Iowa Public Television

ANNOUNCER: FUNDING FOR "IOWA PRESS" HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY "FRIENDS" OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS; BY THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA... THE PUBLIC'S PARTNER IN BUILDING IOWA'S HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE; AND BY IOWA NETWORK SERVICES AND YOUR LOCAL INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE COMPANY...IOWA NETWORK SERVICES, YOUR CLOSEST CONNECTION.

ON STATEWIDE IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION, THIS IS THE FRIDAY, MAY 31 EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS." HERE IS DEAN BORG.

Borg: WEDNESDAY MORNING OF THIS COMING WEEK BEGINS PHASE TWO OF CAMPAIGN 2002. THAT WILL BE THE START OF THE SUMMER CAMPAIGN SEASON, LEADING TO NOVEMBER 5'S GENERAL ELECTION. PHASE ONE CULMINATES THIS TUESDAY EVENING, WITH THE RESULTS OF THE STATEWIDE PRIMARY ELECTIONS. AT THAT TIME WE'LL KNOW WHICH CANDIDATES HAVE BEEN CHOSEN BY THEIR RESPECTIVE POLITICAL PARTIES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION. AT THE TOP OF THE TICKET IS THE UNITED STATES SENATE SEAT, HELD BY DEMOCRAT TOM HARKIN. HE WANTS A FOURTH TERM, ANOTHER SIX YEARS IN THE SENATE. TWO MEN WANT THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION TO RUN AGAINST SENATOR HARKIN. BILL SALIER IS A FARMER FROM NORA SPRINGS, A FORMER MARINE. HE CLAIMS HE'S THE MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE. CONGRESSMAN GREG GANSKE IS A SURGEON FROM DES MOINES. HE SERVED FOUR TERMS REPRESENTING CENTRAL IOWA IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. GENTLEMEN, WELCOME TO "IOWA PRESS."

Salier: THANKS A LOT.

Ganske: THANK YOU.

Borg: AND ACROSS THE TABLE: "DES MOINES REGISTER" POLITICAL COLUMNIST DAVID YEPSEN AND "ASSOCIATED PRESS" POLITICAL WRITER MIKE GLOVER.

Glover: MR. SALIER, LET'S START WITH YOU. WE'D LIKE TO GIVE EACH OF YOU A CHANCE, AT THE START OF THE PROGRAM, TO MAKE YOUR CASE. PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE ABOUT PICKING A HORSE TO RUN IN NOVEMBER. WHY YOU AS A CANDIDATE AGAINST TOM HARKIN AND NOT MR. GANSKE?

Salier: BECAUSE THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO WE STARTED OUT ON A VISION THAT THIS IS ABOUT WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS. IT'S NOT ABOUT CAMPAIGN GIMMICKS OR MISDIRECTION OR TRYING TO POSITION YOURSELF IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO ATTEMPT TO WIN AN ELECTION. THIS IS ABOUT WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS OF PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THAT A 17,000-PAGE TAX CODE IS A DISASTER, TO BELIEVE THAT SKIMMING OFF THE EXCESS MONEY IN SOCIAL SECURITY AND SPENDING IT IN THE GENERAL FUND IS WRONG, THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU HAVE PEACE IS THROUGH STRENGTH, NOT THROUGH WEAKNESS; AND THE ONLY WAY THAT WE EVER ACHIEVE THE GREATNESS OF THIS NATION IS TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE PERSONAL FREEDOM AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT MADE THIS NATION GREAT. WHEN YOU WIN ENOUGH HEARTS AND ENOUGH MINDS, THE ELECTION FOLLOWS IN DUE COURSE.

Glover: MR. GANSKE, THE SAME QUESTION TO YOU. PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE ABOUT PICKING A HORSE TO RUN IN NOVEMBER. WHY YOU AS A CANDIDATE AGAINST TOM HARKIN AND NOT MR. SALIER?

Ganske: WELL, MIKE AND DAVID AND DEAN, FIRST LET ME THANK YOU FOR HAVING US ON. I THINK YOU PERFORM A REAL PUBLIC SERVICE. AND WHEN I TALKED TO MIKE NEWELL ABOUT COMING ON BOARD FOR TODAY, I SUGGESTED THAT WE INVITE BILL SALIER, SO I WANT TO THANK BILL FOR SHOWING UP TODAY ALSO. WE HAVE AN IMPORTANT ELECTION COMING UP. WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP IN THE SENATE. WE NEED LEADERSHIP THAT CARES MORE ABOUT POLICY THAN POLITICS, LEADERSHIP THAT CARES MORE ABOUT BALANCING THE BUDGET THAN SPENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS, LEADERSHIP THAT CARES MORE ABOUT GETTING SOMETHING DONE THAN TAKING CREDIT FOR IT. WE NEED TO GET PAST THE TIRED, OLD, BITTER PARTISAN POLITICS OF GRIDLOCK AND WORK WITH PRESIDENT BUSH TO GET SOME IMPORTANT THINGS DONE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, ON EDUCATION, ON HEALTH CARE. MEDICARE IS A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS STATE. SENIORS ARE HAVING A LOT OF PROBLEMS AFFORDING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. A WHOLE BUNCH OF ISSUES ARE TIED UP IN GRIDLOCK IN THE SENATE, AND I'D LIKE TO WORK WITH --

Glover: THAT'S A GENERAL-ELECTION ANSWER, MR. GANSKE. GIVE ME A PRIMARY-ELECTION ANSWER. WHY ARE YOU THE BEST CANDIDATE TO RUN AGAINST TOM HARKIN AND NOT MR. SALIER?

