their agency 20%. then we would have open hearings on that issue. we would not cut 20% across the board, but we would have that

discussion said the taxpayers of know where their dollars are being used and put our budget on a more responsible trajectory unlike the increase in the budget since you have been and congress. >> will move on to the issue of health care, one that everybody can agree on. these are targeted questions. each of you have one minute to respond. each one of you have a 30 seconds or bottle. >> congressman hodes, you supported the health care program as it is, but you also supported the public option. two parts -- how would it help reduce costs without compromising care, and as a senator do you still support the public option? >> i do support the public auction. it is important to give control of health care back to the people and take it away from the health insurance companies that have used many in the population. the public option would provide an alternative to the health

insurance companies. i think it is the right thing to do. i would support it. i thing we ought to have one. we are seeing help insurance companies raising rates. i would have appreciated a public auction as a counter- balance to keep those rates down. i did we need stronger reform, not weaker reform. i would tell you this, the real place of health care reform is not in the statistics or because. it is in gayle o'brien to had to spend her own money to do cancer testing to see if she had the disease and could not get insurance because she had pre- existing conditions. she was allowed to get health insurance because of the bill. she is now getting cancer therapy to help save her life. that is the face of health care reform in new hampshire. that is why i voted for it, not

because it was a politically easy thing to do at a time when there was divided opinion, but it was the right thing to do for the people in new hampshire. >> the that the fallout for miss ayotte? >> i would just ask you to respond to that. we have miss o'brien here. >> first i would say congressman hodes, certainly when it comes to miss o'brien and others, we want to make sure that people have coverage in this country, but we do not be back in washington. there can be state solutions to those issues. congressman hodes supports the public auction which is more government involvement in our health care. let's talk about that health care bill because of, unfortunately, health care

costs were too expensive before they passed the bill, yet the centers for medicare and medicaid services say this takes us in the wrong direction. it bans the cost curve upward. we already see some announced that businesses will see premium increases as a result of that bill in new hampshire. i have talked to medical device companies in new hampshire. one in portsmouth will have to give up one-third of their research and development budget. ultimately it is the wrong approach to have washington dictate to us in new hampshire how we should handle health care. i firmly believe that we need private market reforms to lower costs because of this bill will increase our health care costs. >> ms. ayotte, let's stick to this issue a bit. you call for repealing be reset health care bill. it has been said that we should gris shape it and restructure it, not repeal it. why is he wrong? >> i have great respect for

senator gregg. he published ander editorial three days ago. do you do what he said in that editorial? he says it is disguised as helpful enclosed by the secrecy of back room dealing. that's not forget all of the cornhuskers' kickbacks of the the louisiana purchase. this law has already begun to inflict great harm on the american people, our economy, and our health care. we need to repeal this law. we need to replace it with common sense market reform, tort reforms so our physicians do not have to fight in court. you get the same tax benefit if the purchase insurance as an individual. there are reforms that we can and that that deal with health

care costs that are not dealt with in this bill. senator gregg has said there is great harm in america with this bill. i agree with him. >> under the health care reform bill, small businesses are already getting tax cuts to help their employees purchase health insurance. seniors are getting money to help pay for their prescription drugs. kids with pre-existing conditions up to the age of 19 now must be sold health- insurance instead of being refused by their insurance companies. kids up to the age of 26 can be on their parent's policies. people like dale o'brien have access to health care. ms. ayotte, you had government sponsored taxpayer subsidized health care. why is it good enough for you, but not good enough for ms. o'brien? why is it ok for you to have taxpayers subsidize government sponsored health care, but you want to take away from ms.

o'brien? >> congressman has, i work with the state of new hampshire. i deal with this health insurance companies that you like to criticize all the time. that is ridiculous. that is not the issue here. the issue is that the bill you voted for is one that is going to cost our small businesses more money and they will face the difficult choice of continuing to cover health care or paying fines. we have already heard employers around the nation talking about that. this is the wrong direction to go. 26,000 seniors will be dropped from the medicare advantage plan because of this bill. >> we have to move on. if you want to pick this back up, you are more than welcome to. we are going to the second round

of the candidate's questions. each candidate will have 30 seconds to ask a question. >> congressman hodes, we are talking about health care. during the debate about the federal government and the public auction and the takeover of health care, you dismissed people who opposed the law as members of the flat-earth society. a recent poll shows that over half of new hampshire voters think the health care reform bill you voted for should be repealed. what you think it is ok to be little and dismissed new hampshire citizens whose viewpoint differs from yours and would you apologize to them? >> we ask questions to people about health care reform, there is overwhelming support in the united states for putting the people back in control of health care and not the big health insurance companies. i voted for health care because it was the right thing to do for the people in new

hampshire's white small-business is, like our kids, like mrs. o'brien. it was right for our economy because of the long term it will save $1 trillion to the deficit. health care reform was in essential to a healthy economy and rebuilding our middle-class and making us competitive in a global economy with our competitors are already offering health care with no results at lower cost. it is critical that we move our system from a system that relies heavily on specialty care to an integrated primary preventive care, that we strengthen and preserve medicare without taking away benefits. all of these are critical components of health care reform. i knew there was some dispute about it. i did not vote for it because it was easy. i voted for it because it was the right thing to do. i stand by that vote. it is the right thing to do for

the people of new hampshire. use a repeal it. how can you look mrs. o'brien in the eye and say, "if you want to take away her health- insurance." how can you do that, ms. ayotte? >> congressman heads, he said that when people are asked the right way, then they will support health care reform. here is what you do not understand. the people in new hampshire understood health care reform and they knew it was not what they wanted, yet you did not listen to them. instead you call the people who disagree with you members of the flat-earth society. if i served in the united states senate, i will not dismiss those who disagree with me. i will listen to you. >> ms. ayotte, the sponsor of this debate recently came under fire for a policy that excludes same-sex companies from having equal access to the newspaper. you supported their policy of

exclusion. you have not supported the repeal of don't ask don't tell. you oppose same-sex marriage and adoption rights for same- sex couples. how can you look at new hampshire citizens in the eye and tell them they are second- class citizens who do not have the same constitutional rights to equality as every other american? >> congressman hodes, i believe in the first amendment to the united states constitution. i do not think is a member of congress you should be telling the free press what they should or should not threat in this country. i will stand firmly with that. when it comes to the issue of marriage, i do believe in traditional marriage, but i also believe that voters in new hampshire should decide those issues when it comes to marriage, when it comes to adoption. i will respect the voter's view here in new hampshire. >> we are running short on time. please keep your answers to 30 seconds. >> a key role of four united

states senators is to vote on judicial nominations. as a social progressive, how would you apply your values in considering nominees including those to the supreme court? >> i got my start in public service with david souter before he was a supreme court justice. what impressed me was his integrity, his independence, and keeping politics out of justice, and following the laws as they were written. i supported his nomination to the supreme court. i went to the new york bar association and spoke on his behalf, regardless of the fact he was in the opposing party. he is the model of what a supreme court justice should be. that is the kind of justice we need -- independent, with integrity, that understand the constitution as a living document. >> could you envision voting for a nominee that would limit abortion rights?

>> i do not think there should be a litmus test. i think you should take the entire scope of a nominee's experience, skill, and testimony. i think the hearings, by the way, should not be kabuki theater periods i would have concerns about somebody who wanted to overturn roe v wade as my opponent has said she would like to see. she wants to see roe v. wade overturned. she was to take a woman's right to choose away. i believe it is a fundamental liberty recognized by our supreme court. i would never agree with overturning roe v. wade. i think it would be a critical factor m1 difficult for me to get over. >> 30 seconds mrs. ayotte? >> when it comes to the supreme court justice, i will be looking as whether they will adhere to the united states constitution. my husband served in the military and i did not agree

with the views of elena kagan. she wanted to exclude recruiters from harvard. i would not have supported her nomination. a basic part of our constitution is making sure that the defense of our nation -- i state wishes support justices that adhere to that document. >> ms. ayotte, you supported justice sotomayor or. should you apply your philosophy and the wishes of the majority of the people who elected you understanding your velocity towards these very important decisions. >> i think each justice needs to be reviewed on their merits,

based on their record, there pass judicial history at they have one. while i did not agree with all of justice sotomayor's decisions, we could review her record. elena kagan does not have a record. when it comes to reviewing supreme court justices, i will look at each justice on their merits. >> we have to move forward. in lieu of a closing statement, we will ask a closing question. each candidate will have 75 seconds to answer this one. but also use that time to make their final pitch to the voters. >> you are both lawyers with backgrounds in prosecution. what part of the bill of rights is the most important to you and how has that shaped your political philosophy?

