>he is not showing up for the naacp were the urban league. >> do you have a horse in this race? >> if you want to show why not to show for the students of chicago were needed vouchers. >> i think we are going to end it here but i thank you both very much for what has been a rigorous and experience and a lot of fun. that is our show for this thursday night. we thank you and we thank the city club of chicago for the sponsorship of this form and we thank this audience of city club members for joining us tonight. i hope you will be here tomorrow night at 7:00. i am sure there will be talking about this part at 7:30, the debut of jays's chicago. thank you and good night. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> i think i'm going to have paid to with my children. >> i think that will still be allowable you have your kids here and you have your mother here? >> yes. >> does she critiqued you? >> here is an update on the kentucky senate race from the political life. republican rand paul continues to lead tech, by 15 points in the final public policy survey before tomorrows polis -- and elected. the race has gone from being relatively competitive to a not so competitive race. we continue our campaign 2010

coverage this evening. the democratic and republican pollsters analyze their final poll numbers and offer insights into some of the most contested races live today at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. as the vote comes into mark, what cspan for complete election coverage. we begin at 7:00 p.m. with results from around the nation. we will also have the victory and concession speeches. lot election coverage starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern tomorrow here on c-span. >> on the eve of the elections, what might republican-controlled house mean for the communication and technology industry? we'll talk with two representatives tonight on "the communicator's." on c-span 2. in addition to the debates, there is more to the cspan video library including nonfiction authors from book tv and

everything we have aired since 1987 all free and indexed online at the cspan video library. >> this week, two historians look at the upcoming election. our guests will be with us sunday night. >> presidential historian, richard smith, how should one look historically at this midterm election? >> obviously, many will see it rightly or not as a referendum on the obama presidency. many people will be looking for aspects of the election that tell you where the republican

party is going, where the conservative movement is going in america. in some ways -- there are unique aspects about this election. a lot of it boils down to the old tried and true peace and prosperity. >> can you pick another election this resembles that all? >> nop. . not offhand. we have a very unusual combination of circumstances. we have a war, we have two wars, let's not forget. we have two doors which are particularly unpopular among the president's own base. i think this has contributed to this much talked-about phenomenon of the enthusiasm cap. i would say the anger gap on the right is larger than the

enthusiasm gap or the enthusiasm on the left. in addition to that, you have this age-old problem of an economy that interesting enough, people by and large do not blame on obama. they tend by and large to attribute responsibility for the weakness in the economy to the bush presidency. they don't give barack obama credit for avoiding something much worse and they don't feel in their own lives that the economy is getting better and that the future of the country is inherently better. that is an article of faith with americans. if you lose that, the odds are you will not do well at the polls that a presidential historian, doug brinkley, same question. >> it reminds me of 1994 with newt gingrich and the contract

to america. bill clinton came in and there was a thought that this progressive era would begin. whacko! bill clinton got hit hard by newt gingrich in that movement and it forced the clinton administration to triangulate and no to the middle. what we will see here, to me the narrative of this midterm election is the tea party midterm. there is no denying that the energy in politics this year is with the tea party movement. just like newt gingrich's contract to america was historic, the tea party is. can the democrats hold on to the senate? if haori read and barbara boxer can hang onto their seats, it will not be seen as a slaughter. if they hold on to congress, the democrats could flip it as they were up the tea party. i see sarah palin becoming an answer to this december. she has a book coming out. i guarantee it will be number

one. she has a reality show coming out. i still think she has some steam behind her possibly running for the republican nomination using the tea party as your basic platform. >> does this resemble an election for you? >> just the one in 1994. that is the one that is the closest because it is a democrat that comes in who came in with a feel some kind of mandate. clinton did not have one. he had the ross perot factor which change that election in 1992. this time, obama was able to win states like indiana, north carolina, virginia. i don't think he can win those states anymore. we are being told us that we are still living in the age of reagan and that america is the center-right country and for progress of like obama to make a difference, he will have to do what clinton did and that is

triangulate. >> that is very well taken. there is a parallel to 1994. there are couple of differences going in and coming out. one is that republicans have not controlled congress for 40 years at that point. whatever you the good newt gingrich, they have a sense that they had shrewdly cobbled together a semblance of a program or an alternative program. this republican congress, republicans in congress have rarely been more obstructionist. bill clinton had been a new democrat trying to move the democrats back to the middle of

the road. he felt comfortable in triangulation hand felt more republican-like. bill clinton masterfully took conservative themes and made them his own. he also had republicans who were willing to work with him. ofon't think the left wing the democratic party, i don't think the blog is there would let barack obama move as far to the right as bill clinton did even if he did, i am not sure he would at willing partners who wanted to govern responsibly in a bipartisan way because they put blood in the water looking for 2012. >> i agree with that. you could argue that obama has moved away from his progressive basis. he did a lot of compromising on health care.

he did not please some people on the left. he did not close guantanamo bay lecky said. we are still in iraq and afghanistan although he is winding down and try to get out of both. he seemed to be torn between -- he is angry. the president is angry at his base. he is angry that they don't get that he has got to move a little bit to the center or center- right to get something done. the moment was when senator bennett of utah went down. obama was close to senator bennett. he was a conservative bent but they could do business together. after senator bennett left, nobody wanted to do business with obama. the difference between 1994 is also the power of fox news has moved this political agenda. the tea party movement has a forum. as you look at the new stores of

the year, glen beck is one of the ones that has been pushing to be a spokesperson of the tea party movement. newt gingrich did not have that in 1994. he did not have a media form like that. history will show the tea party and fox working together to help start this turn back of obamaism. the fatal mistake president obama did -- he did a good job out of the day and did the right thing by bailing out gm and the stimulus was right and maybe should have been bigger but over that first summer, he did not take the right serious. when they started those town hall meetings and the tea party and a man started, it was left that by the left or by the east coast he leads. they are not laughing anymore. he needed to have done health care quicker part of the fact that it ate up the entire first year of his presidency and aid up a lot of capital within the democratic party is not good for

the president read many democrats do not want to be in a photo opportunity with the president and that is not good. >> it occurs to me that barack obama is in many ways a great tradition. he is -- democratic presidents always have problems with the left wing of their party. bill clinton certainly did. jimmy carter certainly did. talking about ted kennedy's challenge. if you go back in time, john kennedy. said that the problem with the northern liberals is they want their arses kissed all the time. harry truman talked about professional liberals. franklin roosevelt, the ultimate liberal icon who was pushed to the left during his first term by people like huey long. quitet know if there is the same corresponding pressure from the right. i think there probably is on a

republican president. in many ways, obama is carrying on a tradition that he would assumed not be a part of. >> it might be that people might make a mistake by thinking democrat and republican liberals and conservatives are angry and dissatisfied people with washington. a lot of it has to do with these lobbyists. it has gotten out of control and the way the money pours in beer. it is a very ripe time for a third-party movement. i am surprised it has not truly started yet. it will be in 2012 exactly 100 years since theodore roosevelt created the bull moose party under the same circumstances because people did not feel their lives were being answered by the right or the left. they thought extremists were dominating both wings when there is more of a centrist america out there. nobody knows who that spokesperson is. if ross perot can get 18% back in 1992, any decent candidate

can walk in there right now on a solid serious third-party position with 20% right out of the gate. >> what is the nature of that revolt? is it anchor channeled a long co- constructive lines or is it centers in which right now suffers from the fact that it has no media? >> i think it comes from -- i was in austin, texas and i have conservative neighbors, deep republicans. we don't sit around in austin picking our friends by their political party. the split screen culture of arguing and if you want to have high ratings, you have to have a food fight on television, we have all watched it but it is exhausting people. french ships are not based on politics. people just want somebody to get in who is competent and gets the job done and as america's best interest in it at heart.

it is a feeling that whether it on the lefton.orfg or 25% of the people think obama is a muslim? who are those people? it is kind of ugly out there. when politics gets that ugly, people start looking for a third way and hopefully a constructive one. many third parties are a reaction. the george wallace party was due to racism. rod -- ross perot was an odd duck any did that well in 1992 and we are at that moment now. if you get someone who is not an odd duck, this could be a three- way presidential race. >> the obvious contender would be mayor bloomberg who has the resources and has the record. the question comes up -- the deck is stacked against the kind of civil, thoughtful, substantive, in some eyes non-

ideological, pragmatic campaign that we might all adhere to. it is very difficult to imagine in this political climate. the great and the passing change -- i talked to president ford for the 1960's were not exactly an era of good feeling. the fact is, the prevailing mood on capitol hill was that you fought all day, you were sold to one another at night, at the end of the day, you tried to find common ground. you were politically rewarded for making something happen. today, it seems the exact opposite. the political process exists beginning with gerrymandered districts to the -- for the primary system, through the influence of cable tv and the internet, it exists to produce the opposite -- success is keeping things from happening. >> that's right but there is a lot of blood on the tracks. the clarence thomas hearings or below clinton's impeachment.

i get embarrassed when i have to teach it in my class rice. you talk about monocle wednesday and it was embarrassing what was done to bill clinton and look at how george w. bush was the lanais by the left. it is ugly. i think people are tired of that. i think the tiredness of federal spending is being captured. there is something about our media culture that people are rejecting any fundamental way. they don't have a voice to let people hear that frustration. >> it is revealing when you stop to think and talk about this president, george w. bush was polarizing, bill clinton was polarizing, ronald reagan was polarizing. the last five presidents from both parties were from diverse ideologies and no ideology.

they have been characterized as polarizing. what is about the last 30 years of american politics and popular culture that has produced that result? you have to believe that the media including the internet play a significant role in that. >> yes, if you had best me a president that one would like to see now, i would say the white house eisenhower. -- i would say dwight eisenhower agreed he had the stature of being allied supreme commander and we are already eisenhower- republicans. people in the center of the country or a moderate and are fiscally conservative yet eisenhower build the interstate highway system and the st. lawrence seaway and did many great things with infrastructure. we need somebody that focuses like that. it seems we are tormenting ourselves too much in this country and not find a way to unify. iraq and afghanistan could have been unifier is but instead, 50%

of the people think iraq was a terrible mistake. >> i have an admiration for eisenhower but he was a product of the time. remember 1960 and john kennedy -- people thought that kennedy and nixon were two piece from ipod. there was a consensus enforced by the cold war. we had -- the generation that voted for ike and then kennedy had been collectively through the great depression and world war two and they were going to enter collectively through the civil-rights and other transforming changes. it was a water cooler nation. we spoke the same language in many ways. 40, 50 years later, it feels exactly the opposite. it is a terribly fragmented country. what is it that the media purports to bring us around?

lindsay lohan going to jail or whatever trivial -- the polarization of america is dangerous. the trivialization of america is worth it. >> what would it feel like or feel different if you were back inside the white house in 1934? fdr had been elected in 1932. the depression was upon them. factor in the media, how would it look different if you were fdr? >> he inherited a great depression. we have been in a mini- recession. he had to deal with hoovervilles, it was a much rougher game than fdr had. wars like vietnam and korea have been taking many -- have been taking more american lives than world war two. we cannot think of our times

today are uniquely oppressive. people have had it rough before us. fdr was able to use media. he was able to use the radio and connect the country through his voice. to have a man in a wheelchair struck with polio to say that we have nothing to fear but fear itself and to look at his undaunted bravery in fighting his own personal illness and applying it to the nation and showing innovation. what everyone to say about the new deal, it was doing something. that era believe that maybe government was the answer. today, it is a rollback sentiment. people say all that new dealism and a great society has got us in debt and we have to roll back. it is a different energy we are dealing with. everything is better in america right now for the average person that was in the 1930's. we have electricity. we have more people with medical access. jim crow has been smashed.