Ganske: MY OPPONENT HERE HAS WORKED VERY HARD, AND I ADMIRE HIS ENERGY AND HIS VIGOR IN THIS CAMPAIGN, AND I THINK THAT HE HAS HELPED US RUN A REALLY GOOD PRIMARY CAMPAIGN TOO. MR. SALIER AND I DIFFER ON SOME VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR IOWA. FOR INSTANCE, MR. SALIER DOES NOT THINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE INVOLVED WITH THE HIGH COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AND MEDICARE. MR. SALIER IS NOT IN FAVOR OF INTERNATIONAL MULTILATERAL TRADE TREATIES. HE WOULD HAVE VOTED AGAINST NAFTA, FOR INSTANCE. GEE WHIZ, TOM HARKIN, JUST THIS LAST WEEK, VOTED FOR AN AMENDMENT THAT GUTTED THE TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY BILL, SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT FOR IOWA, WHICH IS, ON A PER CAPITA BASIS, THE NUMBER ONE EXPORTING STATE IN THE COUNTRY. A LOT OF JOBS INVOLVED WITH THAT. MY OPPONENT STANDS REALLY CLOSE TO TOM HARKIN ON BEING AGAINST FOREIGN TRADE.

Glover: MR. SALIER, YOUR RESPONSE?

Salier: YEAH, I'M THE ONE THAT'S CLOSE TO TOM HARKIN, RIGHT? LOOK, WHEN IT COMES TO FOREIGN TRADE, AS HE'S TRYING TO EMULATE OR TRYING TO GET ACROSS -- INFERRING THAT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF FOREIGN TRADE, OF COURSE, HE'S MISTAKEN ON THAT. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH MULTINATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. I WANT TO DO FOREIGN TRADE NEGOTIATIONS ON OUR OWN. WE'RE LOSING IN THE FOREIGN TRADE BATTLE RIGHT NOW. TRY TO BUY ANYTHING ON MAIN STREET OR WALMART OR K-MART WITH YOUR AMERICAN CHECKBOOK THAT'S NOT MADE OVERSEAS. IT'S VERY RARE. SO WE NEED TO GO INTO THESE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS AND TRY AND BUST OPEN FOREIGN MARKETS TO OUR TRADE. BUT ALSO, WE ARE LOSING THIS ON THE DOMESTIC FRONT BECAUSE OF THE RULES AND THE REGULATIONS AND THE LAWS AND THE TAXATIONS THAT ARE INVITING BUSINESS TO LEAVE THIS NATION. AND IF YOU WANT TO START GETTING INTO A DEBATE ABOUT WHO'S CLOSEST TO TOM HARKIN, WE'LL GO AT THAT ALL DAY LONG.

Yepsen: WELL, TALK ABOUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE ATTACK THAT CONGRESSMAN GANSKE JUST LEVELED AT YOU.

Salier: WELL, THE SOCIAL SECURITY ATTACK, HE KEEPS INFERRING THAT WE WANT TO END SOCIAL SECURITY AND WEAN THEM OFF. IT'S NOT TRUE. WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT THE EXCESS MONEY THAT'S BEING SPENT IN THE GENERAL FUND BE STOPPED, YOU NO LONGER ALLOW THEM TO SPEND IT IN THE GENERAL FUND, AND WHAT THE POLITICIANS DO IS A VERY NEAT SHELL GAME. THEY SAY, "WE'RE JUST BORROWING FROM IT. WE'RE GOING TO PAY IT BACK WITH INTEREST." WELL, OF COURSE, WHO PAYS IT BACK WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BORROWS MONEY? WE DO. SO THEY'RE BORROWING FROM YOUR RETIREMENT FUND WITH A PROMISE TO MAKE YOU PAY IT BACK. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING HERE. SO WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT, THAT EXCESS MONEY BE PUT INTO YOUR CD OR YOUR MUTUAL FUNDS OR YOUR TREASURY BILLS. BUT IT'S SOCIAL SECURITY PART B; YOU CAN'T EVEN BORROW FROM IT. NOW, ON MEDICARE, IN TERMS OF HELPING WITH THE SENIORS FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFITS, I NEVER SAID THAT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF IT. WHAT I HAVE SAID IS BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL BEFORE YOU GO INTO THIS, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO CREATE ANOTHER GOVERNMENT SYSTEM WHICH STARTS TO DICTATE TO YOUR SENIORS OR ANYONE ELSE WHAT PILL AND HOW MANY AND WHEN YOU CAN TAKE IT BECAUSE THEY CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS. YOU KNOW, I SIT AND I LOOK AT THIS, AND NOW WE'RE SAYING LET'S THROW MORE THINGS AT MEDICARE. AND EVERY POLITICIAN IN THIS STATE RUNS AROUND SAYING, "WELL, WE'VE GOT TO CHANGE IOWA FROM BEING 50TH IN THE NATION." WHY DON'T WE CONCENTRATE ON GETTING THAT DONE FIRST BEFORE WE SAY LET'S ADD MORE RESPONSIBILITY TO THIS WHEN IT'S PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT ARE LAYING ON THE LINE? THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN DO TO TRY AND GET OUT OF THE WAY: STREAMLINE THE FDA TO MOVE THE PILLS OUT MORE QUICKLY; LET PEOPLE KNOW OF THE INDIVIDUAL SYSTEMS; AND MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS ARE KEY.