>> the entire bill of rights is very important to me. in terms of shaping my philosophy as the united states senator, i am going to always make sure that every piece of legislation that i vote on eight years to the ideals of our country and to our united states constitution. i really appreciate you listening tonight. as americans, we have always believed that we will leave a better country for our children going forward. for the first time in our history we do not feel that way. why are we worried about the american dream? because politicians like

congressman hodes went to washington and stop listening. they spent money we do not have on programs we cannot afford. we have to get our fiscal house in order. we have to cut back the spending. i will be a senator that lessons less to washington and more to you, the people of this state. we need to get back to fiscal responsibility and cut our budget. if we do not, we will not leave a bright future for my children, your children, and the next generation of this country. that is what this election is about. i will vote for you to make sure that we get the funding in order, cut taxes -- >> congressman, one minute 15, please. >> the foundation of our great democracy is that we are all created equal. that is why individual rights are enumerated in the bill of rights. i take that to heart. there is a simple choice in this election. the people in new hampshire deserve an independent senator that stance with the people. where do they want somebody who is in the pockets of special *? are we going to come together and move afford it?

we have seen an unprecedented flood on our air waves of special interests, corporate, a native millionaire back money, $5 million attacking me because i do not stand with them. i stand with the people. they are supporting ms. ayotte. they want her as the united states senator. do they care about the middle- class families in this country? they do not. i stand with the people. i will be the senator for our firefighters, our teachers, our first responders. my opponent has been backed by sarah pailin and karl rove. as the united states senator for new hampshire -- >> we have to wrap it up, we are almost all of time. >> i am on the side of the

people. >> we are out of time. that will wrap up our granite state debate. we want to thank our panelists and our audience. don't forget on monday we will be airing our commitment 2010 election countdown. i will meet the candidates and find out where they stand. news and i will be back on air at 11:00 with a full wrap up and analysis of the debate. until then, have a great night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] we spoke earlier with a new york's times reporter about whether the rally is being viewed as a political or, the event. >> so, what is it going to be, to pull -- a political event or a comedy show? >> i think ijon has steered clear of describing it too much. i do not think anybody believes

that because everyone is talking about it being something to bring them together. i think that the motivation of the attendees is that they will see a political event, but i do not see jon or steven doing anything that is not, the. >> you write about some of that in terms of starting with the invocation that will be a bit .omedic career >> some will remember the early days of sodom and i live. he is a fake priest. they will have a fake priest doing the invitation and i give you the idea that it is actually a satire and not a relevant like glenn beck did. >> have you been able to find

out what other local pot stickers may be on the agenda? >> no. that is another one of the tightly held fax. the list of people that came out did not come from the show itself. he came from the parks service who leaked what an early roster was i think that jon skip this under a cone of silence. none of them have talked about this. i think that he does not want to tag this in events as something that can be attacked for being too partisan. he is also a comedian. he is not saying a lot. >> the thing that this event is sold out of the reaction to the plan -- glenn beck rally? >> during one of his shows in washington, he told the audience before the show that he booked the mold the day that glenn beck

booked his rally. there is a rally to restore the idea and he is using the same thing to restore sanity. i think he is connecting it to that. i did not think that he wants to elevate him anymore than he has by saying there are doing the entire thing in reaction to the hollenbeck. the real motive is to bring to the other -- to gather the people that think alike. >> bill cotter, you can read the article on line. thank you for the update. >> now, and illinois governor's debate between the illinois governor and steve brady.

the latest cook political report the debate was publicized by the city club of chicago. it runs about one hour. >> the evening and welcome to chicago tonight. we will devote the entire hour for the race for governor. we will talk to the issues to serve. that is next, of chicago tonight. >> they hold very different views about how to run the state but they are buying for the same job. on tuesday, voters will decide which can it will move forward.

tonight, bill brady and pat quinn meet face-to-face. here in the audience are members the city club. with me at the table or the two candidates that want to be the next governor of illinois. they appear in the order in which they appear on the belt. mr. quinn currently holds the position of governor. the answers will not be time. necessarily be asked the same questions.

we have a limited amount of time, so we have ask the candidates to be sustained. if they begin to make a speech or filibuster, they know i will cut them off. senator brady, governor clinton, welcome. >> it is good to be here. >> whichever of you is elected, you will have to make hard and unpopular decisions. i am wondering, will either of you say tonight that you'll just served one term so that this term will have your undivided attention with no distractions or thoughts about coming elections. >> i believe in term limits. i think eight is enough. i try to get that on the ballot in illinois. with respect to this office, it is important that we strike in illinois out. i think the voters know that i will work for years for them. aftersee what happens that.

i am very happy with the opportunity to serve right now. we have an integrity crisis. i took over during an emergency. >> you not commit to just four years? >> if you look at the federal term limits with respect to the president, i think that is the system we should have. >> senator brady, which you commit to only serving one term? >> that is a very difficult decision to make. we need a government that all root out the waste, fraud, and mismanagement. i believe that will leave us in good stead like other governors to have been willing to do that. >> do you not think the voters will say that at this governor is willing to sacrifice some of his own political ambition to do really tough things, especially those undecided

voters, do you not think that would be a persuasive argument to voters who are pretty jaded about politics? >> we had almost 500,000 signatures. we need to have eight constitutional amendment for that. senator brady had a opportunity to sign the petition them. he refused to do that. he has been in springfield 17 years. i believe we need to have term limits on legislators and elected officials by constitutional amendments. >> two days after the election, the legislature will reconvene. they will finally approve a $4 billion borrowing plan to pay the state's 2011 pension plans. or both of you on board with that kind of borrowing? >> absolutely not. he is not willing to face up to the tough decisions the governor must make. illinois spending is out of

control. governor clinton has not been able to rein in spending. he has increased spending by $3 billion. families and businesses have reconstructed their spending to live within their means. we need a governor who would not continue to borrow on the backs of citizens and their pensions. i will do everything i can to oppose that. the pension system must be fixed. we have obligations to people who paid into the pension system. it is not their fault that the pension system was not funded. >> our government did not begin the day i was sworn in. centaur brady was in springfield for 17 years. the budget on 17 budgets. i was not in springfield that long. we have to pay the pension payment. we have bipartisan support in

the illinois house this year and last year. we had bipartisan support in the senate to borrow the money and make sure we pay our pensions. you mentioned the governor of new jersey. he did not pay the pension payment in that state. he raised the property taxes. he slashed funding for education and lay off teachers. what kind of model is that for our state of illinois? i want to make sure we cut the budget -- and i cut the budget $3 billion. i cut my own pay. senator brady refused to cut his own pay. we have to do this without cutting education, health care, police, or cutting our veterans. >> i propose this last year. it was proposed by the legislature. we do have to pay the payment. we cannot be like new jersey who just gets out on the pavement.

that is not responsible at all. >> what is the alternative, senator brady? if you do not borrow, what we want to do? put us in a deficit position. another one to add $4 billion to that. we have to have the fiscal discipline to live within our means. if we do not make the payment, it will lead a bigger hole. but borrowing also leaves a hole. if we borrow against the patient's you are still injecting children and grandchildren in our state. we need a governor who has the backbone, who is willing to balance the budget. governor quinn's budget last year targeted three areas. he cut 33% to public safety by attacking state police and local units of government.

i said that we will barely deal with all areas of state government. the waste, the fraud, the abuse, the mismanagement is rampant in every area. >> let's stay on the pension. i am confuse. this will cost $1 billion to finance it. >> if we do not pay our pension payment, it will cost a lot more. >> senator brady is reckless and wrong. that is why people are suspicious of his plans. they do not make any sense. they are nonsensical. we need to have common sense. we need a governor to get us through this. it is important to point help the senator brady has proposed borrowing $50 billion.