women have equal pay and equal rights. our country has come a long way in the last decades. we should never lose sight of that because we are troubled right now. we are still believe that better days are coming. we should not bask in despair but somebody has to say," cut out all the noise and let's get some kind of leadership that can try to work on some consensus." it may be a general petraeus figure out of the military. i don't know. it is not working now with the way the right and left paradigm is with the blog sites. >> franklin roosevelt controlled the nation's agenda to the degree that modern audiences would find astonishing. he decided what was news. he decided what was on the record and what was off the record. he enforced that. he had the nation's press corps in washington hid inside the oval office.

that is where he had his press conferences. he had them for the morning newspapers and the afternoon or evening newspapers. he controlled the flow of information in a way that any modern president would envy. again, if you look at the current and last president, opposite sides of the political spectrum, very different agendas and get both producing polarization. i think cable tv which enshrines conflict. consensus does not sell dog food. cable tv is all about often people are screaming at each other or reducing arguments to an absurd level of simplicity. >> i didn't you have back then all this competition among newspapers where you were

getting yellow journalism and people screaming at each other? >> it was a different culture. it was a more reverential culture. you cannot overestimate the emotional wall that roosevelt built overnight. he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. it is easy to sentimentalize but the reality is that after three years of seeming inaction, frozen unconcerned on the part of an administration, and the nation spiraling deeper, suddenly, this boy and, optimistic, convincingly optimistic man with a flair for action tries something. if it didn't work they would try something else. it is classic american pragmatism. that het bank's capital could draw upon in later times

of crisis and controversy. i think it is a lesson. great presidents do not manage crises. they use them. they exploit them. to build this emotional bond for a blanket in the early months of his presidency or think of churchill and the battle of britain. that is an acid test of leadership. we have not seen that from recent presidents. >> one thing that is heartening is that the one unifying factor in the country is the armed forces. people love the troops and their soldiers. there is a feeling that the army and navy and marines and air force and coast guard are doing an incredible job. i think there is some unity there. i had an opportunity to speak to president obama not long ago and we were talking about what surprised him and how many things can be broken but not the military. they get the job done.

it is the old can do spirit. that is a big part of american life, the reverence we have toward our soldiers. if i have a trend that i'd like to see happening as a historian, i find the federal government has made mistakes but they have been herculean in the 20th and 21st century. whether i eat my food and it is inspected or check what drugs are safe and where we have clean air and water standards or i can fly out of d.c. and feel there is some kind of semblance of regulation. i don't believe that it is good to be anti-regulatory. look at what it did for us. the bp oil's bel pre we have to be a regulatory society and the federal government has done a good job. i love my country and i like buildings where american flags fly. this constants dissing of the federal government is not historical and i think it is

playing on people's fears and emotions. >> it is very reminiscent of the early 1960's and the rise of the cold water movement on the right. people tend to forget. in his later years, barry goldberg -- barry goldwater became everyone's favorite liberal example. many in his group were blatantly racist. that was reality. there were extra mess in the early 1960's as they were extremists in the early 1930's. one of the things -- that is contributing to the ferocity of this anti-government phenomenon, i think it is too simple to say it is race. race is an element without a doubt. i think there is a sense on the part of many people that the rug

is being culturally taken out from under them. they think we live in a society that they don't recognize. maybe their parents would not recognize it. i am not talking about [inaudible] basie marriage being redefined before their very eyes. they see the family in their view under assault. sometimes it is from government policies. they genuinely worry that the federal government often with the best of intentions can produce the worst of results. i think it is that they but intensely felt discomfort with the course of history that is significant of what is going on now. >> the federal government has wasted a lot of tax dollars. you can find $5,000 hammers and you can find housing projects that never should have been

billed parrot we can go on and on. if you want to spend your time looking at the mistake the federal government has made and not recognize that we live in this incredible country. the cspan bus goes around to a vibrant communities and how lucky we are to be alive in the united states and the 21st century and how protected we are in this country and how privileged we are to live here and to take that privilege and turn it on the government who has helped us get where we are at, who has forced issues like integration on us and has been able to by and large do the right things most of the time. when i teach history, in the end, the government gets pushed into doing the right thing. mistakes have been made but this constant dogging of the federal government right now i don't find it helpful. >> if you listen to the conservative talk shows and i do, the anger you both talk

about is often on the right at the way the government spends the money. the things that you like about the government are the things they are angry about. >> this will sound odd but part of the dynamic here is that this president -- and frankly his predecessor -- averted a second great depression. there are all sorts of studies out now. economists will tell you that if the hated bellsouth and the stimulus -- he did bellsouth's -- hey didbailouts ha --ted bailouts - many economists will

not call for stimulus again which does not mean it was not successful. >> how was it mismanaged? >> i will give you is it's an example. how many people out there know that a significant part of the was a tax break? another factor -- people understand building things. people would rally around a new- dealish program. they know the infrastructure in this country has been neglected. they know the pipes under the streets are breaking and the bridges are in danger of falling down. that could have been a national unifying, assertive, canesque, 4-looking program that would have address the immediate crisis. the impression that many people have is that the president, for whatever reason, outsourced much

of the stimulus program to his allies on capitol hill and i think they mismanaged it. >> that becomes politics. i agree. i think the obama administration needs to do something to get the people going. people are complaining now. dean atchison used to say the complaints are a nuisance to all. we have to endure. our country has had worse times than mild recessionary times. the 9.5% unemployment is not acceptable. we have to bring it down but there is a lot of positive things going on in the private sector, at research universities and to pick on the federal government for it, what about companies that have been outsourcing? companies say that as the labor unions' fault. the blame goes around why we are in the mess we are inverted y

investment banks a gun so rich. we need some later and maybe obama couldn't do because there is a lot of racism. maybe 25% of the people think he is a moslem and maybe more racists that we think. george wallace ran in 1968 and could win the south on i segregationist ticket but for whatever reason and it may be his own shortcomings and not a large infrastructure program package, we seem to be at a stalemate right now. the rhetoric is getting fierce and ugly and i have not seen where our country is headed in a positive way with it all. >> recently, they called the greatest generation -- they dealt with the enormous crises. there are crises that threaten the survival of the country and the survival of millions of households. they demonstrated extraordinary character in the process. bo mayomer but i don't -- i am

theomer but i don't have same attitude and their millions of people who are hurting. it is the role of government to address that but to put it in context with earlier economic or threats to the survival of the country, one idea -- imagine how things might have been different if barack obama in a counterintuitive way in his fur "-- first because president had said that he implies he's a different kind of liberal and democrats. he knows that we are spending money to meet the emergencies. we cannot sustain this. we all know that. i will a 0.80hoover commission -- i will point a hoover

commission. maybe jimmy carter and colin powell, two figures of the enormous public respect. they will come back to me in 18 months and they will look at every government program and we will from top to bottom examine what we spend but the rationale for spending it. it would have at least bought him some time. it might have inoculated him against some of the more extreme and it would have sent the message to his allies on capitol hill that we will sink or swim as 21st century liberals. >> i mentioned eisenhower before. this january will be the 50th anniversary of eisenhower's farewell address. we talked about the military- industrial complex. i was looking carefully at all bp oil's belt and you look of the oil industry, they are the government. you cannot even be too punitive on bp because it is a british

company that is intertwined with the government. the corporations and the government are so links now throw money that i think part of the frustration of the tea party people that at least i hear that i am in agreement with is that i am tired of this. i'd like -- what has happened to the individualism? it is very hard. where are minority rights? and individual rights headed? there are identity that's and the internet of information. i don't think we have learned how to control it properly. obama is president at a time when everybody wants their thing. we are the facebook generation. everybody is look at me. let's put in 12 hour days. work is good. twiiter.ork, last winteess

let's get rid of the mirrors. what is missing is a sense of that we are all in this together, that the overriding model of what's in it for me might be somehow superseded by what's in this for us. >> in fact, you are saying that fdr had it better and the country had a better because he could control the media. >> no, he controlled the media but he was handed a crisis that he did not have to exploit and critically, three years in which the american people got rid of the gods of wall street and were prepared to accept a radical expansion of the role of government because they were desperate. what did not happen in this crisis is we did not go over the

cliff. in a curious way, what i continue to find astonishing is that with all the right to emanating from the tea party and others as well, that's so much of it is directed at washington and relatively speaking so little of it is directed at wall street. it is a strange kind of populism. >> when did we have the greatest individualism and the country? >> back when theodore roosevelt was president. that was a really amazing period in american history where people just you and your individual activities and behaviors. we have lost some of that. it is just work ethic. i sound old when i say that. ever but once everybody is off on three day weekend. there is no more two-week vacations. people are going on six-week vacations and people do have days and three-hour lunches and we are not making things in this

country anymore. there is an inherent -- i think it is from our success, the post world war two economic success of the united states has made as a nation of very high expectations. i am told about the students i have in their 20s are getting these dark warnings like there are no jobs for humanity students. they are getting much more civic minded suddenly. they are looking at how we can work in extreme humanitarianism. how we help people at an earthquake? how the weak volunteer our time working at a national park or something? maybe this new post-baby boom generation will be less sulfurous rental. -- less self preferential. they are starting to say that that is becoming old. there is something in the air with people in their early 20's, this new generation.

i'm amazed they are not angry at us. for squandering so much of their heritage. >> they ought to be buried it is true, prosperity is a greater test of character both individual and national that diversity. adversity if it is extreme enough and then apparently shared, there has to be a share response and one of the trade aspects of american history is over and over again, you heard us the worst and respond with the best. adversity and prosperity do not challenge us in that respect for it if i could wave a magic wand and on to something and the media are more less responsible -- we lost a distinction in this country between fame and celebrity. teddy roosevelt was famous because he accomplished things. he challenged things pretty did things pretty wrote books. he went up san juan hill.

he became a trust buster and environmentalists. the astronauts became famous because they risked their lives in exploring the heavens. maybe around lindberg, maybe that's where we began to lose a but certainly today, to get fame for 50 minutes, -- famed for 15 minutes, we are drenched infaux celebrity. it is the way politics is covered, it is a malignancy. i don't know how you get out of it. >> i think we are at a point where people are looking -- we are now working for a collective issue. what about the war on cancer? that should be something.

why doesn't our country put all their resources? who wouldn't want to pay a few extra tax dollars for a real war on cancer. we're getting close. it will affect everybody listing now. let's do something big together as a country. unfortunately, the post-9/11 reaction going into iraq did not do it. it divided the country. i still think president obama needs to find something like that, that we all wake up and say we are americans and we are doing that. kennedy used to the moon shot and johnson tried with the war on poverty. he had little success but vietnam derailed it. maybe the time is ripe to pick something like the medical part of the doctors asked me if i would rather be alive in 1933 or today. with modern medicine, i would much rather be alive today. think of dentistry how it has changed. these are real things but we

take for granted even sitting here with air-conditioning all over the country. we have it easier now. somethingt back with that unifies. border issues will not that i did -- unify us. wars usually unified as. we need to pick a war on cancer and go after it. our medical facilities in this country are the best in the world. >> i could not agree with you more. the practical difficulties of implementing such a policy -- i don't mean to single out this president -- any modern president, it confronts so many obstacles in the way of the old bully pulpit for the notion that a president can rally on issues of moral authority.

there are so many discordant voices. there are some instant credit and so many people making a living off of tearing down what ever the president may say of either party. >> that is why a war on cancer, who would not join that? i don't care if you are new gingrich or sarah palin or joe biden or obama, i think you could get them that to stand at a microphone and do it together. instead of constantly trying to push the party apart, as a country, we may have to bring our politicians back together. i don't think it can be done on many issues right now. i think we could pick something big that we focus on and get everybody involved with. >> let me throw out one idea about fundamental reform on the political process. if you could waive the proverbial magic wand and take re the-districting process are

round -- away from the politicians and turn it over to a computer or judges as is currently done in a couple of states, imagine how overnight that could change the political landscape. if you have competitive districts that were not decided in political primaries thereby driving parties to the extremes but in fact, if youre-district of the company to show that most americans are not ideologically driven and they do want to find common ground and are interested in finding solutions rather than slogans to run by, wouldn't that be an enormous step in the right direction? >> yes, it would be. we will get the midterm election time over.