Yepsen: MR. GANSKE, I WANT TO GO BACK TO MIKE'S QUESTION, A LITTLE BIT OF A VARIATION OF IT... ELECTABILITY. PRIMARIES ARE ABOUT PICKING A CANDIDATE, SO WHY ARE YOU A REPUBLICAN WHO'S MORE LIKELY TO BEAT TOM HARKIN THAN BILL SALIER?

Ganske: WELL, LET ME JUST FOLLOW UP ON THIS, AND THEN I'LL ANSWER THAT. IN YOUR OWN PAPER, DAVID, IN "THE DES MOINES REGISTER," MR. SALIER SAID HE WAS AGAINST A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT IN MEDICARE AND MR. SALIER HAS SAID THAT HE WANTS TO WEAN PEOPLE OFF SOCIAL SECURITY. IT'S JUST WE'VE HAD -- IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO TELL EXACTLY WHERE MR. SALIER IS. BUT I HAVE HERE A TAPE THAT I WILL SHARE WITH DEAN HERE, AND THIS HAS MR. SALIER SAYING HE WOULD LIKE TO WEAN PEOPLE OFF SOCIAL SECURITY. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHERE IOWANS ARE. WHY CAN I BEAT TOM HARKIN? WELL, BECAUSE WHEN I'M TRAVELING ALL AROUND THIS STATE, I'M HEARING THE SAME THINGS I HEARD BACK IN 1994 WHEN I BEAT 36-YEAR INCUMBENT NEAL SMITH. PEOPLE ARE SAYING HE'S BEEN THERE TOO LONG; HE'S OUT OF TOUCH. YOU KNOW, HARKIN'S FARM BILL, WHEN IT PASSED THE SENATE, WAS $6 BILLION OVERBUDGET, AND OUT IN WASHINGTON SOMEBODY ASKED HIM ABOUT THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT HE SAID? HE JUST SHRUGGED IT OFF. HE SAID, "WELL, OUT HERE IN WASHINGTON, $6 BILLION IS JUST PENCIL DUST." GEE, WHEN IOWANS HEAR THAT, DAVID, THEY SAY ANYONE WHO THINKS $6 BILLION IS PENCIL DUST HAS BEEN IN WASHINGTON WAY, WAY TOO LONG. AND WE HAVE GOT -- I'LL TELL YOU, WE HAVE ONE OF THE STRONGEST GRASS-ROOTS ORGANIZATIONS THIS STATE HAS EVER SEEN. WE HAVE OVER 4,000 ACTIVIST VOLUNTEERS. WE HAVE NEARLY 12,000 PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED FINANCIALLY TO HELP THIS CAMPAIGN. I TELL YOU WHAT, WHEN -- I'M NOT TAKING THIS PRIMARY FOR GRANTED. BILL HAS WORKED HARD. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK HAVING THIS PRIMARY HAS HELPED OUR CAMPAIGN TOO.

Yepsen: MR. SALIER, SAME QUESTION TO YOU. WHY ARE YOU MORE ELECTABLE IN THE FALL THAN GREG GANSKE?

Salier: BECAUSE WHEN WE GO AT THIS AGAIN, IT'S ABOUT WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS. IT'S ABOUT BRINGING THE REAGAN DEMOCRATS BACK TO US, NOT TRYING TO EMULATE --

Yepsen: BUT WHY ARE YOU BETTER AT DOING THAT THAN GREG GANSKE?

Salier: WELL, BECAUSE MY VOTING RECORD IS NOT --

Yepsen: YOU DON'T HAVE A VOTING RECORD.

Salier: EXACTLY. THAT'S ONE REASON WHY HE RUNS ATTACK ADS AGAINST CONGRESSMAN GANSKE AND NOT AGAINST ME. HOW DOES HE ATTACK ME? DOES HE SAY THE CONSTITUTION IS A SILLY DOCUMENT AND WE NEED TO THROW IT AWAY? NO. DOES HE SAY THAT IT'S WISE TO BURN 75 PERCENT OF OUR MONEY IN WASHINGTON'S BUREAUCRACY ONLY TO GET A QUARTER BACK, BUT WE GET TO TELL YOU HOW TO SPEND THE QUARTER? NOW, HE CAN'T SAY THAT. CAN HE SAY "I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE AG COMMITTEE AND, SINCE I SIT IN THE CHAIRMAN'S SEAT, I UNDERSTAND AGRICULTURE"? NO, BECAUSE I'LL STAND UP AND SAY, "WELL, I SIT IN A COMBINE SEAT, SENATOR. I "AM" AGRICULTURE." AND WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH THIS FARM BILL IS YOU'VE DONE THE OBVIOUS. IT'S A FAILED SYSTEM, SO YOU EXPANDED IT AND THREW MORE MONEY AT IT. A SUBSIDY IS NOT A PRICE FLOOR; IT IS A PRICE CEILING. IN OTHER WORDS, IF CARGILL CAN BID $1.50 FOR MY CORN OR CONTINENTAL OR ADM AND THE TAXPAYERS WILL MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE TO MY BREAK-EVEN, THERE'S NO INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO EVER BID A 250 OR 275 OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO THERE'S BEEN A PRICE CEILING THAT'S BEEN CREATED, AND WE'LL PIN THIS BACK ON HIM. THE CONGRESSMAN AND I DIFFER ON A LOT OF ISSUES. NOW, WITH "THE DES MOINES REGISTER" PAPER ARTICLE, I ANSWERED IT JUST AS I ANSWERED IT HERE. THE DIFFERENCE IS THEY'LL SEE THE EXACT ANSWER THAT I GAVE, NOT AN INTERPRETATION WRITTEN DOWN LATER. WITH THIS, WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY, I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT FROM DAY ONE. IF THAT IS WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE THE SYSTEM, THAT IS HOW WE NEED TO STOP IT. WHEN YOU REFER TO WEANING, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU LEAVE A BABY PIG ON THE SOW FOREVER? IT NEVER GROWS TO FULL WEIGHT, EVER, BECAUSE YOU NEVER WEAN IT. THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING IN SOCIAL SECURITY RIGHT NOW. IF WE STAY ON THIS SYSTEM, WE WILL BANKRUPT IT. WHY? BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE ARE COMING ONTO IT AND WE CAN'T SUPPORT THE SYSTEM WITHOUT STOPPING THE POLITICIANS FROM SKIMMING OFF THE EXCESS MONEY AND SPENDING IT. SO YOU CAN USE WHATEVER TERMINOLOGY YOU WANT. IT'S THE SAME IDEA.