yes you did. >> you have proposed borrowing had you not? >> governor quinn has no plan to pay it back. >> the excess interest penalties will amount to $500 million. we need a governor who will balance the budget, make the pension payments within the budget. it can be done. >> help you make the pension payment? >> we will make it out of revenues. >> the general revenue fund is not at $57 billion. let me finish. >> we need a traffic cop. >> we cut the general revenue budget more than any governor in illinois history. we have to keep doing it. we have to keep but cutting the budget if we have to. we have done this, and having done that, we have enacted public pension reform for the first time in illinois history. we enacted a ball that i signed that will save taxpayers to

under $20 billion. senator brady was in this legislature for 17 years. he did not do anything about a pension reform. i got the job done. you do not have any accomplishments are you talk about a lot of things that are nonsensical. >> senator brady? >> you borrowed $10 billion and did not put it into the pension fund. let's talk about the budget. >> i have money in the budget for the pension plan. >> you and your pardner proposed a budget that was out of balance and did not address the pension system. it was disingenuous and as honest to the people of illinois. >> we would get to general revenues. almost everyone who has a

serious state and ability to analyze economics in the state had argued that both of you are not seeking realistic things about what will save the state. you cannot cut your way out a bit. you cannot tax your way out of it. this is a radical, a drastic situation. what citizens have gotten is political rhetoric from both of you. >> i got into the arena and cut the budget. he voted against cutting his own pay. it takes courage to cut the budget and keep education funding. our education funding this fiscal year is a little higher than last year.

we maintain that. we want to maintain our investment in schools. senator brady is proposing over $1 billion in cuts. raising local property taxes. that is what he is all about. i'd think we need a governor who is against the revenue for education i propose. we need revenue for education. >> you need a tax increase? >> i proposed a surcharge for schools so we find education from the state. if we do not do that, local property taxes will continue to rise. that is what senator brady said. i do not think that is a good thing for illinois, our economy, or our jobs. >> what has to go in order to make up $15 billion by next year? >> the democrats say that if we continue governor quinn policies -- he has specifically targeted classroom education. 33% to state troopers.

every area of state government has to share. his general revenue document shows the elevated government revenue spending by $3 billion. let's talk about the crisis that they had put us in. there is no question we are in a fiscal crisis. we cannot continue to use slick political words like general revenue. we have spent over $50 billion a year. the only way to solve this crisis is by being truthful and opened with the people in illinois. >> you are two state employees. you have a cadillac of a

pension program compared to private employees. you have great health care. you have cost of living increases. does their need to be a reduction in your future benefits for the sake of the state? >> that is all you can do under our constitution. for existing employees you cannot unilaterally radically change their pension. it is unconstitutional. >> there is a disagreement on

that. given the radical nature of our fiscal distress, is it not worth while to see if there is something you can cut? >> a jurist look at our constitution and said it is there. you have to obey the law. there is a curse for your life to be filled with lawyers. if you want to impose that on people, they will see us in federal court. that is not the way to save taxpayers' money. we have to work to reduce our expenditures. >> would you support requiring retired state employees to make some contribution to their health care? >> can i get back to the first question that i did not get a chance to address? >> i will go back to that, i promise. should state retirees begin to contribute something for their own health and medical? >> absolutely. if we are going to live up to our obligations that we have, the people of illinois will have to live up to it. it is not their fault that -- >> is that for the legislature as well? >> one-party rule is over the last eight years. the obligations of pensions a double to $75 billion. that is a lack of fiscal discipline. it is apparent. they pay into the system. it is not their fault that the governor did not pay into the systems. if we are going to live up to those obligations, we have to

make changes where we can. >> name some. >> other budget cuts need to be done. >> testing for public employees or for other people? >> you are talking about state spending. every area of the state budget will have to be addressed if we are going to make illinois worked for the people. >> we enacted budgeting for results this year. it is landmark legislation. you voted no. >> that means balancing the budget. >> i put it in before the legislature. the bottom line is, i have cut the budget. you have not done anything. >> it does not matter how many times you say it, it does not make it true. >> is the $3 billion a shifting of funds or an actual cut? >> we have what does 100 fewer

state employees today than when i took the oath of office. that began the day i got sworn in in. the reporters before me to neglected a lot of the pension things. we had one governor in jail and one going to jail. i had to straighten things out. we rebid all contracts over $1 billion. we also consolidated all the space and saved millions of dollars. we now by used vehicles. we do not buy new vehicles. we get them from the federal government and save a considerable amount of money. we have done this. we hear from senator brady about all of this pie in the sky programs. his model, the fellow in new jersey, did not make the page and payment.

he laid off teachers a raise property taxes. that is what he wants to do to illinois. >> senator brady, why did you not at what he said he cut? >> if you look at the budget documents, why else would he need to borrow? your partners with the former governor for eight years. you cannot blame it all on him. >> he announced to the whole world that i was not part of his administration. >> four years ago you call them a decent and honorable man. [talking over each other] >> i ran against george ryan appeared you supported george ryan in 1994 and 1998. >> i never said a word about george ryan. frankly, you do not know what

you are talking about. >> did you vote for him? >> what would you call him a decent and honorable man unless you're trying to protect yourself when he was under federal investigation? >> he lied to the people of illinois. he was convicted of lying. >> let's move on. governor quinn, you have flip- flop on campaign a legislative measures and filling obama's senate seat. >> i think they should have the opportunity to ride for free. with respect to the university trustees, i appointed seven new

commission to study what went one at the university of illinois. there were politicians giving out scholarships to various people, and campaign contributors. when senator brady was a state senator, he gave a scholarship to someone who gave them a contribution. there was a full investigation. the report came and recommended that all of the trustees resigned. it said they should voluntarily resign. seven did. i appointed replacements. it cleared up the scandal. senator brady has never explained how he gave a scholarship to a campaign contributor to go on giving back. >> is supported ethics legislation. >> they said we should go back

to the drawing table to get a stronger law. we all agreed we could get a stronger law. we get a stronger law. she was on our reform commission. after we got the law passed, she said her father would be very proud of what we had done. we had campaign finance limits for the first time in illinois. we have stronger governmental ethics. i got that done. i enforce that. >> senator brady, state television stations pulled political ads for nonpayment. your campaign called it a glitch. does it not accrue to the management of this campaign? >> none at all. we made every bill that we owe. we change our tactics today. we are addressing different

issues. everything is back in place. >> i do not know about that. it's outside he did not pay your bills. that is what the general said. >> there you go again, governor, saying things you do not know anything about. >> the tv station says they did not get paid for the tv commercials you add. >> it is another disingenuous remark from a career politician. you started under dan walker. >> governor quinn, you have been in charge for almost two years. it has been said that more than 80% of people in illinois i think this state is on the wrong track. do you lordly wear the jacket for that? >> i do not think so. i took over during tough times. our country lost 8 million jobs under george bush. senator brady supported the george bush economic policies. i did not. this year we have created more

jobs than any other state in the midwest. we have had nine straight months of declining unemployment. today i was in it brought 4. chrysler is making an investment in their plant in belvidere. ford will be making a new explore in illinois, not indiana. senator brady said illinois should be more like indiana or tennessee. >> indiana has a higher unemployment rate that we do. the of lower personal income. so west tennessee. i like the bears. i do not like the tennessee titans or the indianapolis colts. >> was it not your responsibility as state senator to recuse yourself? >> that was not true. i did not vote for three times for the legislation. several of the bills were pre-

empted predicted >> nobody believes that. >> we played the chronological order out a bit. there is no truth to it. >> if you have a conflict of interest you would reduce yourself? >> if i ever had a conflict of interest i would recuse myself. i did not have a conflict of interest. >> you offered a bill that would allow discrimination on sexual orientation and introduced a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and several unions. polls in the state show widespread support for gay and

lesbian couples. the you think you create a hostile environment for gays? >> below of illinois is that marriage is a protected institution between a man and woman. i support that law. >> u.s. said senator brady does not support equality for women. was that overheated campaign rhetoric? >> somebody may have "made, but i do not say that kind of rhetoric. i do not agree with senator brady's position. he sponsored a bill that would allow employers to fire gay people just because they are gay. we want to have jobs in illinois for everyone. gay people want to work to. i think it is and tolerant to have anybody sponsoring legislation that would allow employers to fire people. >> are you saying you did not say that? did you say that or not? >> i did not say that. i told a person today i did not say that. >> i disagree with your position on a lot of things, but especially the governor should be tolerant. i think he should be tolerant and you have not been tolerant. >> yousuf i do not believe in

equal pay. i do believe in equal pay. i voted for a bill. your disingenuous distractions at outright lying -- >> how about minimum wage? >> you just said you did not say something after it was reported that you did. he said i did not vote for equal pay, which i did. you need to tell the truth to the people, governor. >> you voted for equal pay, you say. >> the market should determine the pace. i believe in lost. >> answer the question. >> debt-for equal pay? >> i do not know. >> it will play after 2003, the governor. take a look at the bill. >> i am going to answer a question.