president obama will be the democratic and the republicans -- i don't think there pledge for america did it. it seemed like a contrast -- contracts to americanlight. they have done a marvelous job with the tea party of expressing dissatisfaction and the way things are going in washington. i used to love being in a d.c. every time i am with lobbyists, you just are feeling like you want to get out of the nation's capital. i don't feel like that when i am in denver or houston or seattle. when you get here, you feel like money is being mismanaged and even with nonprofits, they raise all this money so they can annual banquet dinner so their coffers grow but they are not spending the money. we have a fundamental problem and we don't have the leader that is the unifier. president obama is an historic

figure but i am not sure that he has been able to, clearly, he hasn't been able to unify the country for a number of reasons. >> we don't know what will happen on tuesday. i wonder if there are people in the obama white house who are in some ways consoled. jack kennedy ran against barry goldwater in 1964 for obvious reasons. goldwater want to be a personable conservative. i wonder if the obama administration from the very beginning by putting rush limbaugh and glen beck and sarah palin out there as the face of the republican party isn't a strategy to encourage a latter day goldwater. they want to run against the most vulnerable extra republican candidate. the real test will be whether the republican party falls for that or whether there is a

conservative candidate who may not set their hearts pounding but who is acceptable because they want to win badly enough that i agree with that. it is easy right now in a midterm to talk about president obama failures. >> he has not sunk below 45% and is not hard for him to get back to 50% after the midterm. you have the republican party having to beat him with somebody. right now it is sarah palin. if you're going to iowa and manager and south carolina and she runs, you have sarah palin and huckabee and others and she mney and theause rone others will hurt each other. she will win south carolina. obama-palin looks good for barack obama. it may be that the strategy

cabals at -- bad as says, making the republican party the rush limbaugh/glen beck party, it is costing them in the midterm but in 2012, it may be the only thing that saves the obama administration. they need some more centre to represent the party. >> as republicans make big gains on tuesday, what you will see over the next two years is not bill clinton. i think you'll see harry truman. exploited thely opposition. and their inclination in going to far to roll back the new deal. it fails to understand that america had been transformed by the new deal. >> i will make a prediction. historians are not supposed to but here we go -- obama will put hillary clinton on as vice president. it will be obama, clinton, joe

biden will be secretary of state, the job he has always wanted. nobody knows more about afghanistan than joe biden and how to extricate ourselves from there. you are dealing with obama- clinton. it would be the first woman vice president in history. if republicans put sarah palin or met romney -- obama-clinton could be hard to be particularly of unemployment dropped down to 8.9% and they show movement there. >> i don't see sarah palin or mitt romney having the same punch. >> i don't either. they look like a likely ones. >> many people would view that -- it might be brilliant. there are many people who would see it as almost an act of desperation. is it necessary to do if sarah

palin is the republican candidate? is it more necessary to do mi mitt romney is the candidate? >> pillar clinton has done a great job as secretary of state and the need somebody who can run for president. joe biden will not run in 2016. it is our moment and it would unify the clinton who have great inroads in places like pennsylvania and ohio. brings bill clinton on the campaign trail and he has done a marvelous job for the democrats the last couple of years. >> it could be seen as said an acknowledgement that the mistake was made it. >> maybe, but he did not make the mistake of bringing hillary into the administration and was bowled two letter be that trade unifies the obama and clinton brand and shows a unified democratic party. the republican party has quite diverse groups.

that theuggesting is midterm results -- keep in mind, it is easy for them to score points in this midterm as republicans but obama still, i think, has an excellent chance of winning a second term. >> i will make another prediction. i say sarah palin won't run for president. >> that is the big question. if she decides not to run and is just a cheerleader on the side and keep your job at fox news, a mit i thinkt -- a m a mitt romney has handled himself well the last couple of years. you might have mike huckabee to bring in christian yvette -- evangelicals. a romney-huckabee ticket would

be competitive. it will get down to five or six days and will be about unemployment. john kasich is the real future of the republican party. he sunday could be president. >> it is true that the republicans are classically portrayed as the hierarchal party. the question arises, what will define 2012 at least in the gop? are people willing to take a retread or they want something fresh? the dark horse for 2012 will be senatorjohn oon of south dakota .t > >> let's watch this. >> you historians have off the record meetings over in the dining room them about right, what is your relationship with history?

at one point there were nine of them. >> when you occupied this office, you are constantly reminded that you are just one of a series of people who dedicated their lives protecting the country and making our democracy function. it is a humbling experience so i spend a lot of time reading history. it is just to remind myself of the standards i have to live up to and also mistakes that have been made in the past by occupants of this office. then i have the chance to talk personally to some of these historians. it ends up being helpful and provides perspective. particularly in this 24-hour news cycle that we live and in washington, it so much of the attention is on the daily ups

and downs of politics. my job is to constantly remember that what i do here is on behalf of not just to marl but on behalf of the next generation. >> in the u.s. news after the first meeting, ken walston says that those attending were many historians. did you attend a that one? i heard there has been a second 1. >> yes, i attended both of them. i was proud to be there. michelle and barack obama were basically hosting a book club with a start. at the second meeting, david mccullough was there so we talked about jefferson and and

doris kearns goodwin was there. i don't think we influence the president. i look at it as though he really reads presidential biographies as a hobby and he have us come in and be off the record i talked a lot about theodore roosevelt because i just read a book -- wrote a book on him. relaxation for him and it helps to remember what other presidents went through. it is healthy that the president does this. >> let me ask richard to respond to this. this is for mcgarrywills a couple of weeks ago. it is time for me to break a silence i have observed for one year. on june 30, 2009, i and eight other restaurants were invited to dinner with president obama and three of his staffers to tell him what history could teach about conducting the presidency. shortly after, i was asked what went on there.

i replied that it was off the record. i have argued elsewhere that the imposition of secrecy to ensure that the president gets candid advice is a cover for something else, making sure that what it said about the people's business does not reach the people. i went along this time since the president said he wants this dinner to be a continuing thing and i thought that the contents would jeopardize -- that revealing the contents of would jeopardize the source of information for his gary wills is the only one who did not come back. what is your view of the idea of the president's meeting like this in secret meetings with historians? >> i think it is a wonderful idea, first of all. quite frankly, for me to pass judgment on wi garylls' conduct or standards, i guess i am old- fashioned enough to look upon it as a guest.

if you are a guest in someone's house, including the people's house, you probably adhere to your hosts expectations. i did not make the cut. i once read a piece for life magazine in which i thought -- i complied -- compared obama and kennedy and adlai stevenson. theny event, i'm not sure president like to the peace. i think it is a great idea for any president in a bu side in a site bubble to look at what history provides them agary wills said thery wills

only thing achieved was not much of level of seriousness. >> i took it as a handshake agreement and being off the record we did not have to sign a waiver but when people say is a dinner and you want to talk about history and it is off the record, it seemed to me not to talk much about it. i can promise you that none of us got into a huge deal with president obama on anything. it was anecdotal stories about the past. it would be no different than a wonderful segment here and cspan where we talk about past presidents. i don't think any of us had any influence on the president on afghanistan policy. we talked about afghanistan, vietnam, korea in a historical way. this president is very smart. we were not coming in, any of

us, as policy advisers. there was none of that tenor. it was all lighter historical fair. >> this includes when we are lucky enough to be invited to the white house for a dinner and conversation. >> last question. which presidents in history had a historian closest to him? >> i think john kennedy is often the model. you can see a lot of memos that he wrote weighing in on the bay of pigs and the cuban missile crisis. >> then there is the example of edmund morris and ronald reagan.

everyone agrees that did not turn out very well. >> he was designated to write the authorized account of the reagan presidency. >> taylor branch and bill clinton who did the book, "the clinton takes" had an interesting relationship. i think obama has decided instead of having one historian then he would have a group of the eight or so of us. >> did anybody take notes? >> no, it was a dinner. as a rich set, it was nice to know that he cared enough to talk to historians. >> president ford had given john hershey the unlimited access for for a couple of weeks. he wrote a book that was not

terribly flattering. >> thank you for this pre- election discussion. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> for a copy of this program called -- for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program visit us online. programs are also available as podcasts. >> we continue our campaign to thousand 10 coverage later today. democratic and republican pollsters will analyze their final numbers and offer insight into some of the most contested

races. this is a hosted by politico and george washington university live at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. as the votes come in coming you can watch c-span for complete election coverage. we begin at 7:00 p.m. and we invite your input. why the election night coverage beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. from "the washington post" this afternoon, pat tommey and -- pat toomey and joe sestak are nck and -- neck and neck. toomey is shown with 45% and sestak with 42%. this came one day after the

president visited for a rally. >> this weekend, john goldberg, best-selling author of the national review online discusses the election results, the conservative movement, and the next wave of leaders on the ride. join us with your calls, emails, and tweets. >> this year's stew did carry video documentary is in full swing. make a five-eight minute video on this year's theme -- washington, d.c., through my lands. this should include more than one point of view along with c- span programming. of the door video before the deadline of january 20th at for a chance to win $5,000. there are $50,000 in total prize is. this is open to middle and high school students grades 16

through 12. for all the rules long gone -- log on to studentcam.org. >> good morning and welcome to "newsmakers." joining us from colorado is the secretary of state. he is responsible in the scheme battleground state for fair and accurate bombing on november 2nd. thank you for being with us. >> of pleasure. and jessica taylor is the political assistant editor in charge of the political coverage and reid wilson. jessica, we will start with you. >> think you for joining us this morning. i was wondering if you had seen the report this morning about early voting in your state has had 1 million already and i wanted to ask you about some numbers. you have the mail-in ballots.

i do think things are going and its callous about early voting. >> colorado allows citizens to vote in three ways. you can vote by mail, early voting, and on election day. we have had almost 1 million voters already and we expect about 1.7 million which changes the dynamic of how candidates run their campaign. it helps to smooth out the burden for our county clerks in counting the ballots. we are pleased with how the election is going right now. turnout has been a little low, but we are pleased. >> people are already picking over the early ballots to get a tea leaves reading. what can you tell us about what you are seeing in who is voting early? >> as of 3:00 p.m. friday, we have 53,000 more republicans than had voted than democrats.

