STARTS RIGHT NOW.

>> THIS IS SPECIAL PRIMARY

EDITION OF "OFF THE RECORD" WITH

THE THREE REPUBLICANS RUNNING

FOR THE U.S. SENATE NOMINATION.

PETE HOEKSTRA IS HERE.

ALONG WITH RANDALL HEKMAN AND

CLASHING DURANT.

NO RULES EXCHANGE COMING UPRIGHT

NOW ON, "OFF THE RECORD."

¶

WELCOME DO THIS SPECIAL EDITION.

NO RULES DEBATE.

LET'S BEGIN WITH YOU MR. DURANT.

LET'S SAY YOU ARE U.S. SENATE

AND THERE ARE DOLLARS ALLOCATE

AGO BRIDGE?

>>LY VOTE NO BECAUSE THE

TAXPAYERS ARE OVERBURDENED BY

WASHINGTON'S POLICIES OF

SPENDING AND DEBT.

IN POINT OF FACT IF A BRIDGE IS

WORTH IT, IT SHOULD BE BECAUSE

ALL THE TRAFFIC AND TRADE THAT

SHOULD COME TO MICHIGAN, PRIVATE

INVESTORS SHOULD FUND THAT

BRIDGE.

JUST LIKE THEY DID WITH THE

KEYSTONE PIPELINE PINE THEY PUT

UP $7 BILLION OF PRIVATE MONEY.

THERE IS PRIVATE MONEY FOR THE

BRIDGE AND IT WILL MAKE MONEY

BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED

TRAFFIC.

>> Tim: SO WHEN THE GOVERNOR

SAYS IT WILL CREATE JOBS YOU

SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE IT?

>> I BELIEVE JOBS WILL BE

CREATED BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED

TRADE THAT IS POSSIBLE.

>> Tim: THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED

YOU.

>> I BELIEVE THAT JOBS WILL BE

CREATED WE GET INCREASED TRADE

AND PRIVATE BUSINESS SHOULD BE

INVESTING IN THAT.

>> I WOULD VOTE THE SAME WAY.

I WOULD VOTE NO.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BEYOND

BROKE.

THERE IS A BIG ISSUE BEFORE OUR

COUNTRY TODAY.

THE HOUSE THAT IS ON FIREFIGHTER

IS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

FAR MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN.

>> Tim: SO THE GOVERNOR IS WRONG

TO PROPOSE THIS?

>> SHE WRONG TO SAY THAT FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT SHUCK PAYING FOR IT.

PRIVATE MONEY IS AVAILABLE.

>> MR. HOEKSTRA?

>> I WOULDN'T VOTE.

THE VOTE WOULD HAVE EVER BEEN

PROPOSED WE WOULD HAVE CHANGED

FEDERAL POLICY AND SAID THAT GAS

TAX DOLLARS THAT ARE COLLECTED

IN MICHIGAN ARE SPENT IN

MICHIGAN AND THEY DON'T GO TO

WASHINGTON.

THERE IS NO REASON WHY SENATORS

IN ARIZONA, SENATORS IN KENTUCKY

OR FLORIDA SHOULD BE DECIDING ON

SPENDING FOR A BRIDGE IN

MICHIGAN.

>> Tim: THIS IS ONE OF

FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES.

>> THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES,

CHANGING THE WAY WASHINGTON

WORKS AND MOVING THEM BACK TO

THE STATED.

>> BUT YOU VOTED FOR ALL SORTS

OF EARMARKS THAT DID PRECISELY

SAID SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.

YOU VOTED FOR THOUSANDS OF THOSE

EARMARKS TO TAKE TAXPAYER

DOLLARS AND SEND THEM TO

CLEVELAND, SEND THEM TO IOWA,

THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS

THAT WHEN YOU SAY CHANGE

WASHINGTON, YOU DIDN'T CHANGE

WASHINGTON.

>> CLARK, THIS IS ONE OF THE

MYTHS YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK.

I VOTED IN 1990s WHEN I WAS ON

THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WITH JOHN

KASICH.

FIRST TIME WE HAD THE

OPPORTUNITY AND I'M ON THE

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND

BUDGET COMMITTEE.