where d stand on minimum wage and equal pay? >> i believe in equal pay for equal work. i would sign that legislation. we will enforce that legislation. it is important of all of the land. i believe in the minimum wage. senator brady has twice voted no on raising the minimum wage. now he says he was to cut the minimum wage in illinois. people making metal waste by $2,000 a year. >>senator brady, where you stand on their own ways and equal pay? >> senator brady, can you tell

us why you finally released cortex's after initially saying you were not going to, but that you would only allow reporters to see them in your office in springfield only for a few hours and not take copies away. does that not seem to be the most transparent of disclosure? >> i am a small business person. gov. quinn kept bringing up the tax returns. i decided that i was one to remove the destruction. i did what governor quinn did one year ago. we gave everyone everything they needed. not only one year, we gave six years of tax returns. >> in three hours, that is a lot to digest. >> not at all. none of them were asked to leave. they had as much time as they

wanted. we have full disclosure, unlike governor quinn, who would not give them six years. >> i do it every year, every day. i have done it every year in my public life. you gave them three hours. >> if someone wanted to look at the last six years, they could? >> you bet. >> let me get this straight. >> your running mate has not released his income taxes at all. governors have gone to prison and one is going to be tried. how is that an acceptable? >> you have to disclose wristed of economic interest to rid it is a lot, carol. he lived up to every obligation under the law just as i have. lisa madigan has not released

her tax returns tridymite madigan has not released his tax returns. set the terms?s >> i think it is a personal issue. >> are you saying that you are willing to let people look in your tax returns? . .

.

here's what i was communicating, no matter who the opponent was, and that is, it's time to create a positive message for colorado. it's time to create positive solutions for colorado. that ad talked about cutting taxes, getting regulations off the back of energy so we can get good energy jobs back in our state and positive, proactive solutions for our state, and it was time to stop any negative attacks, the career politics, the soft answers, the lack of specifics, and just plain attacks that go on that detract from a positive solution for our state. >> mr. tancredo, you agree with that? >> well, attack ads are in the eyes of the viewer most of the time. i don't mean this with respect to dan necessarily, but i certainly was more focused on the mayor in my ads, if you're talking about their positions

and their positions with which you disagree, then -- if it's a rough -- i mean, if you state them very clearly and cogently, people on the other side call it an attack. it's always difficult to figure out. what is an attack and what is actually an analysis of a true public policy that is supported by your opponent? if they don't like hearing it, they call it an attack. >> your thought on the political games? >> well, i think i agree with dan. we struggle when we all have attack ads and try to tear people down. if you step back, i mean, there's a reason why general motors doesn't do attack ads against ford or toyota, right? they recognize over a long period of time that that attack ad not only diminishes the product or, in politics, the person you're attacking, but it that product or believe in that person. i think that's a big part of why we're so fractured in this country and so divided. i keep talking to people that election day, november 2, isn't the end, it's the beginning.

no matter who wins, we've got to come together, and if we're going to turn this thing around, we need everybody on board, republicans, democrats, and independents. >> all right. for all your reality check reports, thank you. good work. we asked our viewers what they would ask our candidates tonight. as you can imagine, we heard from them. we're sorting through those questions, and we're joined from the interactive help center. >> you have 30 seconds to answer these next questions n. our u.s. senate debate last week, both candidates told us gay marriage is not a federal issue and should be decided by the states. so with that in mind, valerie from denver asks, please explain your position on legalizing gay marriage in colorado. mayor hickenlooper, for the first answer, it's yours. >> i've said this from the beginning, i don't think that we need -- i don't think we should be telling churches who they should marry and who they shouldn't marry. but i think if you step back and look at the issue, are

people -- are some people born with a natural sexual orientation? they're born gay. if that's true -- and i think almost every social scientist, every biological scientist believes that that is, to a large degree, true, then how can we say some people get a department legal system than others? shouldn't they all have the same rights if they're born that way? >> mr. maes, could you answer that question, please? >> i'll be glad that. i've made very clear that i think marriage is designed to be a between a man and woman. i'm not prepared to accept civil marriages. i'm certainly not prepared for marriage between, you know, homosexuals or lesbians. but i also want to make sure that they do have equal foot being in the legal environment, and i've made that very clear from the beginning that i'm open to that dialogue, but also very firm on marriage between a man and a woman. >> mr. tancredo, would you answer? >> i agree that -- to the greatest extent possible, we

should be making sure that people have the ability to have the kinds of things that other married people have in terms of access at the time, if someone's in the hospital, being able to see them, being able to make sure you leave your will, it can go to anybody you want, but of course, that's not being jeopardized to anyone i know. but there are basic things that i believe are absolutely true in terms of rights that all americans have. but marriage is between a man and a woman. >> in the past year, colorado has struggled with how to handle medical marijuana. it seems they were popping up on every street corner, so pete in grand junction wants to know, how do you feel about medical marijuana and why not have a 5% sales tax on it? mr. maes, we'll start with you. >> well, i've been very clear about this as well for many, many months. i was opposed to medical plarne, but now it's part of our constitution. if there's one thing i been talking about, it's honoring our constitution at the federal and state level, so we've got

constitutional level. but let's not kid ourselves, folks. this is one foot in the door towards legalization. i'm opposed to legalization. so the sooner we get our arms wrapped around this and we manage it more leak a pharmaceutical solution -- i mean, after all, it was sold to us for chronic pain. so if we're going to use it for chronic pain, let's process this chemical, get it down to the beneficial solutions, and get it in the pharmaceutical market. >> mr. tancredo? >> the question was, how do we deal with this? well, it is here. it's been legalized by the constitution, as dan says. now how do we deal with it? we let local communities deal with it. we let them determine how many, if any, are going to be allowed to be -- allowed to exist in their community. it is a local decision as far as i'm concerned. as far as the 5% tax, i don't know how much it is right now. actually, i've never purchased any, so i don't know what the tax is on medical marijuana.

i've never purchased any kind of marijuana, to tell you the truth. 5% marijuana, sounds good to me. >> wait a minute. should have some sort of enforcement on that? >> no, i'm saying that we should control -- let our local communities control the number, whether they want them at all, and, you know, if they say no, i don't want them in my community, that's the way it is. that's the way it should be. >> mayor hickenlooper, what do you say? >> well, knowing you need -- the state has to set the parameters for this. i still cling to myself as middle age, although i do have my aarp card, but the bottom line is so many people need medical marijuana for one solution, but it is being abused. i'm not sure whether that's a 5% tax, but our public safety people are stretched already thin. and to put this burden on them without additional resources is another unfunded mandate.

you know, i don't have a problem, whether it's 2% or 3%, as long as it's focused on making sure we stop the abuse of the system. if we have medical marijuana, let's make sure it's not going to kid. >> gentlemen, we talked about funding for higher education earlier, but we're also getting questions about k-12, so jennifer puts it quite succinctly, can i have your pledge that you are not cut any more in education? that pledge. i do not know what has to happen. i do not know how much has to be cut. but i cannot make any pledge of that nature. it would be disingenuous to tell you don't worry, that will be one area of the budget we'll never touch. it is possible we'll have to. i do not know the extent to which we may have to do so, but i certainly would not say to you it is off the table in terms of cuts. what i will say to you is that we will look at ways to again deliver that education in a much more creative fashion. an educational environment for all kids that will be a heck of

a lot better, maybe even less expensive. >> mayor hickenlooper, what do you say? >> well, i also can't make a promise that i can't be sure i can keep, and i think the bottom line is that, if we're going to have a tough budget year, how can we take what we do have for education and get more out of it, and i think this is a classic example where it's a system of measuring student achievement, and we don't get the results back in four months. how did that help a teacher help kids? how did we begin using technology, take some of the successes and apply them to our public schools, find ways to extend the school day without extending the budget? those kinds of ways are getting more scholarship funds so we can get more kids working harder. again, let's get more out of the money we do have. >> but mayor hickenlooper, you know any other individual, you've seen what's going on with the educational system as a whole. would you seriously look at cutting education, higher ed? >> it would certainly be one of

the last places i would resist, but in this kind of economy, you can't protect how bad it's going to be next year. in my first four years as mayor, i visited all 151 public schools in denver, and i've seen them firsthand, and there's a ton of stuff we can do to help teachers teach better without necessarily having more money. >> all right, mr. maes, your turn. >> we can't make that pledge. it's impossible to say we won't cut somewhere, and it would be very regrettable if we had to cut k-12, but it's part of a unique pie in the general fund. it's enjoyed some protected status under amendment 23, and we just can't continue to protect that status. i a question of the question asker, and that is, if you keep investing in something, you keep spending money in something, you expect to get a return, if the results never change, if graduation rates don't go up, if dropout rates don't go down, if csap scores don't improve, then why would we ensure the same amount of money that's not improving?