the unaffiliated voters seem to be voting slowly so we're watching to see if we see a surge of unaffiliated voters on election day. >> mr. bueschner, you mention this changes the way campaigns have been running. what have you seen from the national party's in investing in the early voting programs? are they making a difference in turnouts from previous midterm elections? >> that is hard for us to tell from our vantage point. clearly, the u.s. senate race has led to an investment by both parties that is unprecedented in colorado. the number of television advertisements is just dominating the airwaves. i know that the candidates have been working hard the last few days on getting the vote out. they have the ability to tell who has already voted. since may be 50% or 60% of those

who are going to vote have already voted, they're concentrating on the last 40%. >> you mention that already 1 million people have voted. nevada has the same sort of turn out already. what do you see in the future? do you see more people going to the polls before election day? >> welcome a we have seen a continued growth in the number of citizens who have signed up as permanent mail-in the ballot voters. i suspect we will be over 75% this year when everything is counted. it is not inconceivable that colorado will lead oregon and washington to become an all mail-in ballots stake in a few years. >> the ap has changed the way they are reporting members. they stopped reporting how many

precincts are reporting and are now reporting the percentage of expected to vote. how has this changed how you report votes and account balance? -- and count ballots? >> this is run by the county's. they then supply information to the news organizations and they do most of the compiling. the results are not presented to my office for several days after the election. personally, i am doing the same thing. i the that the percentage of expected votes rather than precinct level reporting. >> secretary bueschner, with the heavy early voting, how was this helping to cut down lines at the polls? how are you preparing for providing additional ballots especially with a tight senate race and several tight house races there as well? >> we have not had problems for

the last four years with winds at the polls. that is because we keep track of the percentage that has voted and the potential turnout on election day. former star counties, it is below 50% at this point. -- for most of our counties, it is below 50%. we have numerous ways you can vote and we do not expected to have a lines or problems. >> just to understand the mechanics and getting their money's worth, after the 2000 election, congress passed a law that sent billions of dollars to the states to bring the voting systems up to date. in colorado's specifically, what has been the effect of the money going into that process? what has changed? >> because we have gone to a system of mail-in ballots, but this point about 55% of our

voters are using it. we have a very expensive system. counties using the touch screen equipment, but it is not being used with the numbers it was originally designed for. we have a male in ballot system -- a mail-in ballot system and an early voting system. the attorneys are really struggling with the cost of elections in colorado. >> you mention the the touchscreen machines in some of the precincts in colorado of. those have engendered a lot of skepticism and, three. what kind of the voting machines do you prefer if you had an unlimited budget. what would you purchased? >> cholera automated decision a long time ago that we would let each can choose the equipment that they want to use. that resulted in colorado having all four major systems in our

state which means my office has to certify all four systems. again, we ended up with a result that was more expensive than other states and has been a challenge for us to administer. administrator. clearly what we're focusing on is the scanning system that reads the ballots when they come in and try to limit the investment in touch screen machines. >> you would rather have the actual paper trail then? >> well, that's clearly what the citizens are choosing. since we've got a surplus at this point of touch screen equipment, we're encouraging the counties to concentrate on the scanning equipment. yes. >> well, just a question on the touch screen, just picking up on reed wilson's implication there on the paper trail. considering the tightness of race and the senate race in colorado, already we're seeing mobilization on both sides of the aisle for challenges

afterwards. what kinds of safe guards do you have when a challenge comes that you are goin to be able to accuratery reflect what people did at the polls? >> that's been a focus of a lot of work in our office. on friday, i was on the telephone with about 40 of the county clerks out of 64 around the state talking about the possibility of a recount. and i will say, a recount is a secretary of state's worst nightmare. i'm hoping that everybody wins the race that they're in by more than a half a percent. a half -- one half of one pernts is the trigger in colorado. and we have a number of races right now that look like they could be very, very close. we have a set of procedures that, if it becomes necessary, we will mail out all the county clerks on wednesday morning. they've seen most of them. many of them have been involved

in recounts before, but unlike minnesota we have a process that has to be completed within 25 days. so our recount process will go along very quickly. it will be done by the county clerks if necessary. and it will be certified by my office within 25 days after the election. >> you brought up minnesota. of course, that was the state that took many months to count last cycle. how did that, the spebtor of a recount of that magnitude, how did that change the way you may have operated in your office or even secretaries that you've talked to as well? >> that's a great question. first, we reviewed all of our statutes and our rules about recounts. after the minnesota recount procedure. i've also both personally met and talked on the telephone to mark richie, the secretary of

state in minnesota about what they learned from their process and what advice he could give me so that our recount, if one becomes necessary, is as transparent, as open, and creates as much confidence in the system as possible. >> mr. secretary, you adwere -- to make it as open and transparent as possible to make sure the citizens see what has been done and to make sure our procedures were well defined, which they are, and that we can move through it as quickly as possible. >> you're not giving the election lawyers a lot of opportunity to make their millions of dollars here like they did in minnesota. >> well, let's hope not. you know, i'm certain that if particularly our u.s. senate race ends up in a recount, that we'll have plenty of attorneys in colorado all over the state.

you know, the focus, if there is a recount, is on a couple of fairly narrow areas. one is that the machines have been calibrated properly, and the first thing we do is retest the machines to see that they were reading the ballots correctly. the second is in the process of provisional voting. and i'm sure that every provisional vote will be examined very, very carefully. and the third is in those situations where a ballot has to be duplicated or replicated after it's received by the county clerk. that happens when there's been coffee spilled on the ballot or the ballots that are received overseas in a format that can't be scanned by the machine. in those situations, we have a very precise process in which a democrat and a republican are reviewing the ballots, making the replicated ballot, and

they're being observed by a second and -- second democrat and republican. so we've got a very careful process and i suspect those three situations are where the election attorneys would spend their time and effort. >> you mentioned earlier that your state, like all, are in a state of fiscal, i don't know if i should say stress, but certainly everyone is watching their budgets very carefully. if you have to go into a recount and you have a 25-day timeframe, that seems like lots of people working around the clock which seems like it would put a budget stress on you. how are you able to handle the fiscal aspect of post-election counting? >> you know, i was up early this morning just worrying about exactly that thing. the state statutes say that for the secretary of state's obligation we can go to the

general fund. let's hope that the cost of that are fairly minimal. the counties would have to bear most of the costs, and the county commissioners would have to build those costs into their general fund obligations. it would be a significant problem, but making sure that our ballots are counted properly and that this system runs well is the fundamental thing about our form of representative democracy. and so we'll spend whatever money is necessary and we'll make it work. >> all of our discussion so far has been on the accuracy part. let me move to the fairness part. colorado is one of the states that has a fair number of population for whom english might be a second language. and i'm wondering about ballot access for people whose original language might have been spanish. let's start with there and have you talk about how colorado approaches that.

>> well, this issue of course is mandated by federal law, that if you have a percentage, i believe it's more than 5% that are spanish speakers or any other language, you have to supply ballots in that language. and it's determined county by county. we have a couple of counties in which spanish language ballots are supplied and all of the election materials are in spanish. after the results are compiled of the census, i anticipate that, going forward, we'll have more counties that do the same thing. >> you mentioned earlier the overseas ballots and people having to vote in different ways obviously. here in washington, d.c., the election officials ran a test of internet voting in hopes of figuring out the vulnerabilities. they asked several computer experts to try to hack into the system and those hackers

achieved their goal in about an hour. what do you see about the future of internet voting? is that going to happen or is that just a dream? >> there are pilot programs going on in i believe it's 11 different states right now to deliver ballots overseas to men and women serving in our military and others. the ballots are encriptted. they are transmitted, printed out overseas, filled out, signed, and then delivered back either by mail, by fax, or by e-mail attachment. that seems to be working very, very well in our state. the experiment in washington, d.c. was exactly that. it was designed to find out whether the system could be hacked, and it was successfully hacked by some students at the university of michigan. the story is that a test proved

that it could be hacked and so they're going to continue to develop procedures to fully encrypt ballots to provide the security that is necessary. i anticipate that some day we'll get the technology that will make that work. but right now it is purely in the experimental stage. >> with so many people entrusted in so many rates, especially in your states, people often go in your web sites and are looking for returns, myself and reed included, how do you feel like your website is equipped to handle this and equipped for people who are interested and will constantly be refreshing and looking for updated returns there? >> well, we don't report the returns on our website. we leave that to the media. because until those returns are certified to my office as official, we don't report them. so i think in colorado most

people will be looking at the denver post or one of the television stations for their up-to-date reporting. we concentrate on making sure that folks can access our site for things like tracing their ballot and seeing that their ballot, once mailed, has been received by the county clerk and processed. >> secretary busher, stay with us as we introduce a new voice into the conversation. jennifer bruner is ohio's secretary of state, another key ballot ground state in this election 2010. thanks for being with us. we have seen projections from you that you're expecting a 52% turnout in your state, and wondering how you're doing with early voting in ohio. >> early voting is very popular , and in fact, the president will be in cleveland today and we do expect that there will be bus loads of folks who will be going to the board of elections to vote today. and i think the board is

prepared for the large number of people who will be doing that. >> questions for ohio's secretary of state. >> secretary, with this influx of early voting in 2008 one of the main concerns there in ohio was there were very long lines at the polls. do you think this will curtail some of the lines? how are you equiping the precinct captains there to expedite the lines and deal with the process sf >> in 2008, there were some lines during early voting in franklin coipt because that coint has more voters than they had planned on the with the ballot on demand machines that they decided to use at their sthrilet locations. but we expect that early voting will alleviate that conjection and we have told voters not to expect long lines on voting day. >> we learned that he has

already spoken with a number of the county clerks planning to, the possibility at least of a recount. what have you done to make some plans for some of the, i think there are seven or eight competitive house races in ohio? >> well, there's not just competitive house races but also a very competitive governor's race. so in my state, the secretary of state drafts directives that carry the force of law for the boards of elections. so in crafting for instance, the unofficial canvasing directive, we have provided for very specific evidence-based recording of information so that when the unofficial canvas is complete, there later is a complete canvas or official canvas later on, that we will know how many military votes are still outstanding from within the united states, outside the united states, the overseas votes, as well as even the number of e over votes for

what we call a double bubble where the person has overemphasized the vote by voting for their candidate and putting in a write in. because in ohio we have a law that says the voter intent must be expressed >> for house and for governor. you left out one of the races. the open senate seat there in ohio. you ran in the democratic primary, the lieutenant governor lee fisher is trailing badly in the polls. would you have been in the same position or do you think you would have performed better in the general election? >> well, that remains to be actually it will never be decided because for the ohio voters it's what they're going to get is an election where they can make their choices and a secretary of state who is more than fully engaged in the process of making sure that every vote counts. and that we have a very good,

smooth election here in ohio. >> we've been talking about the different balloting systems that are being used. can you explain to us the different types that are used throughout the state by different counties? >> ye yes. we have primarily the touch screen and the optical scan ballots. for the viewers, the touch screen of course is the electronic recording of the votes at the time that the voter places their vote and then the optical scan of course is the paper ballot that the voter can place into the precinct scanner themselves. we have about 47 counties using the debolt system. the remainder, except for two using the es system and the other using hart. it's a variety but it reflects the diversity of the people of the state of ohio and we have overriding rules that deal with the reporting of the votes, they'll all come in electronically, we'll be reporting those then through

our election at reporting system on election night. >> we learned from secretary busher in colorado that they have a 25-day maximum under state law if there is a recount in order to certify results. is there any such limitation in ohio? >> it's actually a building of days upon days. once the unofficial canvas is done election night, there's a ten-day period for the military and the overseas ballots to come in, as well as the late absentee ballot that is are post marked at least the day before the elecked. and then there will also be the provisional ballots. the official canvas has to begin between 11 to 15 days after the election. so it could extend a little bit after that to get the official canvas and it's at that point that any recount would begin. and a statewide recount would be done by the counties. we have a very specific process where if it's an electronic volting machine, there's a v pat daut trail that is actually

a percentage is hand coutted and compared with the electronic result. if they don't match within two votes, then they go on and do a larger sample with the potential of having to do an entire hand count of the county. but having done this since 2008 in this particular process, we think that things should go smoothly. the boards of elections have had a couple of years to get some new procedures under their belts, and we don't anticipate a lot of problems. >> question for both secretaries ofs. there have been advertisements that have been running in some states that some groups are suggested intended to intim date people from going to the polls. specifically directed towards perhaps hispanic americans. have you seen any ed in your state of colorado and then later secretary bruner in ohio at any attempts of voter suppression this year? >> i have not. i'm not perhaps the best person to ask that question because i don't watch a whole lot of

television advertising but i've not seen any and i've not been told of any. >> and secretary brunner. >> well, we just learned about a situation of a mcdonald's operator in northeast ohio who put letters in his employee's pay checks saying that if they did not vote for particular candidates, which in this case happened to be republicans, that it could affect their ability to get raises later on. i think the reports are that this was done without knowledge that this clearly violates ohio law. i have just appointed an attorney from northeast ohio, former prosecutor, who is going to be investigating this for me. and we'll be reporting this to the ohio attorney general. there are a lot of folks up in arms about this, as they should be, because an employer cannot attempt to influence his or her employees with to vote for a particular person or against a

particular person with the incentive that it could affect their employee benefits in the future. >> for both of you we've heard charges across the country i think that there is voter fraud going on. i feel like after the last couple of elections this has just become sort of the go to excuse even before election day. have you seen any instances of voter fraud in either colorado or ohio or anywhere around the country? >> we are actually investigating an instance where in very southern ohio in lawrence county where two individuals took absentee applications to various voters, had them fill them out. but the return address were to a couple of po boxes. clearly, a problem, because as the board of elections spot checked with the voters, the voters had intended for them to go to them in their rezz dense.