WE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING POLICY

AND MOVING MONEY BACK TO THE

STATES.

I STOOD WITH JOHN AND SAID THAT

MONEY NEEDS TO STAY IN THE

STATES, IT DOESN'T, IT SHOULDN'T

COME TO WASHINGTON.

>>> LET'S ASSUME FOR A

THEORETICAL DISCUSSION, IF HAD

TO VOTE FOR MONEY ON THE BRIDGE,

HOW YOU WOULD VOTE, JUST SAY YES

OR NO?

>> WHAT'S THAT.

NO I WOULD NOT, THESE GUYS ARE

CORRECT IN WHAT THIS DOES IT

DRIVES MONEY, THE MONEY COMES

BACK TO THE STATES, THE MONEY IS

BEING SPENT IN WASHINGTON.

THEY DON'T HAVE WASHINGTON

ALLOCATING THE MONEY.

LET THE GOVERNOR IN THIS

LEGISLATURE DECIDE WHAT THE

PRIORITIES ARE FOR THE STATES.

>> IF YOU HAD BEEN IN THE SENATE

WHEN TEDDY KENNEDY WERE ALIVE

AND HE SAID MR. HEKMAN, I WANT

TO WORK WITH YOU ON HEALTH CARE,

WOULD YOU SIT DOWN AND WORK WITH

HIM?

>> I WOULD WORK WITH ANYBODY.

YOU DON'T COMPROMISE PRINCIPLES.

I DON'T BELIEVE HEALTHCARE IS

COMING FROM THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT.

THE OBAMACARE, THE FIASCO THAT

WE HAVE PUTS A GOVERNMENT

BUREAUCRAT BETWEEN ME.

>> SO YOU WOULD SAT DOWN WITH

LIBERAL TEDDY KENNEDY ON THOSE

ISSUES?

>> I LOVE DEMOCRATS,

INDEPENDENTS, REPUBLICANS.

I HAVE AN INDEPENDENT EN COURSE

GO ME.

>> Tim: WHAT YOU HAVE DONE?

>> THAT I ALREADY DONE THAT.

AFTER PRESIDENT BUSH GOT ELECTED

I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO DOWN

TO AUSTIN AND SIT WITH

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND A

PRESIDENT BUSH AND TALK ABOUT

REFORMING EDUCATION, NO KLEILTD

LEFT BEHIND.

WE STARTED TOGETHER SAYING WE

NEED TO REFORM THE FEDERAL ROLE

IN EDUCATION.

WHEN NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

REACHED AND BECAME LEGISLATIVE

LANGUAGE, YOU SAY, TED, IT WAS

NICE WORKING WITH YOU BUT YOU'VE

GONE IN SUCH A DIRECTION I'M

VOTING NO.

>> Tim: YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM

WORKING WITH DEMOCRATS ON THE

OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE?

>> YOU HAVE TO TREAT EVERYBODY

WITH RESPECT.

THEY HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY THEIR

CON CITY WENLTS TO COME TO

WASHINGTON AND WORK TOWARDS

SOLUTIONS.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH

THEM BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU

HAVE TO COMPROMISE YOUR

PRINCIPLES TO GET SOMETHING

DONE.

>> WOULD YOU HAVE WORKED WITH

TEDDY KENNEDY?

>> I SPENT 25 YEARS OF MY LIFE

WORKING WITH PEOPLE TO SOLVE

APPROXIMATE AND HAVE BEEN

SUCCESSFUL IN DOING SO.

THE THING THAT IS CRITICAL WHEN

YOU ARE WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHO

ARE NOT IN THE SAME PLACE THAT

YOU ARE, IS TO FIGURE OUT IF

IT'S A SOLUTION THAT WORKS OR

COSTS MORE MONEY.

IF I HAD BEEN PETE HOEKSTRA, I

WOULD HAVE BEEN WORKING TO ABOOL

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

INSTEAD OF FIGHTING NO CHILD

LEFT BEHIND.

I WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY ACTIVELY

WORKING TO SEE THAT THE

DEPARTMENT OF FEDERAL ROLE IN

EDUCATION IS ZERO.

WE HAVE 50 DEPARTMENTS OF

EDUCATION.