>> candidates, thank you very much. now we want to move on to healthcare and healthcare reform. big issues, wanted to bring them down to the state level. so shepard has been invited to join the roineds. candidates, you'll have 45 seconds to answer. >> my question is for all three candidates, kernls the cost of healthcare. we have the unfortunate distinction in colorado of having the seventh highest healthcare costs in the nation, and our costs are continuing to increase at a faster pace than in most other states. being as specific as possible, what would do you as governor to control healthcare costs in colorado and ensure that every coloradan has access to adequate and affordable healthcare? and in light of congressman tancredo's earlier comment, i'd ask if part of your answer is to force coloradans or many coloradans off the medicaid rolls, how that would reduce healthcare costs if those same coloradans ended up in emergency rooms, and in light

of the fact that most of those costs were paid for by the federal government. >> shep, thanks very much. the focus on that, former congressman, go right ahead. >> ending up in the emergency room, a very, very expensive way to treat any kind of illness or particular malady. so who ends up there today? many people not legally in the state of colorado, not legally present in the state, that is to say, they are using that we all know it happens. there is a report out recently that identifies about a billion cost to the state of colorado and a huge chunk of that that goes to support the are here illegally and a huge chunk of that is in this area in particular. in medical care for people who are indeed in this country illegally. reducing that number reduces the cost of mel care dramatically, as well as a couple of other things that i mentioned in the past had

nothing to do with illegal immigration. >> thank you, mayor. >> well, i think that the challenge here is, a, how do we do more prevention? obviously that's the easy thing. how do we get more -- people of all ages working out? i make my staff go up and down the two flights of stairs of city hall, but on a broader level, how do we make sure that we exercise preventive medicine? how do we look at those places where we have great outcomes at great costs? rocky mountain health plan in grand junction is a national model of controlling costs, but at the same time, maintaining very high outcome. i think we have to focus on pilot programs and try to promote innovation and new ideas. i think we need technology. certainly in rural areas where we can do telemedicine with high-speed internet access. those kinds of opportunities are going to really help us reduce those costs, and yet, at the same time, maintain high quality outcome. >> dan maes? >> well, i think we have healthcare costs and insurance costs, and i think a focus on both as quickly as i can.

insurance costs would be more competition. we need to be able to go right online, shop for health insurance, do it in an interstate fashion, and create more competition within the free market. that should bring down our insurance costs. healthcare costs should be done by looking at tort reform. we have two levels of tort. we have physical damages, we have emotional damages. we need to probably get a cap on those, that emotional piece of things that can really increase the cost of liability insurance for doctors. we need to streamline record keeping, take advantage of new software and new technology. we need to get rid of fraud and waste. there's fraud and waste in any system in government, but especially when it comes to medicaid and medicare. >> all right. eric, a question from you. >> so many questions, so little time. let me ask about amendment 63, which proposes to allow colorado to opt out of federal health reform and specifically do you support or oppose amendment 63 and why? and further, if amendment 63 is

defeated or if the courts rule the mandate constitutional, what are the major steps that you would take as governor to implement the federal reform law? i believe you're up first, mr. maes. >> i haven't really studied 63. i know the general concept, and i believe i support the general concept of it. primarily the federal government doesn't belong telling us what our healthcare and health insurance should look like. they shouldn't be telling me what service i have to purchase. it's unconstitutional for them to do it. so i'm hoping that the lawsuit that attorney general john suthers joined in will be successful. if not, perhaps a repeal might be successful. and if it doesn't, then we're one of our moderate rarets and other experts in the area and try to come up with solutions to roll it out successfully in the state of colorado. >> mr. tancredo? >> i certainly do support 63. even its passage i do not think will be any effect on the outcome here.

i mean, it's really a way of saying, here's how we feel about this issue. it won't have, if there's no law that's implied by it, but i certainly support it because i do believe that the federal government has absolutely no right to require us to purchase anything, actually, any goods or any services. i think it's unconstitutional, and it's going to be challenged that way. in terms behalf we can do, the competition in this marketplace has got to be expanded, and certainly i agreed, talked about it 100 times in terms of increasing the opportunities for healthcare and insurance companies to be purchased anywhere in the country without this kind of a monopoly hold on it. but also, what about h.s.a.'s, health savings accounts? it actually helps us control the cost, puts more competition into the marketplace. >> all right. mr. hickenlooper? >> well, i'm against 63. i think most of us agree that everyone should be able to get insurance and that it should be portable if you lose your job

or you switch jobs, you should be able to take your old insurance with you. and i think most of us agree that people with preexisting conditions should be able to have access to be able to purchase health insurance at a fair cost. you know, for the life of me, i don't see how -- what they're asking to do is not forcing to you buy insurance, but saying, if you don't buy insurance, you have to pay some sort of a fee into a communal funding force that allows us to make sure that people with preexisting conditions can get insurance. if we don't pay into it, people will wait until they get sick and then show up and say, oh, i want to sign up for my insurance now, and the system could never work. if we want people to have preexisting conditions covered, then all have to pay. that's the only way to figure out how to do it. >> another question, and you get to go first. despite the fact colorado has experienced the highest

unemployment rate in a generation, our state is short, and the colorado health institute projected by 2025 colorado will need an additional 2,200 primary care providers beyond the anticipated supply, and that would jeopardize access for thousands of coloradans, particularly in rural areas or underserved communities. how would you tackle this problem? again, we'll start with the mayor. >> all of these conditions require us to look for new, innovative solutions. and certainly in rural areas, we tacked for a while of grand junction having 10 or 12 medical students from c.s.u., c.u. medical school, sorry, spending their last two years out in grand junction on the condition that then they would practice in rural areas. how do we use technology to make sure those areas are able to get out of medicine? part is finding other

incentives. but how do we get health clinics? underserved communities so we can do more preventive medicine so we don't end up in the emergency rooms with these incredibly high costs? >> dan maes? >> i ran into a unique program called clinic net. and what i love about this program is, it's not government-sponsored, there's no tax dollars going into it. but it's designed for people who don't have health insurance. either they're unemployed, but don't feel they can afford it. >> so doctors volunteer to go into those clinics, and they help support that small rural community, and there's about 12 of them across our state. i think telemedicine is great. using technology is great. we tried to get a daughter through nursing school, and you've got a lot of people who want to be nurses, and you have a demand for nurses, and there's a bottle neck at the university level.

bottle neck. >> all right. we're going to speed it up, guys. tom, did you answer that? i'm sorry. >> oh, you want to speed it up. i like everything they said. >> we want to give you time as well. go right ahead. >> i agree. i actually do agree with most of the things they said here, especially the use of technology. we've got to think outside the box in order to fix these problems. we cannot simply say we need more money to do it. there are ways, there are innovative ways. markets are really wonderful things. they come up with things that we would not necessarily think of right here at this point in time. but i'll bet there are solutions out there waiting for government to say, for the state of of colorado to say, let's have at it, let's have this great discussion and debate on what's the best way to address these kinds of things without adding more money to the system. they're out there, and i think, like i say, most of the things that have been said here, i totally agree with. >> tom, thank you. 30 seconds for our next responses. the question will come from

shepard. >> we are experiencing an he democrat nick childhood obesity. in just four years, colorado has gone from the third lowest childhood obesity rate to the 23rd. this is the highest rate of increase in the nation. as chief executive of our state, how would you approach this challenge that threatens the health and well-being of our young people, and what are some of the specific actions you would take? >> john hickenlooper, we're back to you. >> now we're part to preventive medicine. part is making sure we have more access to fruits and vegetables. how do we make sure we can market and let people recognize that they do control their health outcomes, right? their level of what they eat and exercise is going to affect significantly. there's some predisposition based on your parents and