Glover: CONGRESSMAN GANSKE, I WANT TO TAKE TO YOU, AND TO EACH OF YOU, THE CORE ARGUMENTS THAT YOUR OPPONENT IS MAKING AGAINST YOUR CANDIDACY. THE CORE ARGUMENT THAT'S BEING MADE AGAINST YOU IS THAT YOU ARE VIRTUALLY A CLONE OF TOM HARKIN; YOUR VOTING RECORD IS NOT A LOT DIFFERENT THAN TOM HARKIN; AND THAT ELECTING YOU WOULDN'T REPRESENT MUCH OF A CHANGE FROM TOM HARKIN. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT SUGGESTION?

Ganske: WELL, A FEW YEARS AGO "CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY" NAMED ME ONE OF THE 50 MOST EFFECTIVE CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS. AND THEY SAY, "YES, CONGRESSMAN GANSKE TAKES AN INDEPENDENT STAND WHEN IT'S IMPORTANT FOR IOWA, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, HIS VOTING RECORD IS CONSERVATIVE." TOM HARKIN STANDS FOR EVER BIGGER GOVERNMENT, AND I STAND FOR A LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. MY VOTING RECORD PROVES THAT. TOM HARKIN VOTES FOR HIGHER TAXES. I HAVE REPEATEDLY VOTED TO CUT TAXES. TOM HARKIN LOVES EVERY NEW GOVERNMENT REGULATION COMING OUT OF WASHINGTON. I HAVE VOTED TO SEND BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS CLINTON REGULATIONS. SO THERE'S A CLEAR DISTINCTION. I'M PROUD TO BE A REPUBLICAN AND A COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE. I HAVE A STRONG RECORD TO RUN ON, AND IT IS NOWHERE NEAR TOM HARKIN'S.

Glover: MR. SALIER, THE CORE ARGUMENT THAT IS BEING USED AGAINST YOU IS THAT YOU'RE TOO CONSERVATIVE, THAT YOU'RE OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM AND OUT OF THE LOOP ABLE TO ATTRACT INDEPENDENT, MODERATE VOTERS TO SETTLE ELECTIONS. HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

Salier: WELL, OF COURSE THAT'S AN ERROR ALREADY BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY WINNING THE REAGAN DEMOCRATS BACK AND THE INDEPENDENTS OVER. LOOK, THE MAINSTREAM IS CONSERVATIVE. OTHER THAN MY TWO OPPONENTS, NAME SOMEBODY THAT VOTED TO KEEP THE TAX CODE OR WANTS TO DO IT HERE IN IOWA. I MEAN, THIS IS ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE I SAY THEY'RE TOO MUCH SIMILAR. HARKIN LIKES THE TAX CODE. HE VOTED TO KEEP IT IN 1998. IT COULD HAVE BEEN GONE BY 2001. A 17,000-PAGE DISASTER THAT'S FULL OF LOOPHOLES AND SPECIAL INTERESTS --

Yepsen: WHAT ABOUT THAT?

Salier: -- AND WE COULD HAVE HAD THAT DONE.

Ganske: YEAH, I VOTED TO SIMPLIFY TAXES, AND NOT ONLY TO SIMPLIFY IT BUT TO CUT TAXES. FOR INSTANCE, TO END THE MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY. I HAVE VOTED TO END THE DEATH TAX. I BELIEVE WE NEED SIMPLIFICATION. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING THERE. YOU JUST CAN'T ABRUPTLY END UP WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH MR. NO GOVERNMENT -- NO GOVERNMENT.

Salier: BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE ABRUPTLY ENDED IT -- AND YOU'RE SPINNING AGAIN, OF COURSE -- BECAUSE IT WAS A PHASEOUT OVER THREE YEARS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUNSET BY 2001. IT GAVE YOU THREE YEARS TO COME UP WITH A NEW PLAN. IF NOTHING WAS COME UP WITH, IT STARTED WITH THE SAME PLAN AGAIN. SO THERE WAS A NO-LOSE SITUATION: WHAT COULD WE COME UP WITH THAT WOULD BE WORSE AND, IF IT WAS WORSE, VOTE IT DOWN AND THIS ONE RESTARTS AGAIN. BUT WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IT TO THE FLOOR FOR DEBATE ON TAX CODE RESTRUCTURING, AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. ALSO, WHEN YOU RATE A "D-" FROM THE NRA AND AN "F" FROM THE GOVERNORS AMERICAN, I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO SAY IT'S ONE VOTE, BUT IT'S NOT. '96, '98, AND 2000... A "D-," A "D," AND A "D" FROM THE NRA. THREE "F'S" FROM THE GOVERNORS. HARKIN HAS AN "F" ON EACH. NOW, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE. THAT'S WHY I DON'T SAY HE'S A CLONE BECAUSE, OF COURSE, I'M AGAINST CLONING. BUT --

Borg: LET'S LET CONGRESSMAN GANSKE RESPOND.