WE HAVE OUR COMMUNITIES AND

LOCAL SCHOOLS, GET THE

GOVERNMENT OUT OF EDUCATION IN

OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

>> Tim: QUICK ANSWERS TO SHORTER

QUESTIONS.

HOW DID YOU VOTE ON LEGALIZING

MEDICAL MARIJUANA?

>> THAT IS A PERSONAL VOLT.

I WON'T TELL YOU HOW I'M VOTING

IN THE BALLOT BOX.

>> DO YOU THINK PEOPLE OUGHT TO

HAVE ACCESS TO THAT?

>> THAT IS A DECISION THAT IS

MADE THROUGH THE FDA.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN CONFLICT

BETWEEN THE FDA AND STATED RULES

AND REGULATIONS.

WHAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE A MESS IN

THIS STATE IN TERMS OF HOW YOU

ARE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING THIS

NEW PROCESS IN THE STATE.

IT'S A MESS.

>> Tim: WOULD YOU SUPPORT A

TWO-THIRDS VOTED TO RAISE TAXES

ON SO-CALLED SUPER MAJORITY?

>> I SUPPORT SUPER MAJORITY, I

WOULD SUPPORT A SUPER MAJORITY

AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO RAISE

TAXES AND TO RAISE SPENDING.

>> Tim: WOULD YOU VOTE TO BAN

ASSAULT WEAPONS?

>> I VOTED KNOW ON BANNING

ASSAULT WEAPONS.

>> HOW WOULD YOU DO ON THAT?

>> I WOULD NOT BAN ASSAULT

WEAPONS.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT GUNS, IT'S

PEOPLE.

IT'S APPLYING THE LAW TO PEOPLE

WHO VIOLATED LAWSUIT.

>> TWO-THIRDS VOTE ON TAXES?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

POINT OF FACT, PETE HOEKSTRA

SAID HE WANTED THE NEW PATRIOT

TAX.

PEOPLE ARE OVERTAXED THE

GOVERNMENT HAS OVERTAXED US.

WE NEED TO BE REDUCING TAXES NOT

JUST HOLDING THEM THE SAME.

>> Tim: HOW YOU WOULD VOTE FOR

MEDICAL MARIJUANA?

>> I THINK.

>> Tim: YOU DIDN'T VOTE?

>> I THINK IN POINT OF FACT,

MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS LIMITED

ONLY TO PRESCRIBED MEDICAL

PURPOSES PROPERLY SUPERVISED I

THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE.

>> I WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR IT?

>> I DON'T REVEAL MY VOTES IN

THAT WAY.

I WOULD HAVE VOTED TO SEE THAT

PRESCRIBED LIMITED, SUPERVISED

ICE FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES ONLY

WOULD BE PERMISSION I BELIEVE.

>> WOULD THE BALLOT PROPOSAL

MEET THE CRITERIA?

>> I DON'T THINK SO.

I DON'T THINK IT MET THOSE

PURPOSES, I VOTED AGAINST IT.

>> I VOTED NO.

I AM A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND

JUDGE.

YOU ALLOW IT ONE DOOR AND PEOPLE

TAKE UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

>> TWO ADVISOR THIRDZ VOTE ON

RAISING TAXES?

>> I WOULD SUPPORTED THAT.

>> VOTE ON BANNING PURCHASE OF

ASSAULT WEAPONS?

>> I WOULD VOTE NO.

>> MR. DURANT HAS DONE SOMETHING

CIVILLY WRONG, THE ALLEGATIONS

IN THE U.S. SENATE?

>> WE FILED A CLAIM IN THE SUPER

PAC, THEY ARE ADVOCATING THE

ELECTION OF MR. DURANT.

ON JULY 15 FILED A STATEMENT

WE'VE RAISED NO MONEY UP UNTIL

JUNE 3rd.

>> Tim: DO YOU HOLD HIM

PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT?

>> NO.

I HOPE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENTAL

WILL FINISH THEIR INVESTIGATIONS

BUT AS CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE, I

HOPE WE'VE ALL MET THE STANDARD

THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY

AFFILIATION DIRECTLY OR

INDIRECTLY WITH A SUPER PAC.