grandparents, but what you eat and what you do is going to have a material impact on the quality of your health. >> dan maes, quickly, fighting childhood obesity. >> regulation is something i really don't like, but when it comes to our children, our schools have to assist with the right schools. but how about back to an old program called the president's physical fitness program that we had when we were kids? let's get these kids into gym classes instead of sitting in front of computers in the library. let's see that they have one hour of physical activity every day of the week, from young age right up through high school. boy, they'd be exhausted. >> i was just thinking about my elementary and secondary school education here in colorado, and we actually did have an hour for p.e. i must tell you, it didn't help me all that much, unfortunately. i was probably as out of shape then as i am now. but in terms behalf we're going to do about it, let me tell you this. job owning it, great. governor standing up and talking about the importance of childhood -- or the disasters

of childhood obesity and the importance of being fit, no problems. but you know what? no more nanny state. i am sick of it, government telling me what i can eat and what i can't eat, what i have to wear, how i have to address issues. no, no, no more nanny state for me. >> thank you very much. thanks to the panel. now we want to move on to what we call our speed round. gentlemen, let me tell you. you'll each have only 20 seconds to respond. then it's on to the next question. candidate. mr. maes, we'll start with you. dan, you struggled to manage your campaign finances. how would you expect voters to trust you with a multibillion dollar state budget? 20 seconds. >> that's a fair question. we ran our budget on a shoestring, and we did it with a lot of volunteers, and we're rookies at this. we jumped in the first time, we made some rookie mistakes. none of it was serious, but we did it with volunteers and a shoestring budget. you give me a $19 billion budget, i'll turn it into a smaller one, and we'll do a

great job for the state. >> tom tancredo, you're a fighter, sir. i can't imagine you bowing you because somebody pressured you to do it, but that's what you asked mr. maes to do. >> well, if we were placed in the opposite situation, i would think about what was the best thing to do for the state of colorado. if i did not think that my presence in that race would indeed affect that outcome, yeah, i could certainly say, you know what, i've tried it, and he has, and he's done a great job, he's worked very, very hard for a long time, and i give him all the credit in the world for that. i'm telling you that, hey, look, this is not going to work. >> thank you, sir. mr. hickenlooper, on the campaign trail, you were referring to the gay hate crime murder of matthew shepard in wyoming, and you said some of the rural areas of colorado also have what you refer to as backwards thinking. some people were offended. can you blame them for being offended? >> no, i don't blame them for being offended, and i obviously misspoke. when i was trying to draw the connection, it wasn't just wyoming and colorado, it's all

over the country. obviously, in that backward thinking, it exists in urban areas, although now i'm going to be attacked for the urban areas. >> thank you very much. for all three of you, quickly, if you are elected governor, who are the first two people you would reach out to to help you govern the state? 20 seconds, tom. >> ok, i have people in mind. i have already identified one of them. his name is greg maes. he knows the issue and has absolutely more information than anybody on that commission today. >> beautiful. we know john tipton. beautiful. two people. >> you're two previous governors, bill hitter and billow wins. >> all right. john? >> i think one of the most successful governor has been mitch daniels in indiana. i got a chance to spend time talking with him. and then obviously i would put

my staff together, and that starts with chief of staff trment t. >> all right. thank you very much, gentlemen. now your chance to tell our viewers, our voters, why they should elect you as our next governor. we drew straws to determine the order. one minute per candidate. tom tancredo, you're first. >> we have come down to the wire, and it's property to see the candidates in front of you. we are asking you for a job. we give you an application form essential. we fill it out, and you check our references and determine who we are and what we're going to do. it's the best way to know whether the rhetoric we use is going to be, in fact, descriptive of what we will do. look at what we have done. and i will suggest to you that, yeah, it is true i've been around a while, it is true i've been in elect office, in the state legislature, executive office in the federal government, and i have a record. and when the american constitution party looks take -- excuse me, the union --

constitution -- oh, my gosh, i've messed this up every single time i've tried it. the american union of taxpayers, that's what i'm trying to say, when they look at what i have done in my past, they give me a 97.2% rating, i think that's pretty good. >> all right, sir. dan maes? >> we've had an exciting campaign, and the question to colorado is, do we want to repeat history or do we want to continue making history? this is an exciting time in our state's history, and right now, our economy and jobs is a message we hear consistently all across the state of colorado. we need someone who's done this, not just in the business world in general, but a business-to-business environment. that's reaching out and developing business. that's bringing business to the state. that's securing business in our state. it's reaching out to the oil and gas industry and saying, we want you back in this state. i've got 25 years of business-to-business development, management, and small business experience, and i think that's just what we need in the govern inner's office right now. this is no time for politics as

usual. this is about bold leadership at a unique time in our state's history. you know, we weren't supposed to win the assembly, and we did, and we weren't supposed to win the primary, but we did. these are exciting times. i can bring some exciting, bold leadership to the state of colorado in the exact area that we need it. business development and job creation. >> when he first ran for mayor 7 1/2 years ago, it was my first campaign. i never ran for student council or class president, but i ran because i think we've got to get government to work. i believe my life as a small businessperson, those lessons and those models work in making government smaller and yet more effective. one of the attack ads accused me of being elitist. i spent 15 years clearing tables and making sure people were listened to and getting people to -- a team of people to work together. that's what i'll do as governor. i want to make sure we lesson

to every possible option, and we bring everyone together. as i said earlier today, you know, november 2 is not -- it's want the end, it's the beginning. and we need everyone together, democrats, republicans, affiliates, we will all have to roll up our sleeves and turn this economy around. i geff you my solemn pledge that i will put my efforts into it, and i will make sure that you're all there to help me. >> thank you, candidates. thank you so much for taking time out. now, next tuesday is election day. we'll bring you live election coverage of all the results and the stories as they unfold. that being at 7:00 p.m. on our election partner. thankser being with us this evening. you make an informed choice in campaign 2010. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> it's time to get your camera

rolling for this year's student cam. c-span's video documentary competition open to middle and high school students. make a five to eight-minute video on this year's theme, washington, d.c., through my lens. you can win the grand prize of $5,000. the deadline is january 12, 2011. about to studentcam.org. >> live today on c-span, we'll bring you the rally to restore sanity and/or fear with the "daily show's" jon stewart and stephen colbert, host of "the colbert report." we spoke earlier with a "new york times" reporter as whether it's viewed as a political or comedy event. >> bill carter, so what is it going to be, a political event or comedy show? >> well, i think it's going to be the eyes of the beholder largely. i know jon has steered clear of describing it too much, other than to say it's not going to be political. but i think nobody believes that.

because everybody is showing up and talking about something that will stir them in some way or bring them together because they have the same feelings about the political discourse in the country. so i think the motivation of the attendees is certainly that they're going to see a political event, but i can't see jon and stephen doing any kind of show that is not funny. i'm sure the entertainment value will be really high. >> i write about some of that in terms of -- even starting with the invocation will be a bit comedic. >> looks like they're going to have old timers like me will remember as father guido from the early days of "saturday night live," and he's, of course, a fake priest. so they have a fake priest doing the invocation. that gives you the idea that it's actually satire they're doing and not a real event like glenn beck, which had a real >> the article was published this morning online in the newspaper, have you been able to find out what other

speakers, what other political type speakers may be on the agenda? >> no. that's been another of the tightly held facts. i mean, the list of people that came out did not come from the show itself. it came from the park service, who leaked what an early roster was, i'm sure because they will have added people since then. but i think jon has kept this very, very tightly under a cone of silence. i know a lot of people on his staff and many of the executives at comedy central, and none of them have talked about this. i think partly jon doesn't want to tag the thing in advance as something that can be attacked for being too partisan. also, he's a comedian, so he's not saying a lot. >> do you think this is solely out of the reaction to the glenn beck rally from a month ago or so? >> i don't know if it's solely, but i think it is connected to that. i don't know how if he sashese he was being, but during one of his shows in washington this week, he told the washington that he booked the mall the day that glenn beck booked his

rally. obviously there's a rally to restore is the idea behind the beck thing, and jon is using the same thing. he's using it to restore sanity. i think he's definitely connecting it to that, but i don't think he wants to elevate beck any more than he has been by saying i'm doing this entire thing in reaction to glenn beck. i think he has a real motive, which is to bring together people who aren't on the extremes and don't believe that, for example, you know, if you disagree with me, that therefore, you are hitler, which is one of the things he said, that's a sign he brought to this event. >> bill carter of the "new york times." you can read his article online at nytimes.com. thanks for the update. >> ok. glad to be with you. >> our political coverage continues with an alaska senate debate with republican joe miller, democrat scott mcadams, and republican senator lisa murkowski, who's running as a write-in candidate.