Ganske: LOOK, I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT PEOPLE -- THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, NOT JUST MILITIAS. SO THERE WAS A RECENT COURT DECISION THAT AFFIRMED THAT, AND I AGREE WITH THAT. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOM HARKIN AND ME ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT. TOM HARKIN WANTS TO REGISTER ALL THE GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY. HE WANTS TO GET ALL THE HANDGUNS TOGETHER, PUT THEM ON A BOAT, SEND THEM OUT INTO THE OCEAN, AND SINK IT. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT PRIVACY ISSUES. IN FACT, THE DEMOCRATS WERE ATTACKING ME ON SOME OF THE PRIVACY LEGISLATION I'VE DONE. I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD KNOW YOUR PRIVATE MEDICAL RECORDS, AND I DON'T THINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD KNOW WHO OWNS GUNS EITHER.

Yepsen: MR. SALIER, YOU JUST SAID YOU HAVE NO EXPERIENCE AS IF THAT'S AN ASSET. YOU'VE NEVER RUN FOR OFFICE BEFORE. YOU'VE NEVER HELD OFFICE BEFORE. I MEAN, WOULD YOU HIRE SOMEBODY TO WORK ON YOUR FARM THAT DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FARMING? WHY SHOULD WE HIRE YOU TO GO TO THE U.S. SENATE WHEN YOU'VE HAD NO EXPERIENCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE?

Salier: EVERYTHING THAT THERE IS ABOUT THE U.S. SENATE IS ABOUT LEADERSHIP. I'VE EXEMPLIFIED LEADERSHIP FROM THE BEGINNING ON THROUGH THE MARINE CORPS, WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY FORCES AT CAMP DAVID. DID I KNOW HOW TO GUARD THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN I WENT THERE? NO. BUT I'LL GUARANTEE YOU, WHEN I GO TO WASHINGTON D.C., THIS IS NOT A LEARNING EXPERIENCE, BECAUSE I'VE ALREADY READ THE CONSTITUTION.

Yepsen: SO THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO BE A U.S. SENATOR IS READ THE CONSTITUTION.

Salier: YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY AND LEAD ON THOSE PRINCIPLES. YOU HAVE TO NEVER GO TO WASHINGTON AND SELL YOUR SOUL AND BECOME INFECTED WITH POTOMAC FEVER ONCE YOU'RE THERE. YOU HAVE GOT TO STAY FOCUSED ON THIS. WHEN HE RAN IN 1994, HE RAN ON THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA AGAINST NEAL SMITH. DID HE HAVE EXPERIENCE? SURE, HE WAS A SURGEON. BUT DID HE HAVE POLITICAL EXPERIENCE? NO. BUT HE RAN ON THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM. I WENT ROOM TO ROOM TO ROOM AT IOWA STATE CAMPAIGNING FOR HIM -- HE NEVER EVEN KNEW THAT -- WITH A LITTLE MAP THAT SAID "ARE YOU FROM THIS AREA. VOTE FOR THIS GUY." BUT HE DIDN'T UPHOLD THAT ONCE HE GOT THERE. YOU NEED TO DO THAT.

Borg: CONGRESSMAN GANSKE, CAN YOU LEARN ON THE JOB?

Ganske: I TELL YOU WHAT, IT IS A BIG LEARNING EXPERIENCE AND IT'S PART OF WHAT I BUILD YOU FROM MY PAST LIFE.

Borg: BUT BILL SALIER COULD DO IT.

Ganske: I TELL YOU, IT'S A BIG JOB FOR -- TO BE A U.S. SENATOR AND JUST JUMP IN LIKE THAT. IT'S A BIG ENOUGH JOB TO BECOME A UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN WITHOUT EXPERIENCE. IT'S A LOT OF WORK. BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS IN MEDICAL PRACTICE, I WOULD LISTEN TO PATIENTS, WE'D MAKE DECISIONS TOGETHER, WE'D IMPLEMENT THOSE DECISIONS. THAT'S THE TYPE OF LEADERSHIP PARADIGM I'VE TAKEN TO WASHINGTON. I TELL YOU WHAT, FOR EIGHT YEARS I'VE GONE HOME EVERY NIGHT. I LIVE IN DES MOINES BUT I FLY BACK AND FORTH. AND EVERY NIGHT WHEN I'M IN WASHINGTON, I TAKE HOME A PILE OF HOMEWORK LIKE THIS. THESE ARE COMPLICATED --

Glover: WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE CHARGE THAT MR. SALIER JUST LODGED THAT YOU'VE GOT POTOMAC FEVER AND HAVE GOTTEN INFECTED WITH WASHINGTONITIS?

Ganske: WELL, NUMBER ONE, I MADE A PROMISE, A TERM-LIMITS PROMISE WHEN I RAN FOR CONGRESS, AND I'M KEEPING THAT PROMISE. AND I HAVE VOTED FOR TERM LIMITS IN THE PAST. PLUS, WHEN I GOT TO WASHINGTON, I KEPT MY PROMISES. WHAT DID I RUN ON? I RUN ON -- I RAN ON BALANCING THE BUDGET. AND WE'VE PAID DOWN $500 BILLION IN NATIONAL DEBT.