I'M ASSUMING THAT MR. DURANT HAS

MET THE CRITERIA.

>> Tim: HE IS NOT UNFITTED TO

SERVE IN THE U.S. SENATE?

>> NO.

I THINK PETE HOEKSTRA HAS JOINED

WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO ATTACK ME

REGARDING CORNERSTONE SCHOOLS.

WHAT A DIRTY IS JET ABOUT THIS

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE VICIOUSLY

STARTED TO ATTACK A TREMENDOUS

SUCCESS STORY IN DETROIT FOR

THIS REASON.

THEY KNOW THEIR INTERNAL POLLS

THAT SAYS CLARK DURANT WOULD BE

MORE FORMIDABLE CANDIDATE

AGAINST DEBBY STABENOW.

THE ATTACKS ARE DESIGNED TO

DEFEAT ME IN THE PRIMARY.

>>> THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ATTACKS

ARE THEY ANY OF THEM TRUE?

>> NO, EVERYTHING WE DID WERE

ALL CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS.

>> Tim: HAS MR. DURANT DONE

ANYTHING WRONG?

>> THE SUPER PAC THING.

THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE

INDEPENDENT.

WHEN THE BROTHER OF THE CAMPAIGN

CHAIRMAN IS HEAD OF A SUPER PAC,

ONE HAS TO ASK THE QUESTION, IS

IT REALLY INDEPENDENT?

HE IS SAYING HE IS INDEPENDENT.

COME ON.

IT'S YOUR BROTHER.

>> NOT MY BROTHER.

>> IT'S THE CHAIRMAN'S BROTHER

THAT RUNS IT AND THE AD ITSELF

HAS A LOT OF SIMILARITIES TO IT.

IT STRIKES ME THERE IS SOME

OVERLAP.

COMMON SENSE TELLS US THERE HAS

TO BE SOME OVERLAP.

>> I AM NOT SAYING HE IS GUILTY.

>> YOU DIDN'T BELIEVE.

>> I'M JUST SAYING, COME ON.

>> WHY DID YOU LOOK AT HIM LIKE

THAT?

>> I'M SHOCKED, RANDY.

STOP PLAYING POLITICS.

MOST IMPORTANT THING FACING OUR

COUNTRY IS LACK OF JOBS AND

ECONOMY.

WE HAVE CAREER POLITICIANS

PLAYING IN THE WEEDS WITH THESE

OTHER THINGS.

OF COURSE IT'S INDEPENDENT.

IT'S A FREE COUNTRY, BY THE WAY.

WE OUGHT TO BE TALKING ABOUT HOW

CAREER POLITICIANS, WITH ALL DUE

RESPECT TO MY REPUBLICAN

OPPONENT PETE HOEKSTRA WHO HAS

BEEN IN CONGRESS FOR 18 YEARS

AND GONE ALONG WITH DEBBY

STABENOW IN LIMITING MICHIGAN

PRODUCTS WHERE WE GROW THINGS

AND MAKE THINGS TO BE SHIPPED

OVER THE MARKET.

>> Tim: YOU ACCUSE HOEKSTRA TO

LEAK SECURITY INFORMATION?

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.

>> IT'S A LUDICROUS CHARGE.

IT'S THE SAME KIND OF CHARGE

THAT CLARK MADE JUST NOW SAKE

HOEKSTRA IS LIKE STABENOW.

90% AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION,

HUNDRED PERCENT PRO-LIFE, DEBBY

IS ZERO.

STRAIGHT A'S FROM THE NRA.

DEBBY IS STRAIGHT "F".

DEBBY IS SPEND THRIFT.

IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT

PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN ARE SO

FRUSTRATED RIGHT NOW BECAUSE

CLARK, THE NEGATIVE ADS DON'T

WORK.

THEY ARE NOT TRUE.

THE END RESOLVE THE POLLING

NUMBERS CONTINUE TO BE VERY,

VERY STRONG.

THIS IS VERY MUCH, VERY SIMILAR

TO WHAT YOU DID WHEN YOU RAN FOR

OFFICE IN 1990.

YOU WERE WAY DOWN.