so when we see an instance like this and it could be voter suppression, voter infilm dation, voter fraud, voter registration fraud, we get on it right away because it's important that when people vote that their vote is not diluted by someone who should not be voting. and it's also important that everyone who is entitled to vote have the opportunity to vote. >> secretary, have you seen any instances in colorado? >> the instances of voter fraud are very, very rare in colorado. like most states, we have a online voter data base, the name, address, and information about every single voter is on that data base. it's a public record. and folks comb through that. obviously candidates prepare their walk lists and their get out the vote efforts based on that list. and i have said many, many times, if anyone sees on that list someone who is not eligible to vote, let us know.

contact our office. and we just don't get that information. so i'm -- you're always concerned about the possibility of voter fraud, but we seem -- we see very, very few instances in colorado. >> we are just about out of time with both of you. for wrapup question, we've heard a lot about the details and i think you helped our audience understand a great deal more about the level of planning that's going into election 2010. but let me ask both of you, what is keeping you up at night these two days going into election day? >> well, as i said, every count is the nightmare -- a recount is the nightmare, even worse since i'm on the ballot also, would be a recount in the secretary of state's office. that's the number one thing that i worry about. the procedures that we've been working on and making sure are open and transparent regarding

a recount i think are very, very solid and we're making sure that those are communicated well to our county clerks so that we're all on the same page if that should happen. >> well, then the twin of that question or the flip side is, how confident are you going into election day that all the systems are in place? >> i'm very, very comfortable. we've been talking to the county clerks daily, and the election in colorado is running quite smoothly right now. >> and secretary, the same questions for you. first, what are you most concerned about as we go into the election day itself? >> my greatest concern really has more to do with whether or not we'll have a recount. already we're seeing public records requests of, for instance, the board of elections of all the names of their provisional voters who will be voting provisionally on election day, which means i suspect that some of these campaigns are expecting very, very close race.

and the important thing will be that our boards of elections follow the correct procedures. we have imnume rabble directives that give them the instructions of what they need to do. but what, when things get really tough is when either side attempts to litigate the results of an election. i myself am a former judge, a former election attorney, so i understand the intensity that goes into that. and the last thing that we want to see is anything that would shake the confidence of the voters. clearly in ohio we're prepared for this election. if we have a recount there will be frustration on the parts of people because we won't know for certain what the results of our election are. but our election officials are well trained, prepared, and ready to move forward to conduct everything fairly and according to the procedures that we've carefully set out. so we're confident that ohio will do well even if we have to suffer through the difficulties of a recount. >> many thanks to both of you

as you start the busiest week of your job. ohio secretary of state, and colorado secretary of state. thanks to both of you for being on c-span's "newsmakers" today. >> thank you. >> we appreciate it. >> let me turn to our two guests in studio in washington. jessica of politico. reed of hot line, also knee deep with all your staff in this year's election. we heard two confident secretaries of state, but what they also seem to be pretty confident of is that there are going to be court challenges going forward? is this the way of the world for elections in the united states from where our society is is? >> i think minnesota gave us a new standard, and both parties have been preparing definitely for this. we've seen fund raising appeals come out from both sides saying we have to be ready to go on november 3rd. and it's almost inevitably going to be either the house

race, several senate races so dedloked in the polls. so it's not going to surprise journalists. but i think what you did see from both of them is that people want to minimize the time and the length. they don't want the elections running out months, especially if it does hinnage on one or two seats that could control the senate. that people want that resolved very quickly but also very fairly as well. >> both sides have already sort of readied their fleets of lawyers roont the country there are a number of organization that is prepare for the two weeks after the election, after the 2000 when every lawyer went to the fla and had a working revasion. but now the national public association has a fleet of volunteer attorneys who are ready to get on planes on election night or the very soon

after, the morning after, and fly out to these contested races. it was very telling in minnesota that the lead election lawyer on the democratic side, a guy named mark, was in minnesota very shortly after election day and really took control sort of explaining to reporters what was going on, explaining to reporters how the democrat's view of the process. the republican side was handled through a press aide and it was a little less smooth. so i think it's -- after the lessons of minnesota we're going to see a lot of very high powered lawyers going to these seats and really taking over the process. >> the law, which is help america vote act, which came out of the 2000 recount was intended to make voting more easy, more accurate and easier, because all of the counties in florida had different methods. what struck me in listening to the colorado secretary of state, that we've replaced

papor complexity with electronic complexity. >> it's very telling. i think a lot of election officials have seen these touch screen machines. they are the newest technology. and we're seeing around the country election officials taking those away, going back to papor ballots, going back to optical scan ballots. i think everybody agrees at the moment the optical scan ballot is probably the one that everybody would like to see. it's got an actual voter mark, it's an actual tangible piece of paper that you can go back and hand count. it's not going to print out a receipt that a voter will have to take. given the sheer number of machines, there will be bugs somewhere. things will have to be reprogrammed. so with that actual paper ballot, i think that's what most people would prefer. i was surprised to hear that 47 counties in ohio are using the touch screen machines. >> because they have a tradition of county by county decision making here, you heard

secretaries of state who are dealing with different kinds of equipment that are tabulating votes. then we have paper ballots, early voting, overseas voting. it seems rather complex to ensure the final tally. >> that's why it does take so long in recounts and you get down into the nitty-gritty with that. but i think one thing that is helping alleviate that is in the different methods that people vote, it's important to encourage to get people more engaged in democracy, it's amenable to our lifestyle that you can early vote, you can request an absen tee ballot now. and people don't have time to wait in line for hours and hours. so i think that's something that we're seeing especially both in so many states continue to stress. >> one thing they told suss that their states have no fault absentee voting. that is you request a ballot. you don't have to have a reason to vote absentee. you don't have to be out of

town, visiting a sick relative in the hospital. you can vote absentee if you don't want to go to the polling place. washington state and oregon have already gone to all mail-in ballots. it has improved turnout in states. some people like that, some don't. but it has improved turnout. and i think that this new trend is going to continue to grow around the country and become common place in states where right now you have to have a reason to get an absentee ballot. >> all of this change in how people vote has changed the parties' and candidates' strategies. so we'd be remiss not to end with where we are overall. what is your sense of where the electorate is? >> i think with the house, republicans are increasingly confident. we've seen several projections come out over the last week upwards of 55, some people saying as many as 60 seats. but we did see several stories

out this morning saying that the republican senate is looking less likely. all the cards would have to fall in their favor to definitely attack the republicans or running with and i think several early closing states especially should give us a good idea on election night. indiana and kentucky have the earliest closing times that will sort of give us a feel of whether this is going to be as big of a republican tidal wave. >> and how about the governor's mansions? >> a bloody field for democrats. republicans are going to have a very good night. one interesting thing that early voting has done is it has taken the republicans 72-hour program and made it obsleet. what we're now seeing is a 720 hour program, one that stretches back for 30 days. people have been running their turnout operations at if you will steam since very early october. so turnout is going to be higher than the average mid-term this year. >> thanks for being here on

this sunday morning. >> thank you. >> and thanks for watching. we have lots of politics ahead on c-span on this sunday leading into november 2nd ball >> mark campaign 2010 coverage coming napa. democratic and republican postal -- posters will offer insight into some of the final polling numbers. this of the co-host of but politico and a george washington university live at 6:00 p.m. eastern. what she's been for complete election coverage beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we invite your input. live election night coverage beginning at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. on the eve of this year's election, what could a

republican controlled house mean for the communications and technology industry? that will be tonight on c-span2. and in addition to this season's archive the debates, there's a lot more of the c-span video library. the american story from american history tv and everything we have aired since 1987 all free online on the c-span a video library. from politics of this afternoon, the final pre-election polls by gallup show the republicans with a 55% lead among likely voters in the generic congressional ballot. they say this is a compelling sign that this will produce a historic sweep in the house. republicans could gain anywhere between 60 seats on up according to gallup's analysis. that was released late

yesterday. republicans need 39 seats to win control of the house. democratic congressman teague and republican pence debate. >> welcome to this new mexico's special board to buy mexican boxer public media station and mexico first. media mexico's special station. >> token to the last of our three town hall debates where every day, you have a unique opportunity to meet candid it's one-on-one and ask questions

about important issues. we're coming to you live from los curses, and in mexico. -- las crucas. we are on in portales and albuquerque. welcome if you are tuning in over the radio. please vote -- please join me in welcoming david teague and steve pearce. sponsoredevent is co- by new mexico first. -- 29's event is co-sponsored by new mexico first. let's hear from their president on the process used in developing tonight's questions. 109's town hall debates draws on the topics that southern new mexicans believe are the most important.

they were green and the biggest issues facing the second congressional district. this will include democrats, republicans, and independent voters. they are united in their respect for each other. they worked hard to establish questions. the citizens behind the microphone tonight are not necessarily opposing their own questions but representing the town hall. there is not time to address all of the questions. back to you. >> at the ground rules are quite simple. the voters have worked all afternoon to come up with questions. there is no time limit for each one of you to answer. there is no stopwatch.

one of the may talk longer than the other. someone will probably have an imbalance. at the end of the debate, we have a number of questions from the voters and i will give you a chance to bring about whether you would like the mayor may not have already been discussed. firstbegin with our question. take the microphone and ask your question. [inaudible] >> harshened this situation be handled? -- how should this situation be handled dykes >> it is one of the most important questions we

face. our border is unsafe. we have drug cartels coming across. there is a great concern about the border. the most important thing we should do is separate those people from those who would bring violence into the country. the way i would take care of the ones who are already here is i would say the line is back in the country where you come from and there are 20 years of people. the second question then, or the second response, is you just want to work. if you do not want to be a citizen, then get out of the shadows, start paying taxes, and

i think we would sort through the 12-30 million people who are already here. we cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we have to solve it. >> we need to bring those people out of the shadows and make them better get to the back of the line. they need to pay a fine or taxes de mayo and learn how to speak english. -- taxes they may owe. they have to be brought out of the shadows and brought into the american economy so we can see where they are at. we need to secure our borders. with plans in place so people cannot come in here illegally.