Glover: AND YOU'RE GOING BACK TO A DEFICIT NOW.

Ganske: WELL, WE NEED TO GET THAT ECONOMY MOVING AGAIN. AND I ALSO RAN ON REFORMING THE WELFARE SYSTEM. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND I'VE KEPT THOSE PROMISES.

Salier: IF I MIGHT, THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CLARIFIED HERE. WHEN HE SAYS THAT HE IS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, BUT IN 1999 WITH H.R. 240 AND 241 IN WASHINGTON D.C., THERE'S AN ABSOLUTE GUN BAN. A BILL WAS BROUGHT UP TO RELINQUISH THAT GUN BAN. HE VOTED AGAINST THAT. NOW, IF THAT'S NOT AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. H.R. 241 SAID JUST INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME -- TO PROTECT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY INSIDE YOUR OWN HOME, THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. NO, HE VOTED AGAINST THAT TOO. SO A LOT OF THIS IS SPINNING RHETORIC WHEN WE SIT HERE.

Borg: I'LL LET YOU RESPOND, CONGRESSMAN.

Salier: BUT THERE'S VOTING RECORDS TO PROVE IT.

Ganske: MY WORTHY OPPONENT HERE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, AND SO AM I. AND SO THAT WHEN, FOR INSTANCE, A BILL OR A VOTE WOULD COME UP, LET'S SAY, THAT WOULD BAN LAWSUITS AGAINST GUN MANUFACTURERS. THAT MIGHT BE PASSED AS LOCAL LEGISLATION. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A TENTH AMENDMENT AS WELL AS A SECOND AMENDMENT SO THAT WHEN YOU WRITE SOMETHING THAT WOULD PROTECT A GUN MANUFACTURER, YOU NEED TO DO IT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL WAY. AND THAT INVOLVES THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. AND WHEN A PIECE OF LEGISLATION LIKE THAT IS WRITTEN, I WILL SIGN ONTO IT AND I AM. I'M A COSPONSOR TO THAT LEGISLATION. GUN MANUFACTURERS SHOULD NOT BE SUED FOR A CRIMINAL USING A GUN IN A CRIME.

Borg: I WANT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. WHY DID YOU VOTE AGAINST THE FARM BILL?

Ganske: THIS IS ONE THING WHERE MR. SALIER AND I AGREE ON. THIS WAS A BAD BILL -- AND SENATOR GRASSLEY FELT THE SAME WAY; SO DID CONGRESSMAN TOM LATHAM -- FOR THREE REASONS. THE BILL WILL ENCOURAGE PRODUCTION OF OUR COMMODITIES IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE UNITED STATES, AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRAGILE LAND WITH HIGH CROP FAILURE RATES. THAT INCREASED PRODUCTION WILL PUSH DOWN OUR PRICES HERE. CHUCK GRASSLEY HAD A PROVISION ON LIMITING THE PAYMENTS. LIKE, 10 PERCENT OF THE BENEFICIARIES WILL GET, LIKE, MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE BENEFITS. MOST OF THEM ARE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE UNITED STATES. THAT PROVISION WAS JUST DROPPED AND GUTTED. SENATOR GRASSLEY HAD A PROVISION ON MEAT PACKING CONCENTRATION, SOMETHING ALL THE IOWA FARM GROUPS WERE IN FAVOR OF, JUST DROPPED IN CONFERENCE. SENATOR HARKIN DIDN'T DO ANYTHING THAT KEEP THAT IN OR EVEN COMPROMISE ON IT. SO OVERALL I THOUGHT THAT BILL NEEDED TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.

Yepsen: MR. SALIER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUARREL WITH WHAT HE JUST SAID ABOUT THE FARM BILL?

Salier: NO, HE WAS ACCURATE ON THAT. ALSO, YOU HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT GOING ON FORWARD. THIS DID NOT FOCUS ON THE LONG-TERM ISSUES, WHICH IS BREAKING OUR DEPENDENCY ON FOREIGN CRUDE, WHICH WE'VE NEVER BEEN AT A GREATER RATE OF DEPENDENCY THAN WE ARE RIGHT NOW. WE NEED TO MARRY OUR AGRICULTURE POLICY AND OUR ENERGY POLICY TOGETHER. WHEN I JUST GOT DONE PLANTING, DOMESTIC RESOURCES, AGAIN, IN ETHANOL AND SOY DIESEL ON OUR FRONT 80 AND BACK 40, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T BE FOCUSING ON THAT.

Glover: MR. GANSKE, YOU VOTED FOR A CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM BILL THAT WAS RECENTLY PASSED IN CONGRESS AND SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT. CONSERVATIVES DON'T LIKE THAT BILL. WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR IT?

Ganske: I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE BILL. ANY GROUP CAN RUN ADS RIGHT UP TO THE ELECTION. THEY JUST HAVE TO USE WHAT'S CALLED HARD DOLLARS TO DO IT, REPORTED DOLLARS. THE NRA, FOR INSTANCE, $35 A MONTH -- OR A YEAR MEMBERSHIP. NEXT YEAR THEY HAVE $25 FOR THEIR MEMBERSHIP, $10 TO THEIR PAC. THROUGH THEIR PAC, THEY RUN ADS RIGHT UP THROUGH THE ELECTION. BUT REMEMBER BACK IN 1996? REMEMBER ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE FROM THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION? REMEMBER WHEN THE LABOR UNIONS MADE ME THE NUMBER ONE TARGET IN THE UNITED STATES AND SPENT MORE THAN $2 MILLION TRYING TO BEAT ME USING SOFT MONEY, USING UNION DUES? WELL, WE NEED TO FIX THAT SYSTEM.