[ LAUGHTER ]

>> YOU WERE RUNNING FOR OFFICE

LONG BEFORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

I WAS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

THE NUMBERS ARE BAD.

YOU START RUNNING A DESPERATE

CAMPAIGN.

YOU STARTED RUNNING NEGATIVE

ADS.

YOU CALL FOR LINCOLN DOUGLAS

DEBATES.

THE SAME PERSON IS RUNNING THE

CAMPAIGN AND DOING THE SAME

THING NOW 11 YEARS LATER.

>> LET'S LOOK AT THIS CONCRETE.

MY AD SAYS THE FOLLOWING THINGS,

THAT WASHINGTON CHANGED PETE

HOEKSTRA.

YOU CAME IN 1992 AND YOU GAVE A

OP-ED FOR THE WASHINGTON TIMES.

YOU TOLD EVERYBODY THAT THE DEBT

AND SPENDING THAT WAS BEFORE US

WOULD BURY OUR CHILDREN AND OUR

GRANDCHILDREN.

WHAT DID YOU DO?

WHAT YOU DID YOU VOTED TIME AND

TIME AGAIN AND THEN YOUR LAST

VOTE TOOK THE DEBT TO OVER $11

TRILLION.

EVEN DEBBY STABENOW DIDN'T VOTE

FOR THE WALL STREET BAILOUT AND

YOU DID.

STABENOW DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE

CONTROLLER GENERAL CALLED THE

MOST IRRESPONSIBLE PIECE OF

LEGISLATION, MEDICARE PART "D".

>> IT'S CLEAR, MY RECORD IS A

FISCAL CONSERVATIVE.

I VOTED FOR TARP BECAUSE JUST

LIKE PAUL RYAN RECOGNIZED THIS

WAS NOT ABOUT BAILING OUT WALL

STREET.

IT WAS BAILING OUT AND HELPING

PEOPLE AT THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL.

THIS WAS GOING TO SHUT DOWN

SMALL, MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESSES

ACROSS THE STAIT.

IN OAKLAND COUNTY, THE TRUTH OF

THE MATTER --

>> THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS

ALL THAT MONEY.

[ TALKING OVER EACH OTHER ]

>> IT'S STILL WORKING.

>> YOU KNOW WHAT.

THIS IS LIKE, FRANKLY, TWO

PEOPLE WRESTLING IN A LITTLE ROW

BOAT HEADING OVER THE NIAGRA

FALLS.

WE ARE AMERICANS WHETHER WE'RE

DETAILS, INDEPENDENTS OR HERE WE

ARE REPUBLICANS.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE THREE

OF US, IF WE GET TO WASHINGTON,

D.C., WE WILL VOTE, ANY ONE OF

US WILL VOTE WITHIN SINGLE

PERCENTAGE VOTES THE SAME.

WE ARE ARGUING, WE NEED -- TO ME

THE BIG ISSUE IS NOT WHO GETS

ELECTED.

THE BIG ISSUE WE NEED TO FIX OUR

COUNTRY.

OUR COUNTRY IS GOING OVER THE

CLIFF.

>> YOU SAID THE OTHER DAY, SIR,

THAT HAD YOU A STRONG SENSE,

THAT GOD WANTS US IN THIS THING.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

>> REFERRING TO MY WIFE AND ME.

RIGHT.

AGAIN IT GOES BACK TO DECEMBER

2010, A STRONG SENSE THAT WE

NEED TO DO THIS AND CONFIRM BY

TALKING TO OUR KIDS.

WE HAVE 12 KIDS.

>> YOU SAID GOD WANTS US IN THIS

THING.

HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD WANTS YOU IN

THIS?

>> YOU DON'T KNOW 2010 HINDSIGHT

OR VISION, YOU KNOW THE SENSES

IN YOUR HEART.

I HAVE A HEART FOR OUR COUNTRY.

1.3 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN

OUR LIVES SO WE CAN ENJOY THIS

CONVERSATION TODAY.

I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIENCE.

LET AMERICA DIE.

WE LIVE HANDFUL OF YEARS

REACHING A DROP DEAD DATE WHERE

ALL THE MONEY ONLY PAYS INTEREST

ON OUR DEBT.

I THINK EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO

BE INVOLVED IN THIS CRISIS.