both the cook political report and c.g. politics list this race as likely republican. it's an hour and 25 minutes. >> next, candidates for u.s. senate. republican senator lisa murkowski, republican challenger joe miller, democrat challenger scott mcadams. alaska public broadcasting presents debate for the state. and now your moderator. joining us tonight are candidates for u.s. senate who

registered at least 5% in recent political polls. lisa murkowski is the republican incumbent. she's helped -- she's held the seat since december 2002. senator murkowski lost in the august republican primary and is a write-in candidate. joe miller is a republican party nominee. he's an attorney from fairbanks. democrat scott mcadams is the former mayor of sitka. welcome, candidates. joining me is dave donaldson, the capital correspondent for the alaska public radio network. later in our program, lori townsend will also join us. throughout the night, we'll be hearing questions that we solicited from our viewers and listeners. we'll include some of those in the program. our thanks to the studio audience for being here tonight. please remember to remain silent during the entire broadcast. candidates, each answer will be timed, and you will see a yellow light at the 15-second mark telling you you have 15 seconds left.

and then you'll hear this bell when your time is up. i will try to enforce this as politely as i can. now let's begin. you'll have 30 seconds to respond to the first round of questions. mr. mcadams, what have you learned about yourself during this campaign? >> well, that's a great question. one of the things i've learned during the course of this campaign is what's possible when you put your mind to something, when you work hard. we've got a great campaign team, a great staff. i never thought that i'd be able to raise $1.2 million in six weeks, so, you know, knowing you need to be a little bit of a statesman, a little bit of a visionary, and part telemarketer to be given this job. >> senator murkowski, same question for you. >> i have always been one that is pretty resilient, but i have learned that oftentimes doing the right thing is the most difficult thing to do, but when it's the right thing to do, you

don't quit. i think it's really been focused on just that resiliency that i've known that i've had for a long time, but i really see it playing out here. >> mr. miller, same question. >> it's been uncomfortable to a certain extent for my family and i having my life an open book, but it's redoubled our commitment to the alaska people to make sure the right answer is reached at this crisis time in our state's history. we've got to have somebody in office that is willing to do the things that the people of alaska need for their future and for their children's future. our commitment remains without any type of less commitment than that in the beginning of the race, and that is to make sure the right things happen. >> the next correction tops the news this week. senator murkowski, a superior court judge says the state is violating a regulation by giving voters a list of

write-in candidates at the polls, and the alaska democratic and republican parties are united on this, and it is obviously a blow to your campaign. is it fair? >> well, when you say it's a blow to our campaign, we have not counted on division of elections providing information one way or another about my write-in candidacy. we've been doing things the good, old-fashioned way, which is ensuring that people know how to move forward with a write-in campaign. we're giving people wrist bands and say this is how you spell it. we've got jingles that remind people this is how you spell it. it has been a very concerted education campaign. so i don't think it has been a blow to us, but as you know, that case is still ongoing. decision today that they were going to deny that injunction or pull back.

>> documents released yesterday in fairbanks show that you say, "i lied about accessing the exurelingts. i admitted accessing them, but lied about what i was doing." why did you do that? >> i made a mistake, i learned from it, and i also found out that anything you do in your private spirit to run for office is going to be out there. and so one of the other things we learned from this, you know, initially in this campaign, it did appear that certain things might be off limits. i got to tell you, i think that in order so that alaskans can understand the level of commitment, we could have fought the release of those records. we decided not to have filled a decision, even though i believe we may be the only candidate, at least in recent memory history, and this is nationwide, he's got to release a file, it's important for alaskans to understand that our commitment can't be slowed by these issues. it has to be focused on the fact that, again, the state has got to move forward and has got to move toward by somebody who

is wants going limited by these things from the past. so thank you. >> quick followup, 50-second followup perhaps. when you left the employment, other things that came out, when you left the employment, you deleted emails. some of them were related to cases. the case were working on. and we have questioned whether they needed some of those emails now, some of the stuff there was available for discovery, and they needed them. why do that? >> well, i think you have to understand everything that's in that file is not accurate. i think another thing you need to understand, we're now over a year and a half when i left that position. if, in fact, that was the situation at a time, why wasn't it raised then? my view of it is as well, and i think just for purposes of full disclosure, the bureau has a backup system. all emails were backed up. so, again, i think this is an effort to play, i think, a

political part at a time to again get alaskans focused off the issues at this point in time. i mean, we've seen that concerted effort throughout this campaign of raising things that are not related to the issues. >> we'll leave it there. mr. mcadams, your opponents are running against washington, d.c., in many ways, but you're on the democratic team of the leaders right now in congress and also president obama. how tough a sell is your message in a year where there's so much voter anger? >> you know, i think that voters are very responsive to our message. for us, the campaign is about alaska. it's not about anybody's personal issues or about anybody's personal narrative or one person's sense of history. it's about alaska communities. it's about alaska's people. it's about sending somebody to washington, d.c. that recognizes that we are a young state, an infrastructure-poor state, that we're a state that has a case to be made before a national audience that we need to be invested in with the help of washington, d.c. you know, the environment nationally, of course, alaska

does i said own thing. in fact, alaska politics often run nationally to what's going on nationally. we believe we're going to peak at the right time. >> now you'll go to a lightning rod. you'll each have 15 seconds to answer these questions. you'll hear the bell when your time is up. dave? >> should we extend the bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, which means those making $200,000 or more? mr. mcadams. >> no, we should not. we should allow the tax cuts for members of the population who make more than $250,000 a year. >> mr. miller? >> absolutely. we're entering into a double-dip recession. cutting taxes will exacerbate the problem. we need to stimulate the economy, and it's not by raising taxes. >> degree a recession is not the time to races taxes. we need to extend the 2001-2003 tax cuts. whether or not we're able to do them much beyond a year or two

remains in question. we'll take that up in november when we return. >> is that correcter to to the goal of releasing the national debt? >> reducing the national debt has got to be done. that he wants the key of it. we've expanded the federal government so far beyond the scope of what was it was intended to be that the point that we need to do, at least i think is the best way to affect the deficit is to reduce spending and also take government out of those programs it should not be involved in. >> senator murkowski, does the tax cuts affect the national debt? >> these are not contradictory, if you will. when you are able to put more money out into the economy, to allow for that job creation, for that private wealth for that free enterprise system to actually work, that's going to help. >> mr. himmer, name one thing president obama is right about. >> well, i think that --

address the last question. you know, i think that as it relates to national debt, we've been in a cycle of borrow and spend for far too long in this country. as a matter of priorities and values, we should never balance the national budget on the back of infrastructure for state, on the back of kids and on the back of seniors, or recontinue to provide tax cuts. >> a question for you, mr. miller, what's got president obama, what is he doing right? >> when our men and women are deployed, clearly they need support. so the additional troops and personnel, the materials provided to afghanistan recently is something that i agree with. >> senator murkowski, what's the president doing right? >> i applauded the president when he named general petraeus to take over command of afghanistan. i think that was a wise choice. i think that helped to allow for a transition that could have been very, very difficult for us, and i applaud him for t. >> mr. mcadams, one thing you

agree with the republican team in washington? >> i think democrats and republicans both agree that a $13 trillion national debt is unsustainable, so efforts to reduce that. >> is the constitution's first amendment call for separation of church and state? >> yes. >> yes. >> the government at the national level can do that, and, of course, require as well. >> >> am a methodist, i'm somebody who believes in god and professed in the ministry of christ, but at the same time, recognize that -- and i believe that science and religion

should be taught separately, one in the home. >> mr. miller. anybody that doesn't think they're creative, think again. we all are. science needs to be behind it, so there's good science on both sides of it. i believe that children should be permitted to see both sides. >> senator murkowski? >> i don't believe that creationism should be taught in our schools. i believe that, in fact, it should be an allowance clearly for the process of evolution that is taught. i have said and i believe very strongly that god gave us our soul, but when we talk about evolution, that is a process that should be taught in schools. >> should the united states be involved in nonmilitary missions overseas? mr. miller? >> i think it ought to be limited. we can't go around thinking that we are in charge of

basically establishing peace and prosperity around the globe. right now, the deficit is such that we do not have the capacity to carry on the type of that efforts we have in the past. >> i believe that we should be involved in the humanitarian mission. we're recognizing what we can do to eliminate disease, what we do to eradicate human trafficking. these are issues that we should be involved in. i believe the ritualest nation in humanity does have an obligation to those who are less fortunate. >> this question comes from neal o'donnell. would you support eliminating the filibuster in the interest of breaking gridlock in the senate? senator murkowski isn't that >> i have suggested we need to look at how the filibuster is applied when it comes to our judicial nominees. i think that our judicial

branch has been somewhat stymied by the process that is allowed in the senate. i think that right now washington, d.c. is broken, and the process is broken. i think over 300 bills are passed. i think the filibuster is a problem. i'm interested in the idea that the senate actually organize on every new congress as it roolingts to whether or not there's a fell buster. >> mr. miller? >> absolutely not. we have an administration that is lurching so far to the left. that's one of the tools that we have available, especially when we don't have a majority in the senate to stop certain things, to stop this continued march toward a social stist direction, which is increasingly bankrupting the country. >> some longer questions for the candidates. you'll have 45 seconds to answer. dave, your question.