Yepsen: WELL, BUT, MR. GANSKE, HOW DO YOU -- ISN'T THERE A FREE SPEECH ISSUE HERE?

Salier: THERE CLEARLY IS.

Ganske: I BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL MEETS THE FREE SPEECH REQUIREMENTS. IT SIMPLY SAYS, BECAUSE THE COURTS HAVE HELD, THAT YOU CAN GIVE BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO REPORT.

Glover: MR. SALIER, AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, WILL YOU VOTE FOR THAT BILL?

Salier: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Glover: WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT?

Salier: IT WAS A BAD BILL. IT WAS A BLATANT RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH. WE HERE IN THIS ROOM COULDN'T THROW FIFTY BUCKS IN A HAT AND GO DOWN TO "WHO" AND RUN AN AD THAT HOLDS A POLITICIAN ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO US, NOT FOR US. IT WAS A BLATANT RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH THAT INSULATED THEMSELVES AWAY FROM PEOPLE'S WRATH WHEN MOST PEOPLE ARE PAYING THE MOST ATTENTION. IT WAS A BAD BILL AND AN OBVIOUS RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH. AND YOU CAN SAY, WELL, IT WAS CLOSE ENOUGH TO BEING ALMOST ADHERENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. BUT THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE TAKING PLACE OUT IN WASHINGTON. THEY TRAMPLE RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF OUR LIBERTIES. IT'S GOT TO STOP.

Yepsen: MR. SALIER, WE'VE GOT TOO MANY QUESTIONS AND NOT ENOUGH TIME. I WANT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AGAIN. ABORTION, PARTIAL-BIRTH, CLONING.... WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON THOSE ISSUES, AND HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM GREG GANSKE?

Salier: WELL, I THINK WE'RE BOTH IN AGREEMENT ON PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION. WE'RE BOTH IN AGREEMENT ON CLONING. THE PROBLEM WITH CLONING IS THAT WE ALLOWED THAT SLIPPERY SLOPE TO GET STARTED AGAIN. WHEN THE CONGRESSMAN SAID WE SHOULD DO THE EXPERIMENTS ON THE EMBRYOS BECAUSE THEY'RE FROZEN AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO CHUCK THEM ANYWAY -- LOOK, THIS IS A LIFE. YOU'VE CREATED LIFE. ONCE THERE'S CONCEPTION, THERE'S LIFE. THEREFORE, YOU DON'T JUST THROW OUT THE FLIPPANT REMARK THAT WE'RE GOING TO CHUCK THEM ANYWAY, SO LET'S GO AHEAD GO AHEAD AND GET SOME GOOD OUT OF THEM. THAT BRINGS US ON THE NEXT STEP TOWARDS CLONING. WHERE WE DO DIFFER, OBVIOUSLY, IS HIS SUPPORT OF FUNDING OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD, WHICH HE SAT RIGHT ON THIS PROGRAM WHEN YOU ASKED ABOUT ABORTION AGAINST TOM HARKIN, HE SAID, "WELL, I'M AGAINST PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION, BUT I AM IN FAVOR OF FUNDING OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD." NOW, HE DOES TRY AND SPIN HIS WAY OUT OF THIS WHEN HE SAYS, "I'M JUST FUNDING THE SIDE THAT GIVES TO THE FAMILY PLANNING." WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO MY LEFT HAND, MY RIGHT HAND BENEFITS. BUT THAT ASIDE, EVEN IF IT IS JUST FAMILY PLANNING, EVEN IF THEY DON'T EVER PROVIDE AN ABORTION THERE, WHICH THEY DO, HE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME AND PAT YOU ON TOP OF THE HEAD AND SAY, "I'M GOING TO TAKE YOUR MONEY FROM YOU BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND --"

Borg: LET'S LET CONGRESSMAN GANSKE -- [ SPEAKING AT ONCE ] I'M INTERRUPTING YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE MANY QUESTIONS. RESPOND TO THAT, CONGRESSMAN.

Ganske: ACTUALLY BILL IS PRETTY GOOD AT A FILIBUSTER HERE.

Salier: IT'S PART OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL JOB IN THE SENATE.

Ganske: THERE ARE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN -- IN MY VOTING RECORD -- BETWEEN MY VOTING RECORD AND TOM HARKIN'S. AS BILL HAS APPOINTED OUT, I HAVE VOTED TO BAN CLONING. TOM HARKIN AUTHORED A BILL FOR CLONING. I HAVE VOTED REPEATEDLY TO BAN PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION. TOM HARKIN HAS VOTED NOT TO BAN PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION. I DO VOTE FOR FAMILY PLANNING FUNDING -- FAMILY PLANNING FUNDING. BUT THAT LANGUAGE ALWAYS HAS ANTIABORTION LANGUAGE IN IT. IT'S THE SAME VOTE THAT CONGRESSMAN HENRY HYDE MAKES, ONE OF THE LEADING PRO-LIFE ADVOCATES IN THE HOUSE. IN FACT, HE CAME IN AND ENDORSED MY CAMPAIGN. IT'S THE SAME VOTE THAT JIM NUSSLE MAKES, THAT TOM LATHAM MAKES. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT POOR WOMEN BE ABLE TO GET ACCESS TO THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL SO THAT THEY DO NOT BECOME PREGNANT AND SO THAT THEY DON'T FACE A DECISION OF HAVING AN ABORTION.