NEEDS TO ASK GOD, BRING A

REVIVAL TO AMERICA.

THAT IS ONLY THING THAT IS GOING

TO FUEL CHANGED HEARTS.

BUT WHAT DOES GOD WANT ME TO DO.

IT'S SO CLEAR TO ME AND MY WIFE

AS WE TRAVEL THE STATE.

WE'VE BEEN IN THE STATE LONGER

THAN THESE TWO GUYS.

WE LOVE THIS.

WE WANTED TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY.

>> WOULD YOU VOTE TO ELIMINATE

THE HOME INTEREST TAX?

>> HE HAS ASKED THIS IN A WAY TO

CALL INTO QUESTION HIS OWN

COMMITMENT AND WAITED GOD WOULD

SPEAK TO HIM.

BOTH PETE AND I HAVE BEEN ON THE

TRAIL WITH RANDY.

I CAN SPEAK FOR BOTH US, NO ONE

WOULD GO THROUGH THE KINDS OF

THINGS THAT ALL OF US ARE GOING

THROUGH UNLESS WE FELT A DEEPER

CALLING.

I BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE WITH

PETE.

I BELIEVE THAT GOD HAS CALLED

EVERY PERSON TO FIND A PLACE IN

THEIR LIVES WHERE THEY CAN MAKE

A DIFFERENCE FOR OTHERS.

PEOPLE WHO GET INTO POLITICS.

PEOPLE WHO GET INTO THE MEDIA.

EVERYBODY HAS DIFFERENT GIFTS.

IF RANDY FEELS IN THAT WAY AND

DIFFERENT WAYS WE ALL HAVE BEEN

EQUIPPED TO BE IN THIS ARENA

BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY IS AT RISK.

>> I THINK FAITH AND RELIGION,

IT'S VERY DEEP AND INTERNAL

BELIEF.

BUT DIANE AND I WOULD NOT BE

INVOLVED IN THIS IF WE DIDN'T

BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE CALLING

THAT GOD HAS PLACED.

DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE GOING TO

WIN, ALL RIGHT?

WHEN WE LOST THE GOVERNOR'S RACE

THERE WAS NARROW -- YOU KNOW, WE

JUST KIND OF LEFT THAT NIGHT AND

SAID, WOW, THIS IS EXCITING.

GOD HAS SOMETHING BETTER IN MIND

FOR US THAN BEING GOVERNOR OF

MICHIGAN.

SO IT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE PEOPLE

OF FAITH, MANY OF THE VIEWERS

HERE, WE SEARCH HARD TO TRY TO

FIND OUT WHAT THE WILL OF GOD IS

IN OUR LIVES AND TO FOLLOW HIS

TEACHINGS.

ABSOLUTELY.

>> MR. HEKMAN WOULD YOU

ELIMINATE THE INTEREST TAX

EXEMPTION?

>> GIVE ME MORE ON THAT.

THE MORTGAGE DEDUCTION.

NOT DIRECTLY.

>> Tim: NOT DIRECTLY.

>> YOU SAID YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF

CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES.

THIS IS TAX LOOPHOLE.

>> IT'S ENJOYED BY MANY PEOPLE.

I AM IN FAVOR OF THE FAIR TAX.

>> Tim: SO YOU NO VOTE?

>> NO.

>> I BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY

EXEMPTIONS, I BELIEVE WE NEED A

FLAT TAX.

THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS AND

DEDUCTIONS WOULD BE FOR YOUR

HOME MORTGAGE FOR CHARITY AND

FOR HEALTHCARE.

PEOPLE OUGHT TO GET THE SAME

TREATMENT AS COMPANIES GET IN

ABLE TO FIND HEALTH CARE.

>> AND ELIMINATE THE MORTGAGE?

>> TIM, WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS

RESTRUCTURE THE TAX CODE.

>> Tim: BEFORE YOU GET THERE

WOULD YOU VOTE TO ELIMINATE

THAT?

>> WE NEED FUNDAMENTAL TAX

REFORM IF WE EXPECT TO GET THIS

ECONOMY MOVING.

THE ISSUE IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO

GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK.