>> am i correct in assuming either of you are for new immigration laws that will allow people who are here illegally to stay and go through some process for a legal status? >> that would create more pressure on the border. it would create a disorderly process. we must create order along that border north and south in must secure the border. unless we create an orderly process, we cannot allow all 6 billion of the world's population to come here. >> that i characterize your position correctly? >> we need to secure the border against the violence to protect our people and property. we need to bring the people here illegally out of the shadows and

get them accounted for and make them go to the end of the line and learn to speak english. >> another question about immigration. elisa villanueva? >> what is your position on the children of the undocumented immigrants to attend college? >> those people who were brought here when they were babies and the young children to know will of their own, they have been good students and progressed and the have reached the point where if they want to either go to college or join our military and participate to protect our country, i think those of the types of people that we want to build america on and let them go to college.

if they want to be citizens, they need to go to the back of the line. >> the dream act appeals to the deepest part of our emotional base. i would encourage and to do everything i can for these children. when we look at the second part , it is drafted unfairly. if you come here without documentation can be applied to go to college then you get in- state tuition no matter where you go which is unfair and the citizens who pay taxes and would go to another state to go to college. it is unfair to the people who come here legally as exchanges students. and gives preferential treatment to those people who have arrived without documentation. i think the bill is constructed a very unfairly for people who are trying to follow the role --

follow the law. we want to solve the problem and come up with a solution. the dream act, as written right now, has a provision that want to apply you cannot be said that the country for any reason. it is written very unfairly. >> his position seems to be very clear on that but i have questions about yours. i think you said you would allow the children who go forward here if they were brought to this country, but earlier in talking about immigration you said that if their parents are here illegally they would need to go back to the country from which they come and stand at the end of the line. >> if their parents were here, they would need to go to the end of the line. the children that want to go to college, i would let them go to college but they would have to stay in college and remaking their grades. if for whatever reason they dropped out or got into trouble,

they would have to leave. >> this is a different border issue. next question. >> thank you. i have been involved in emergency preparedness for the city and county for a number of years. the question we would like to pose to you this evening is, if elected explain why you would support or oppose the passage of s-1689 or the mountain peaks desert wilderness act? >> i think that is a good question because it is important to local people here. the organ peaks and the

wilderness bill -- maybe some people see it differently, but that is a lot of land. there is a big a group that once that redrawn. -- that once that to be redrawn. i think that is public land and it belongs to wallace. i have a different opinion -- it belongs to all of us. i do have a problem with some of the land in the withdrawal act near the border. because of the volatile situation along the border and how that has moved in the past few years, i have some definite concerns about access for our border patrol and other agents there. while i am supportive of the public land and it being made available to everyone, i do not think it should be sold off. it should be made available for

all people. i have concerns with the the part close to the border. >> mr. pearce? >> this reaches the deeper parts -- the deeper parts of us. i spend a lot of time backpacking. i love the wilderness. when i got to look at the legislation, it is a very restrictive legislation. you can have no power to vehicles, no wheeled vehicles, you cannot go into a technical wilderness area. this came up when i was in the u.s. congress. we did a substitute bill which would help stop development, which is what i think we all want. stop developments of houses are not in the mountains but it would not be so restrictive that you could not do anything. we see the wilderness on the western side of the state has ever been the rangers out of business there. it is hard on our overall

agricultural economy. we'll the access will not be allowed -- wheeled access will not be allowed. we toured many of the dams. in those areas, you could never take in a bull dozer to fix those dams. we saw over half of that wilderness, teh nat -- the national monument, because of drug trafficking. they cannot police in there. the drug smugglers do not care. it is bad for national security. it is bad for the potential floods in the area. we submitted an alternative bill to allow access to protected in the meantime.

>> the number one issue is jobs according to all of the polls which goes to the economy. we have a number of questions on that. let's start on that list. melodie? your turn. you have a career in politics? >> hopefully some day. we know that jobs are a bigger issue in our nation and we probably have family or friends who are unemployed. more specifically, how should we provide for the unemployed whose benefits have expired? >> the most important thing we can do for the unemployed whose benefits are expired or create jobs. when our government is doing is making an environment where jobs will not be created. the passage of the health-care bill has frozen the industry were dropped in not being created because of uncertainty about regulation and taxes in

the bill. just coming in today and visiting with a restaurant owner who said they had to eliminate 14 permanent positions to get down below the threshold because they could not afford to have health insurance. you see how our government is forcing this to get rid of jobs? i believe our prosperity is possible if we would correct the tax policies and washington, lower taxes not raise them. tax increases create -- tax decreases create jobs. it is essential to create jobs. >> the question had to do with expired benefits. >> my point is that we must have jobs for those people to go to work. >> said they did not have jobs, would you help them in any way?

>> we have an ax -- we have extended the unemployment insurance for one, two, and in some places three years. the government cannot pay people to not work. i think unemployment is designed to be bridged. are greater >> i think it is great we are talking about jobs. we are asking about jobs and hyundai are interviewing for it. when i got sworn into congress in january of last year, our country was in the process of losing 5 million jobs. we had a tremendous amount of people who were unemployed needing help.

a 5 million job whole is tremendous to dig your way out of, but we are working on that. by coming to the district and talking to people in each community, with their assets, resources and needs are and use my do it in mexico policy to create jobs there. but what we have is not enough jobs. we have a lot of work to do we have hardworking american people wondering how they're going to take care of their family and send their children to school. we're going to have to provide help to them during the interim. >> what is that help? >> while we are in the process of creating those jobs, we are going to have to extend unemployment benefits. the >> i have seen employers to tell me they have positions open and they cannot find people to take it.

a 9.5% unemployment rate and people say we have -- we would take the job if you have to pay as cash because we won't come off our unemployment benefits. i believe the government is helping to create the cause of unemployment and extending the people who could find jobs and telling employers they would rather not have it. >> i'm sure there is some of that out there, but there are more hard working american families down on their lock -- down on their luck because deregulation allowed wall street to run over main street. we lost 5 million jobs in 2008 and the first part of 2009. we have to help those people while we build our economy back. >> the discussion of 2008 and 2009, i was in congress watching mr. frank talk to the regulators and he began to say we're not

going to allow you to do this. they began to talk about raising taxes and they began to create an atmosphere of uncertainty. i mean the speaker of the house. that has frozen the job creation market. you heard president obama six weeks ago saying our corporations are holding cash. they're holding cash because they are uncertain. nobody wants to invest in the stock market their not going to get a fair rate of return. business owners are frozen to overregulation in financial- services and health-care and it is that atmosphere causing uncertainty and freezing the job market. we have a lot of capital available in the country waiting for the right environment. >> it was the deregulation and a line wall street to run over main street and the policy that you voted for that caused those jobs to go down, not somebody having conversations in congress. >> with all respect, the

deregulation of the banking industry began with the glass- steagall act, which was appealed -- which was repealed by president clinton. my testimony is you are putting our entire economy at risk with the derivatives and hedge fund that you must do something and the regulators said no, this is all the way up to and including mr. bernanke and they said those firewalls would be blunt through. both parties about the deregulation of wall street. it has been about 20 years coming. we have put our entire economy at risk by selling risky behavior in financial institutions. i voted against the bailout of wall street because i don't think your tax cut -- or tax dollars should have rewarded risky behavior. me and my pocket would visit -- would disagree on that. >> -- me and my opponent would

disagree on that. >> when i got there for the second half of the bailout of the previous congress voted yes, i voted no against the bailout. >> this next question is fairly specific. if you would address the question. go right ahead. >> manufacturing and agricultural fields have been key industries in the united states. many of these jobs are being lost to foreign competitors. how you propose to stem the loss of jobs in the agriculture and manufacturing feels? -- manufacturing fields? >> the way we will protect those jobs is quit giving corporations a tax credits for shipping jobs overseas. we will quit outsourcing those jobs and go to each individual community rather than the agricultural community. we will create those jobs in each community with the

resources that community has. >> he have to break down the loss of jobs and understand what causes the flow. tax policy is very important in pushing jobs out of the country. they will simply find someplace else to manufacture. the tax policy needs to be moderated down. we need tax breaks and not tax increases. the second thing that happens is our government regulates to highlight. least have a thriving timber industry in mexico. 20,000 jobs, that would take this back to full employment. that industry was killed by the spotted owl. i think we should keep the spotted owl alive, but we must have jobs. in the valley, 27,000 farmers put out of work over a 2 inch minnow. i think we could keep them alive and holding ponds but let the water to agriculture users. if we don't, we ship all our

jobs overseas. when we lost those jobs, we started imported vegetables where they could spray things were not allowed to hear. our food supply is less safe, the job market is decreasing, and it's because of tax policy and regulatory policy and as the only things that bring manufacturers back to us. >> they are telling me the imbalance is now five minutes in your opponent's favor. i'm not going to blame you so you're fans don't get after me. >> one -- what we need to do is close those loopholes like we already close them so that corporations do not get tax credits for shipping jobs overseas. in the last two years, we've lost 6000 jobs in mexico that have been outsourced to other companies and they get tax credits for doing it. that is not the type of tax credit we want to give people. i am all for tax credits for

small business to incentivize them to create jobs in mexico. that is what -- in new mexico. that is why talk to all of the communities about economic development and what is the resources in that community we can use to help them? using my do it in mexico energy policy, helps them create jobs with that. we are also working to get more tax incentives for small businesses that would help them hire one more employee, by one more piece of equipment. just a little more help and that is how we will start building the jobs back up. we have to keep those loopholes closed where corporations are getting tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. >> we have talked slightly about health care, but let's get into the subject.

our next question comes from a former registered nurse and current realtor. >> good evening, gentlemen. given the current health care debate, do you support the recently surpassed -- recently passed health care bill as written, and if not, what changes which make to it? >> mr. pearce, you are first. >> as we look at the health care bill, we have to understand that affordable accessible of care is the objective of every american family. when i looked at the 2500 page bill, it did not accomplish that. at the justice issued a press release today that they're going up -- aetna issued a press release today and it creates tremendous new bureaucracy. i've seen as many as 122 new

bureaucracies between you and your doctor. that is not going to provide better service to anyone. what i would do is try to repeal, but we cannot do that without the president's signature. that is a long-term process. in the meantime, we cande-fund the most -- we can de-fund the bill. we hired a 16,000 new tax agents. that tells you as more about taxes and health care. those are the two things i would try. >> i think everybody knows i voted against the health care bill because i did not think it did enough to start lowering the cost of health care to the working people of new mexico's second congressional district. the people i know who do not have health care don't have it because they cannot afford it.

to bring that out in plainer language, there are things in the health care bill we could do. i would like to fix the health care bill. the things i do not like about it are, for example, i don't like the fact that you can't buy health insurance across state lines and people in rural states like new mexico, many times we live just across from health- care that is in another state and we cannot participate in that. i don't think insurance companies should be able to maintain antitrust exemptions. there needs to be more competition to do away with that. at the same time, it's really hard to provide health care for rural america and that is what we continue to work on, to fund clinics and keep clinics of them in rural mexico and to build on

the additional hospitals or possibly can. >> mr. pearce, you say it's a long effort to repeal it, are you trying to repeal a gorgeous correct the deficiencies? >> long-term, i think americans want is to repeal it. i don't think america wants to drift towards a european socialism. i just don't think they wanted and i think they are going to find the government very intrusive. i hear the comments that if say government can run health care, let it prove it can run the post office. i think that's an adequate explanation. government is not the answer, government is the problem. >> mr. teague, you would fix it? >> the goal is to provide health care for the people of the united states. the things that are good that

are working to help, we need to keep them. the things that are punitive to the employees and employers, those are the things we need to take out of the bill. >> let's stay on this subject with a >> i can get health care cheaper in taxes than i can in mexico because of tort reform. the fear and the cost of $75,000 malpractice insurance, as far as doctors or personally don't do the right job, how do you feel about tort reform? >> he stated the question very

well, we want to make sure we protect the employees, but during the health care debates, i heard people toward reform was in significant in the cost of health insurance and it was a tremendous cost of health care. for something like that, we should have had more discussions and then the answer to that. it -- rather was a large amount or small amount. that along with any other ideas, we need to check them out and find out. one thing is not going to lower the cost of health care, it is going to be a multitude of things. any thing people think could be adding to the cost, those things can be checked out and the good things will be left there. we will continue to work in

that manner. >> what i was in congress, we passed nine different kinds of tort reform out of the house. they all died in the senate because we cannot reach the 60- vote threshold. we could not get it and we would not bend of the process to get it through. just after getting in congress, we went to ground zero in new york city. we visited with american express and they told us if you do not get rid of the frivolous lawsuits in america, there would be no fortune 500 company left in 20 years. we could extend that to say there would be no health care providers year because the threat of frivolous lawsuits is the one that continuously faces us. i have voted in the past for tort reform and i would vote for in the future. the basic thing is the loser pays.