>> senator murkowski, we've heard from a lot of southeast alaskans particularly who oppose the bill. it has become controversial. how significant is this in your campaign? >> it's not so much significant. i've actually been working on the see alaska bill for three years now, trying to deliver equity to the sea alaska shareholders. they were propositioned these lands under anska some 40 years ago now. they are the last corporation that has yet to receive conveyance. the real difficulty has been in selecting the land, the lands that they were initially allowed to receive. watershed areas, so what we're trying to do is give them equity, finally resolve this after hoe years, and do so in a manner that helps the region, but also helps to far sill

sight the -- facilitate the promise we made. >> the concern is it's beyond the founders. >> right, it goes outside the box. >> and does being outside the box, could it be part of the problem? is there a problem selecting where the new lands are coming from? >> being outside the box has been a problem because we are now talking about areas where people have re-created. they have picked berries, they have fished. when we're talking about land in alaska, every acreage is precious, and when we're talking about land, it's even more so. it has created controversy. my effort has been to involve all the communities. sea alaska has held over 200 different meetings. we have gone to every community to ensure that that input is received and we are continuing to work and to incorporate all of the changes. >> many people in sitka were

opposed to the bill when you were mayor. will you support or oppose it when you get to the senate? >> i thought there was a need for a broader dialogue. i told the town hall meeting, maybe the snowiest day in sitk's history, and we had four hours of testimony that we tried to keep under two-minute increments where we heard from all sides. you know, based on my values, the way i might have addressed this, had i been in the senate the last six years, is i think that, from the very onset, i would have expanded the conversation to include southeast alaska, by taking a look at sacred and ceremonial sites. i think that might be conveyed back to the object. it's regarding land equity.

>> notably those standing on stage. this was a very important bill. our main criticism of that bill was how the lands were actually selected. we have not just the timber tracks, which i think there is an argument for, but in addition, the sweetheart deal that has never been afforded to any other reasonable corporation in the state. this is certainly something that's historical. we're talking about small tracks that were selected at sea alaska's direction. of course, sea alaska was not happy about that. that's one of the reasons why they're supporting the write-in bid. my concern is it a disenfranchised southeast alaska from the process. >> let's talk about tarp, the troubled asset relief program of 2008, often called the bank bailout. it's actually now widely believed by many economists that it may have saved the

country's finances despite its unpopularity. a conservative commentator says it may have averted a global depression. and of the $250 billion spent specifically on banks, the treasury now expects it's actually making a $16 billion profit. so mr. miller, you're against it. what would you have done instead? >> any time you look at a business and say it's too big to fail, it's a mistake. it's not based on the free per surprise system. any team you look at a government near bankruptcy and say we can spend $800 billion to bail out various businesses that have made bad business decisions and say that that's a good thing, i think we're fooling ourselves. effectively what we've done is we've delayed the inevitable. it doesn't avert it entirely. we need to ask whether it's a proper approach to say that our excesses of today are going to burden the generations of

tomorrow, because it's effectively what we've done when we say this is going to spend more than you have. of course, that again raises the question as to whether it's a proper expenditure when talking about businesses that have already failed. >> you've since you regret that vote. is your regret just because it's unpopular? what happened after tarp, when that authorization came through, you had subsequent efforts efforts by the democratic majority to basically go in and take, use as a slush fund, if you will, some of those tarp moneys that were then being returned to the treasury, use those for other initiatives. that's not -- that's not what this is all about. this was designed, you repay that, and it goes to reduce the deficit. that didn't happen. it is interesting, though, when we think about that vote, it

was a very bipartisan members, they joined us in that, so it was an effort that needed to be made at the time because we were going off the cliff. >> would you have supported this program? >> one of the things that's left out of the conversation regarding tarp is the 30 years prior to tarp where wall street became basically deregulated, where there was no oversight regarding the way and the business and financial practices that ruled the roost on wall street. i it will you, i'm happy that the congress passed wall street reform. i think we're safeguard from the seeing another tarp happen. the thing about safety, the thing about security, the thing about oversight, it always seems like it is too much until that very moment in time when it's not enough, and then you're scrambling. the secretary walks into somebody's office and says you can either vote for this bill

or watch the rest of the world collapse. it's a difficult choice. >> next question from dave donaldson. >> the obama administration is crafting a new education policy. what changes would you like to see in it, mr. mcadams? >> well, regarding education, i mean, i observed as the president, i have a degree in education, and my day job prior to -- as an employee of the school district, i can tell you that, from the very beginning of me serving in school, i've actually been opposed to the incremental trend towards the national standards. i do believe in self-determinations, especially as it relates to wreck lum and students. my great concern with no child left behind is the problem with national standards is it requires a national crack cocaine lum, oovept we'll a national test. we don't have anything such as a standardized kid or standardized community, especially in a state of like

alaska, where we need to be able to teach art of survival and other things that are unique to our state. >> i think the incremental change started in 1979 with the department of education. a lot of people think it's been around for decades. historically, education has has always been within a sphere of the state and local level, as it should be. the federal component of it is obviously created controls, created mandates that really don't fit the state of alaska. no child left behind, i agree fully, does not fit the state of alaska. it's not a question as to whether or not federal funds are accepted. it's a question of who's in the best position to spend, who is in the best position to decide how those would spend. i'm confident in the state of alaska, whether it's one of our more urban areas, the future is in educators, and they're better fit to make the decisions. >> when it comes to how we

reform our laws, i think it's important to understand, we've seen how a one size fits all approach, no child left behind, doesn't work for us in a state of like alaska. i have introduced legislation several years back, we continue to work on it, it's the school accountability act. we want to mack sure that all of our kids receive the best education. we need to make sure we've got the quality teachers. but assigning things like a temporary snap shot in time that dings a school for failing in one area when, in fact, they have made progress doesn't recognize the good coming out of our schools. we need to evaluate our schools based on the process that they have made. i've got provisions within any legislation that would help to advance us as a rural state and not compromise the gains that we have made. >> now is the first of two opportunities you'll have this evening to ask questions of each other.

candidates, please make your questions brief and to the point. in this first round, senator murkowski, your question for mr. miller. >> joe, this week you sent out a flyer that suggested that somehow or other i am threatening social security for our state's seniors here, and yet you were originally quoted as saying that social security is something that is best reserved for the state. you later said that we need to take care of people that are currently on social security since they paid into it. now you've backed off on that and said that we need to provide it to those that are currently on it and about to go on it. so the question that i've got to you is, where exactly is the cut? is it at 60? is it athe 50? is it at 40? and what do you do to provide for those then that don't make the cutoff? are they going to get some kind of a return on what they have paid in? >> senator, you're actually

referring to a card that was sent out by the alaska republican party, and the alaska republican party believes you pose a threat to security because of spending while you've been in office. in fact, you've gone from $6 trillion in debt when you were appointed by your father to $13.5 trillion today. it poses a threat to all programs. my position has been very consistent on social security from the very beginning. it is one that the fiscal house has got to be put in order. if we don't, those that are most dependent on social security are going to be the ones most hurt, because obviously we can't take -- we can't pull the rug out from under them. even those that are getting ready to enter social security, we have got to protect those payments, because they have no other source, they have no other opportunity to provide money outside of social security. my parents are social security recipients. obviously we aren't going to cut off my parents who are helping me here with this campaign. that's my primary income. longer term, we have to look at all solutions, including the state's involvement,