WITH A KIND OF CHANGES ARE WE

GOING TO MAKE, IN TERMS OF TAXES

AND REGULATORY REFORM AND ENERGY

POLICY THAT PUT AMERICANS BACK

TO WORK.

>> Tim: MR. HEKMAN, DO YOU

SUPPORT TWO TAX BRACKETS, 10%

AND 25%?

>> I COULD SUPPORT THAT.

>> IT WOULD BE LOSS OF REVENUE?

>> IT WOULD BUT ALONG WITH SOME

OF THE THINGS THAT PETE TALKED

ABOUT, WE CAN GET THIS ECONOMY

GOING.

IF YOU WANT TO KILL AN ECONOMY,

YOU COULDN'T DO MUCH BETTER THAN

WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.

>> TWO TAX BRACKETS?

>> I WOULD SUPPORT IT.

HERE IS THE THINK I WOULD

SUPPLEMENT HIS ANSWER WITH.

I THINK YOU WOULD GET MORE

REVENUE.

I THINK WE NEED MORE ECONOMIC

GROWTH.

>> Tim: BUT IN THE PROCESS YOU

LOSE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS?

>> RONALD REAGAN HAD THE RIGHT

THING, KENNEDY HAD THE RIGHT

THING.

NO, IT'S ORGANICALLY UP.

THE ECONOMY STARTS TO GROW.

>> TRICKLE DOWN.

>> YOU ARE SAYING IT'S TRICKLE

DOWN.

>> THE ANSWER IS NO, IT'S NOT

TRICKLE DOWN.

WHAT YOU HAVE IS YOU ALLOW

PEOPLE TO KEEP MORE OF WHAT THEY

EARN, ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE MORE

CONTROL OVER THEIR OWN LIVES.

JOBS GET CREATED.

BUSINESSES EXPAND AND FARMS AND

BUSINESSES AND OUR COMMUNITIES

ARE STRENGTHENED.

>> TWO BRACKETS?

>> WE'VE BEEN THERE.

WE'VE DONE THAT.

WE DID THIS IN THE 90s AND DID

IT IN THE 80s.

YOU CUT TAXES, SIMPLIFY THE TAX

CODE.

YOU HAVE REGULATORY RELIEF.

YOU GROW THE ECONOMY.

>> IT HAPPENED UNDER GEORGE W.

BUSH AND THE ECONOMY WENT IN THE

TANK.

>> WE DID IT WITH BILL CLINTON A

LONG TIME AGO.

WE ALSO HAD A THING CALLED 9/11

OCCUR BUT WE DID IT AND GREW THE

ECONOMY.

IT'S HOW WE BALANCE THE BUDGET

IN THE 1990s BY REDUCING TAXES.

TIM, IF WE WANTED TO GET OUT OF

HOLE, WE HAVE TO REFORM

ENTITLEMENTS BUT THE OTHER

LEVERAGE POINT FOR GETTING US

OUT OF HOLE HERE IS ECONOMIC

GROWTH.

THAT IS WHAT THIS CAMPAIGN IS

GOING TO BE ABOUT THIS FALL.

THAT IS THE DEBATE WITH DEBBY IS

GOING TO BE ABOUT.

THE FAILED POLICIES OF OBAMA AND

STABENOW AND ALTERNATIVE VISION

TO GET THE ECONOMY MOVING AGAIN.

>> Tim: CASH FOR CLUNKERS?

>> STUPID, DON'T DO IT.

>> Tim: WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST

ABOUT HELPING THE AUTO INDUSTRY?

>> IT HAS TO SUCCEED ON ITS OWN.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T SUPPORT

ANY INDUSTRY.

>> YOU WOULD LAW GENERAL MOTORS

AND CHRYSLER TO GO INTO A TANK.

YOU WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO

GO INTO THE TANK?

>> IT WOULD NOT HAVE GONE INTO

THE TASK.

THEY COULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE

REGULAR BANKRUPTCY LAWS.

BONDHOLDERS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN

BETTER SHAPE.

UNIONS WOULD NOT BE QUITE SO

SHAPE.

>> SO PRESIDENT BUSH WAS TO

WRONG TO DO THAT?

>> I BELIEVE HE WAS WRONG.