we don't need any new ideas. it is well documented, it is protected and it causes self discipline in frivolous lawsuits. we should have shopping across state lines. the reason mexico is higher than texas is we mandate more and require more things in each policy for people that might not buy their own coverage. we should have affordability and carry insurance with us so that we own it. that does away with the pre- existing condition problem. a lot of things we can and should do, we should take each one of those so that of the american people can see what we're doing, not lump them together in a 2000 page bill. >> as you see, i don't have a problem with putting tort reform on the table and being checked out, but i don't want it to be

aware that poor people are not protected. there has to the protection because sometimes there are bad decisions made, bad things happening to people. to move completely away from that, i would not be for that. i have no problem with putting toward reform on there because we're not going to fix health care with one thing. something that is as big as that, it's going to take several different things. we're going to have to let medicare to negotiate prices with big pharmacy like to the v.a. does. to think we're going to fix it by jumping on tort reform, that is not going to do it. is it a place to look? it most definitely is. >> most people leave

compensation should be awarded -- compensation for damages that occur the can be demonstrated. the question arises over pain and suffering. should there be a cap for damages awarded for pain and suffering? if so, what do you think it reasonable cap might be? >> i don't know that there should be a cap. i think that would take some discussion because i don't feel i'm qualified or the other politicians i've served with our campaign against are qualified to set that number with the information i have. >> the process in texas has worked fairly well in stemming some of the most egregious lawsuits. everybody in new mexico remembers the lawsuit where the ladies build hot coffee on her lap and was awarded $3 million.

it is those sorts of things that cause doctors to say we cannot continue to practice. i've talked to people who deliver babies and they say every delivery is a risk and people don't want to make deliveries of babies in new mexico. at some point, or have to deal with the abuse of the system and i think the caps are definitely possible. >> it do you have a number in mind? >> that is something i have not studied. >> while i do think toward reform can stand test, it may be moved one way or another. i don't have a problem with being explored. but to take poor people's opportunity for redress away, they still lead to be served. >> i don't think i've ever said people should not have the right to sue. there are obviously people who

make mistakes and willfully do things. one of the problems in new york city was a physician taking aids medicine and selling it out the back door for steroids. we should be able to go after those kind of people who abuse the system. i am never said people should not have redress, but we must get some control of the system. >> let's tackle the 800 pound gorilla and legroom -- the rising national deficit. -- the 800 pound gorilla in the room. >> the last couple of years have created a lively debate about the size and role of government, especially regarding the deficits the government -- a government has increased. to you think the deficit is a problem? if you do, what three specific things will you do about it? >> mr. pearce. >> i do believe the deficit is a

problem. it is causing an unstable value for our dollar. u.s. seem vegetables go up 50% are 60%, and that is because the dollar is worth less. look at the price of gold and silver -- they are both going up. those are caused because we are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar we are spending. i would get rid of the fraud in medicare and medicaid. we have been told in congress that it is $90 billion a year in medicare and $60 billion a year -- those numbers are amazing to me. what i voted to close those loopholes, if you watched closely, i was hammered by the republicans and democrats because i voted against these health care choices. i was voting to close the loopholes. when we go to congress, we need the courage to take on the

political problems of the day and a fraud in medicare and medicaid are easy answers. all americans have seen their pay decrease the value of their earnings. i would revoke the last pay raise for federal employes. that would be a $30 billion savings. i would defund the 16,000 irs agents, another $15 billion savings. we get into huge numbers in short order without changing services at all. those are the places i would start. >> the first place to start is with congressional pay raises. i stop to those when i got there. that was the first bill i signed onto, to stop congressional pay raises. pay-go, i paid for and passed pay-go. i think steve voted against it, but all it does is says if you're going to spend $1,000, he had to take it out somewhere

else before you could spend it. today and yesterday, people are sitting around a coffee table in their home and making their budget for the rest of the week or until payday. at the end of the month, however people work their budgets out. if they are planning on having a tailgate party that sunday, they know they have to put that in the budget and pay for because if they don't, the budget will work. congress for the last several years did not do that. they had a 1.2 trillion dollar prescription drug bill they did not pay for. they just took it under the table. there were two wars, iraq and afghanistan, we did not pay for them. we stuck those under the table also. the tax breaks for millionaires were not paid for. there were just stuck under the

table. when those bills started coming due, that is what caused the economy to crash in 2008 when we had to start paying them. it is important we have accountability and everything and do pay go and congressional pay raises is a small step in the right direction. >> if i could address that. the idea that pay-go has been a discipline the democrats have lived with is simply fictitious. i would direct your attention to the $700 billion stimulus bill. there are more people believe that aliens landed late roswell than believe that was paid for through pay go. we did not have the $700 billion we spent out there and the deficits are skyrocketing. the bush deficits were too high. we are now at $1.4 trillion.

to say we have paid go and we are disciplining ourselves to pay for everything is stretching the imagination. it is not happening under the watch going on right now. >> if we want to keep going back, go back to when clinton bluffed and we have a budget surplus. one of the things that made spending out of control -- all of the unaccounted for spending that has to be brought out and put into the budget from the last six or eight years is driving that cost up. we have a lot of work to do. i'm not saying this one are two things will do it. we have defined accountability and initiate and live with pay go. congressional pay raises are a

step in the right direction. >> the ben bernanke testified on the hill and he said the money is in social security and medicare and frankly, gentleman, he was talking about bigger money than the best effort to get waste and fraud at out of it could achieve. would you reforms either of those systems in a way that would get big money to reduce the deficit? >> social security is something we have to address. people do get to social security have lived their lives and contributed to the program. if we let it go defunct, we have not honor the promises to people who have no other choice. the problem with social security is a began with 17 workers for every retiree.

we pay for our parents and our children pay for us. that 17-1 is down 2-1 and going down pureed we cannot raise taxes high enough to pay one person for to retirees and we cannot extend retirement years far enough. we cannot cut benefits deep enough. we have to grow the economy. a 3.5% rate of growth -- that is what we have average for the last 75 years, those tables say social security will be solvent. the second problem is in rates of return. i would not take the money at of social security, but put it in your private account and the government cannot take it and spend it. that begins to will the government responsible. the lock box is empty. it is full of ious. we have to abolish the fact we've taken the money and spend it.

let's fix it going forward. >> i want to be real clear about this because this is something i think is very important to me this job interview. as long as i am in congress, going to fight to not let them take years of security. they have raided the social security fund. congressman pearce voted for times to raise it when he was there. you're not going to let to take a new -- to let anyone take yourselves as security a gamble. it was taken out of your check to take care of you retire and it still going to be there. to beay it's going bankrupt in the short term. it is not. it is going to be solved for decades going forward. -- solvent for decades, and ford. we are going to have to make sure we don't allow government to rated again like that before. -- to raid it again.

personalize, privatize, whenever, we are not going to do any of that. i will be fighting force also security to be there just like it was promised when we held it out of your paycheck. >> the idea we voted to raid the fund of four times -- i voted for the budget. understand whether you vote for the budget or not, every time you vote for an appropriation bill, it takes money that has been taken from poses security and put a good general fund and spends it. mr. teague voted 22 times to spend the fund. the fact he voted against the budget is of little consequence because your money was taken out. the money is not there. to say it's risky to put the money in your name and the politicians can't take it, i

don't investors get all. every 401k in the world is like that. if they cannot touch congressional retirement, and they should be able to touch social security retirement to pay for appropriations. mr. teague voted for those 22 times. i need to correct that concept. >> let's move to education. a retired pastor who is active in the community. your question? >> we all know that education is being threatened by the economic situation. is a critical question. what role if any should the federal government play in seeking to cover the projected $250 million-3 and earned $50 million for fund isn't -- shortfall for education funding in the mexico? >> we have taken steps to make

sure we keep teachers in a classroom. we passed that legislation in late august this year. anytime you're talking about education, you're talking about no child of behind and that's something we will have to address very soon. it has been put off to long. we are either going to have to fix it and send it or forget about it and go with a different program because the child left behind is not working. that, along with the crash in the economy is causing a terrible problem with school systems across the united states, especially in mexico. >> should the federal government provide three entered $50 million because of the education shortfall in the states? >> there will be money already coming to them to meet teacher''

wages and things like that. we have already voted on things that will be coming and we are already helping to some degree. >> the problem we face is our system is broken. financially and operationally. the problem was education is the administration costs soaked up to 50% away from the classroom. we cannot continue to build a bureaucracy in washington. over and over we would commit more money to projects and what we -- more money to programs. let me get to the classroom, we don't find more money coming to the classroom. we have to get bureaucracy's fixed. i would take the money and/the deborah students and block grant the state to local school boards and let them contract for the services they want. that would begin to see the

department of education providing useful functions because right now i think we're ever going to improve education if we don't do it. the idea we would continue to fund a system that is broken -- that is broken not working will take us exactly where greece is. you see the rights in the streets because their economy is broken and they can no longer provide everything they said they're going to do. in california, their state is shutting down services to end three days a week because the canal longer provide the services with the inefficiencies of the government and drive jobs out of the state. if we do not collect the job growth, we will not be able to fix anything. these problems will begin to evaporate the shortfalls in education. >> -- if we're going to bailout the states -- >> [crosstalk]

>> we are not going to kick the can down the road. we have to address the size of administrative costs in our schools. i don't think we can continue to have 30 percent of the money go outside the classroom. our education is too important. >> i promised these gentleman five minutes toward the end of the program. i'm not certain how much time we have left, but i assure the timekeepers in the comptroller will tell right now. we are right there. -- ensure the controllers -- the timekeepers in the control room will tell us right now. mr. teague? >> i would like to say thank you for hosting the event and i want to thank all of the people who are here to ask the questions and those of you who did not ask questions, you are participating

today, i want to say thank you to mexico state university and sam donaldson for being the moderator. to all of the people out there and the congressional district, across is for taking time. i'd like to recognize my wife and children and thank all of you. this has been an unusual, a unique, interesting forum tonight to discuss the problems of the second congressional district. it is kind of like a job interview. that is the decision that you, the voters will have to make is which of the applicants to hire for the job. do you want to hire me, someone who has been to the district

constantly and been to every community and visited with you by your needs and resources and how to make the community stronger one by one. congressman pearce was here for six years and then chose to leave to do something else. he took $46,000 a pair raises while l.a. congress and charge you, the taxpayers, $17,000 to apply -- to fly his personal jet around the country. i want you to know i will be here if you want me. i would like to have the job. it's the biggest honor. >> to correct him, the jets he is to have -- you see that were laid gig on the front of mine, that makes them propeller jobs. for you to say that is

ludicrous. the fact you say we took 17 dozen dollars, that was official business. you paid more for a chevy malibu in one year that we paid for our airplane in six years. if you're going to pick up rocks and throw them, you have to answer the questions yourself. you took the same of $46,000 pay raise he accused me of but you have not mention that. we came to the district every week. we probably did a thousand of these town hall meetings because this is where are a republican gets six strength. when the elected officials are in front of the people taking these questions, we feel like this is where the strength of our public comes from. thank you to you all, i think my wife, thank you.

mostly, thank you to the panelists for being here and asking the questions. we appreciate the thoughtfulness that went in it today. it is a job interview. i'm asking for your support. i appreciate everything and would appreciate your prayers as we go through the campaign. thank you to the entire staff. >> we have one more round of one minute each. >> i would like to say thank you to everyone who has participated, from the mexico state university, the panelists that have been here, everyone who is out there, i would ask for your vote and say the biggest honor i've ever had in my life is to represent you in the united states congress. thank you. >> thank you to congressman

teague for his service. we have different ways to approach the problems. i believe if we're going to find prosperity in our nation again and find jobs that give us the sense that things are going to be ok, we have to rebuild manufacturing and rebuild our job economy throughout the country. our government is doing things that kill jobs, it is conducting a war on the up -- on our prosperity. lowering taxes, finding the common-sense balance by between job creation and protection of the environment and the worker, our best days are ahead of us. i'm excited about the future, i'm excited about the future -- the challenges of fixing the economy. god bless you. >> it's hard to answer a question in one or two words. but the thing we will, of this recession in the next year or two or will it be longer? >> yes. >> that's great.