>> I BELIEVE THE WAY YOU SAVER

THE CAR COMPANIES YOU ALLOW A

FAIR PROCESS BUT YOU DON'T TURN

OVER.

WAIT A MINUTE, TIM.

LOOK AT THE RESULTS OF THIS.

WE TURNED OVER TWO AMERICAN

ICONS, CHRYSLER AND GENERAL

MOTORS, FIRST CHRYSLER WE TURNED

IT OVER ITALIAN CAR COMPANY.

IT'S NOT AN AMERICAN COMPANY AND

TURNED GENERAL MOTORS TO SPECIAL

INTERESTS, THE UAW.

>> Tim: IS HE WRONG FOR DOING

WHAT HE DID?

>> HE WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT

WASN'T THE WAY, NOT JUST SAVE

THE CAR COMPANIES.

WE NEED TO GROW THE CAR

COMPANIES.

WE NEED TO EXPAND THE MARKET.

>> WAS HE WRONG, PRESIDENT BUSH.

>> HE STARTED MONEY ROLLING INTO

THE COMPANIES.

>> WHAT WENT WRONG WITH

CHRYSLER.

>> WAS THE PRESIDENT WRONG?

>> THEY WERE WRONG IN TERMS HOW

THEY EXECUTED IT BECAUSE WHAT

THEY DID THEY PUT UNIONS IN

FAVOR OF BONDHOLDERS.

THEY SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH A

TRADITIONAL BANKRUPTCY WHERE THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE

BEEN THE BANKS BACK STOP BECAUSE

YOU COULD NOT GET GUARANTEES OUT

OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR BANKING

COMMUNITY TO KEEP THE COMPANIES

RUNNING.

>> THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT

DISCUSSION.

WHAT YOU JUST HEARD IS REALLY

THE DIFFERENCE IN LEADERSHIP.

PETE IS SAYING IT WAS POORLY

EXECUTED BUT PETE PULLED THE

TRIGGER TO ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.

NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, HE PULLED THE

TRIGGER FOR THE SAME THING TO

HAPPEN TO REWARD THESE WALL

STREET BANKS THAT WERE

IRRESPONSIBLE.

THE MONEY WAS OUTSOURCED AROUND

THE WORLD.

WE CAN SIT ALL DAY LONG

GOVERNMENT PROGRAM WAS WELL

MANAGED.

TELL ME ONE THAT IS.

>> Tim: DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT

ANALYSIS?

>> I AM AFRAID I HAVE TO.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO HAVE IT'S

HANDS OFF OF BUSINESS AND TREAT

EVERYONE SIMILARLY.

>> YOU CAN'T HAVE THE GOVERNMENT

SUPPORTING THEM AND SAYING THEY

SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT?

>> THE LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS.

THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS OR THE

BOOKS.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN YEARS.

IT WOULD HAVE WORKED MUCH BETTER

THAN IT DID.

>> SO PRESIDENT BUSH WAS WRONG?

>> I SHE HAD WAS WRONG.

>> I WAS A TRUSTEE OF A

BANKRUPTED RAILROAD.

IT WAS A STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE.

WE WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS AND

INDEPENDENTS WE SAVED THE

RAILROAD.

DIDN'T COST TAXPAYER'S MONEY.

WE SAVED TAXPAYER MONEY.

>> WILL YOU SUPPORT WHOEVER THE

WINNER IF IT'S NOT YOU?

>> MY OBJECTIVE NOVEMBER 6th.

ELECT MITT ROMNEY AS PRESIDENT.

ELECT 51 REPUBLICAN SENATORS

INTO THE U.S. SENATE TO MOVE AN

AGENDA FORWARD.

>> EITHER OF GEESE GUYS DEBATE

THE NOMINATION YOU ARE ON BOARD?

>> I AM ON BOARD.

OKAY, GENTLEMEN.

WE ARE OUT OF TIME.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWERS, GOOD

LUCK ON TUESDAY AND WE'RE ON

FACEBOOK AND YOUTUBE AND

TWITTER.

SEE YOU NEXT WEEK RIGHT HERE ON

"OFF THE RECORD".

¶

¶

¶

Generated by CCExtractor
http://ccextractor.sourceforge.net