>> in one or two years, yes. we will see a lot of progress. >> if we change the policies and washington, we have the absolute ability to cover -- to recover. if we continue to overregulated and overtax, the recovery is not in sight. >> thank you the above. we have run out of time for this discussion. thank you to the canvas for your participation. republican steve pearce and democrat harry teague. it was a spirited debate but very civil and thank you for that. thank you to the committee members who developed the questions as well as mexico first for facilitating the process. i would like to thank new mexico for said republic television and radio stations for the opportunity to be part of all three of these town hall forums. it is an honor for me. thank you, ladies and gentleman for watching. if you have not voted already,

vote on november 2nd. i'm sam donaldson. good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> later this afternoon, a politico and georgetown university host a forum on tamara's midterm elections. democratic and republican pollsters discuss our final poll numbers. their analysis and production of the elections. you'll see that live at 6:00 eastern here on c-span. there may be 100 house races in play for the midterm elections.

roll-call rates certain races for democratic incumbents that president obama should be watching tomorrow night as a gauge for how his agenda will move forward. a few of them include colorado, ohio, and pennsylvania. final election results in some states may not be down for days. the associated press says there are states to watch early in the evening, including georgia, indiana, kentucky, south carolina and west virginia. six state polls close at 7:00 eastern and another 16 close at 8:00 eastern. our election results coverage begins at 7:00 where we will have victory and concession speeches and take your calls. >> on the eve of elections, what might a republican-controlled house mean for the telecommunications and technology industries? we will talk about that tonight on "the communicators" on the c-

span to -- c-span2. >> and now a debate on the georgia governor's race. the candidates are running to replace the governor whose term is limited. this race is rated leans republican. >> in good evening and we would like to welcome our viewers and live studio audience to the 2010 atlanta press club of a series originating from the studios of gpd. this is a debate for the candidates of governor of

georgia. they are roy barnes, the democratic candidate who has been a partner in a law firm -- law firm for 30 years and was governor torch from 1998-2002. nathan deal, the republic in canada it served 18 years in the u.s. house of representatives from 1992-2010. the libertarian candidate is a graduate of morehouse college in atlanta and a former employee of lehman brothers. our format tonight in the first round, the candidates will answer questions from one of our three panelist. in the second round, the candidates will ask two questions of the opponent of his choice. there'll be an opportunity for rebuttal in this round and in the third round, the panelists will continue questioning the candidates. each candidate will have 60 seconds to make a closing statement. let's meet our three panelists selected by the atlanta press club. we have tom crawford, editor of the "toward a report."

aaron haynes is a reporter for the associated press. and our final catalyst is a reporter for gpb radio in savannah. in the first round, the panelists will be asked a question and last 60 seconds to answer. the first question comes from thomas crawford. he will ask the question of nathan deal. >> congressman deal, on several occasions, it has been reported your congressional staff whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers have spent a lot of time trying to intervene with state and local government officials on behalf of your private business interests. i would like you to address the issue of whether you consider it proper to use federal employes to work for these purposes. >> i don't believe you'll find we have intervened on behalf of many private businesses. i think it is altogether appropriate for anybody to ask

questions of public officials. that is all we have done. we have asked questions of the revenue commissioner when he was abolishing the program for inspecting vehicles. i believe it was a safety issue. i asked him what he was going to do to replace the program and he said we will privatize it. i said if that is what you want to do, that is fine. the only other inquiry that has been made is a question asked of our county officials as to the status of a road. there has been no public money spent on either of these projects. i think it's altogether appropriate for someone to be able to ask questions, whether they are a public official or not. that is all that has been done. >> thank you. the next question is for john. >> despite your being first to

be on a beach -- the first african-american for governor, also the libertarian candidate. >> i think george voters ought to understand if they want to for now, as from some of the broken promises they have had over the years, if they vote for my opponents, nothing is going to change. with all the disgruntled voters out there, they realize i have also gotten over a million votes in election. there's a chance to make history on tuesday. if voters realize getting back to those founding principles of respect for individual rights, a limited constitutional government, were liberties for individuals to control their own lives, those are the things that are important to them. things that have historically worked. that is what they are concerned about.

their choice should be john monds and that's a choice they should feel good about. that is why my message has been resonating and on tuesday, we will shock the world with the results. >> our final question is for roy barnes. >> the georgia port authority sounded the alarm about the need to start deepening the savannah harbor quickly. you say if congress does not act to finance the deepening that the state should do it on a ton and then ask the federal government for the money back later. is that not an exceptionally risky move and where would to get the millions for it? >> it is a risky move and it is caused by the fact of our congressional delegation doesn't seem to have enough influence to be able to get a funny -- get the funding to deepen the port. they keep saying they're going to do it but they are not. we cannot allow this port not to be deepened. what we would probably have to do is go to a private-public

partnership to raise that type of money and all but a portion of the be from the state. what ever has to be done, that port has to be deepened. where is sam nunn and richard russell what we need them? would you have never thought there would be a state, that the state of georgia would not have enough influence for people like sam nunn and richard russell to be able to deepen our allport to compete? >> thank you. that concludes round one. it is now time for candidates to ask questions of the opponent of his choice. you'll have 30 seconds for the question and 60 seconds for the answer and 60 seconds for a bottle -- 30 seconds for rebuttal. >> by question is for congressman deal. as a congressman, you should be familiar with the constitution of the united states. according to the ninth amendment, there are certain rights retained by the people that may not be enumerated

because constitution. could you give me examples of rights retained by the people? >> i think people retain almost all the rights trade the tent but as our states' rights and that says the states of the people are the repository of the ultimate power and the federal government should only have those that are enumerated. i believe the people possess the right to have their own money and not have it taken away from them unduly by government. that is why i have a platform of cutting taxes in this state, being frugal with expensive -- expenses the state government will be spending. i also believe people have the right, as the constitution says, to keep and bear arms of the second amendment. that was put in place to protect their right. that's why i have the endorsement of groups like george carey. -- georgia carry.

they're there for the purposes of limiting the federal government and given the repository of those powers back to the state and the people. that is why we need a good, strong governor to assert the rights of the state. >> first of all, those rights that are not enumerated in the constitution. right to bear arms is. that is part of the second amendment and the right for people to keep their money, i don't think your track record portrays that you believe that. i did not hear any other examples. it's hard to believe a congressman for 18 years with knowledge of the constitution could do better than that. -- couldn't do better than that. >> congressman deal, in 1992, when the general assembly and the state senate was taking up a bill dealing with ethics, the first ethics bill, there was a hearing held in a committee and

senator kathy steinberg was there. there was a discussion of solicitation of contributions and you turned to her and said i don't have to explain to you what solicitation is, do you? the you think it was an appropriate remarque and should you offer an apology? >> let me get this right. you are asking me about a comment made 18 years ago? when you were running for governor in 1998 and you were asked questions about boats you made, you said anybody who would reach back 20 years -- votes you made, he said anybody who reach back 20 years that is simply a desperate candidate. i quite honestly don't remember the conversation. she and i along with you served in the state said together and have the utmost respect for her. but i quite honestly don't recall any conversation of that

type. >> here is the article in 1992 and there is a full had lied about it. in fact, she did take offense to it and you never offered apology. i was just asking if you thought was an appropriate statement to be made? >> i do not recall i did anything that offended anybody. that is not my nature. anyone who knows me knows i'm not someone who goes around offending people and i don't recall the conversation. interesting to me that in a debate for governor in 2010, a conversation that happened 18 years ago seems to be a subject of controversy. that does not quite fit with the priorities the voters of this they want us to be talking about. >> i have to remind the panel that there are no props loudly this debate. the next question is from base in deal. >> you were the candidate for --

your candidate for attorney general has publicly stated that he would not pursue the legal challenge to the obama health care legislation because he thinks is constitutional. you have stated you think it is constitutional but you would continue litigation. my question is, if both of you are elected, how would you challenge obama care or would you simply give up the challenge? >> if you know the constitution of georgia and the procedures of operating, there is sometimes conflicts between the attorney general and the governor. that has happened at least half a dozen times i can recall. when that happens, the governor appoints independent counsel and continues. i think the independent counsel we have now sufficient and i would continue to appoint it. >> i voted against obama care because i thought was one of the

largest power grabs over the lives of individuals we have seen in our lifetime. i also believe this is an effort to extend the control over an issue that's very personal and private. if mr. barnes says he believes it is constitutional but would pursue litigation, that to me is the ultimate conflict. why would you spend taxpayer money challenging something you think is constitutional? the think the first administration the obama administration would call? they would call mr. barnes to tell him they don't think his suit is worth pursuing. >> my second question is for congressman deal once again. you talk yourself as a fiscal conservative and i'm still trying to find out what that means. your record shows you have voted for no child left behind, and increase in medicare twice.

with that type of record, what makes you conservative? >> you keep asking the same question. let me tell you this. i have been named one of the 10 most conservative members of the congress of the united states. 435 members, to be in the top 10 is an admirable position to be an and is illustrative of the fact i am a fiscal conservative. in 2005, with the federal deficit reduction act, as the chairman of the health subsidies committee, we cut by $10 billion the cost of medicaid. i was multiplied across the state's many times over. we also cut an additional $10 billion out of the overall jurisdiction of the energy and commerce committee. toyou don't think we ought have pharmaceutical benefits for senior citizens, we have a difference of opinion. i think it's a program that has worked exceptionally well and has helped reduce the cost of the other portions of the medicare program such as

physicians and hospital care. i have a conservative record and a big no apology for that fact in the record proves it. >> your explanation is some groups as you are fiscally conservative so that makes you fiscally conservative, yet you just how did voting for medicare twice which was one of the largest increases in socialized medicine since 1965 and no child left behind -- i don't care who said you are conservative. obviously a record does not prove it. >> congressman deal, you voted against the family violence act and its expansions four times. one time your the only representative, the only member of the general assembly that voted against it. you voted against the equal pay for equal work at four times. you voted against the violence against women act, you voted

against the family and medical leave act. you voted against funding state and local governments for catching up on dna samples of rate gets in 2003 and -- rape kits in 2003 and you voted against a minimum-wage increase. would you change any of those votes if you could do it again? >> you are asking things that go back some 20 years. i'm the only one in this race has been a juvenile court judge dealing with issues relating to families and children. i'm the only one that has prosecuted rapists and sent to prison rather than defending them as you have done. i am the only one who has prosecuted people who have assaulted and murdered children rather than defending them, as you have done. if you want to ask about federal legislation where they bungle things together and the first against the violence against women act was the vote in which

the -- under which bill clinton combined control of weapons and every of a thing under the sun. when it was a second vote under republican leadership in the 2005, i voted for the violence against women act and increase the funding for rape centers and family domestic violence centers by 20%. one of the largest increases we have seen in that funding. >> i have prosecuted rapists also. you're not the only one who is ever been a prosecutor. i have prosecuted rapist and put them to jail. i've sent men to the electric chair. how dare you stand up and say just the issue prosecuted misinform or another that you can vote against every