Salier: THIS IS THE TENTH AMENDMENT THING, WHICH HE WAS SPOUTING ABOUT EARLIER. YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER THAT IF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WANTS TO TAKE AND FUND SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S FINE. BUT IT'S NONE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL PURVIEW TO COME AND REMOVE YOUR MONEY FROM YOU AND TELL YOU "I AM GOING TO GIVE IT TO THIS ORGANIZATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND --"

Borg: MIKE.

Glover: MR. GANSKE, LET'S GO TO TAXES, WHICH CAME UP BRIEFLY EARLIER. ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE NATION'S TAX SYSTEM? DOES IT NEED A FUNDAMENTAL OVERHAUL? AND IF SO, HOW SHOULD IT BE DONE?

Ganske: I THINK IS DOES NEED A FUNDAMENTAL OVERHAUL. AND WE'VE HAD, IN FACT, A FRIEND -- A COUPLE FRIENDS OF MINE, DICK ARMEY AND BILLY TOESEN, HAVE BEEN HERE IN TOWN ARGUING WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A FLAT TAX OR ALTERNATIVES. WE DON'T HAVE A CONSENSUS YET IN THIS COUNTRY FOR A SALES TAX, FOR INSTANCE. WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS IN COUNTRY ON WHERE TO GO YET. WE DO HAVE CONSENSUS ON SIMPLIFYING IT. LET ME TELL YOU, THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF SOME CORPORATE TAX BREAKS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT ARE VERY, VERY COMPLICATED.

Glover: IF THERE'S NO CONSENSUS IN THE COUNTRY, WHERE ARE YOU?

Ganske: I'M OUT THERE LISTENING AND LEARNING FROM MY CONSTITUENTS, BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW WHERE THEY'RE AT ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.

Glover: MR. SALIER, SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

Salier: I WOULD HAVE ENDED THE TAX CODE. I WOULD HAVE VOTED TO END THAT. IN THAT INTERIM TIME, WE'D HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS. I FAVOR A CONSUMPTION TAX, WHICH IS THE SALES TAX, BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS HOW MUCH MONEY YOU MAKE AND THE CONSUMPTION TAX YOU CONTROL. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY THE TAX, YOU DON'T BUY THE PRODUCT. YOU DO HAVE OBVIOUS THINGS THAT ARE LIMITED OUT OF THAT: ESSENTIALS FOR LIFE, SO THAT YOU DON'T PUNISH THE POOREST PEOPLE IN OUR SOCIETY. HOWEVER, I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THEM TO TAX YOUR INCOME BEFORE YOU START A CONSUMPTION TAX. IF YOU DO IT ON A KISS AND A PROMISE FROM THE POLITICIANS, OH, MY GOODNESS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET BOTH BECAUSE THERE WILL BE SOME NATIONAL EMERGENCY. WE'RE A LONG WAYS AWAY FROM MAKING THAT CONSTITUTIONAL. IT'S SOMETHING WE WORK TOWARDS. HOWEVER, IN LIEU OF THAT, A FLAT TAX.

Yepsen: MR. GANSKE, ANOTHER CHANGE OF SUBJECT AND VERY QUICKLY, FBI. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO REFORM THE FBI?

Ganske: YEAH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A LOT OF SECURITY ISSUES SINCE SEPTEMBER 11. I HELPED -- I AUTHORED A BIOTERRORISM BILL THAT'S LARGELY BEEN PASSED. WE'RE WORKING ON AIRPORT SECURITY. WE NEED BETTER COORDINATION BETWEEN THE FBI AND THE CIA. AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT INFORMATION THAT COMES IN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FBI GETS UP TO THE TOP. WE ARE LOOKING AT STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE FBI RIGHT NOW.

Yepsen: MR. SALIER?

Salier: THERE ARE A LOT OF GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACIES WE NEED TO LOOK AT STRUCTURAL CHANGES ON: THE INS BEING ONE; THE FBI BEING ANOTHER; AND OF COURSE THE IRS BEING ANOTHER.

Glover: GENTLEMEN, WE'VE GOT JUST ABOUT A MINUTE OR SO LEFT. I'D LIKE EACH OF YOU TO TAKE A BIT OF THAT TIME AND SPEAK TO THE AVERAGE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTER. MR. SALIER, WHAT DO YOU WANT THEM TO THINK OF YOU AS THEY WALK INTO THE POLLING PLACE NEXT TUESDAY?

Salier: I WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT IF YOU WANT YOUR FREEDOM BACK, IF YOU WANT TO GO ON OFFENSE AND STOP BEING ON DEFENSE, LAYING BACK AND WONDERING WHICH FREEDOM ARE THEY GOING TO TAKE AWAY NEXT AND YOU WANT YOUR FREEDOM BACK, THEN I'M ASKING FOR YOUR VOTE BECAUSE THE SACRIFICES OF THOSE WHO WENT BEFORE US CANNOT GO IN VEIN TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN THE LIBERTY WE HAVE. WE'RE VERY, VERY GOOD AGAINST DEFENDING OUR NATION AGAINST FOREIGN ENEMIES. SOMETIMES WE DON'T PAY ATTENTION AT THE BALLOT BOX AND WE VOTE THE DOMESTIC ONES INTO OFFICE. WE'VE GOT TO FIGHT THIS CULTURE WAR LONG TERM. I'M ASKING FOR THEIR VOTE.

Glover: MR. GANSKE, SPEAK TO THE AVERAGE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTER. WHAT DO YOU WANT THEM THINKING WHEN THEY WALK INTO THE VOTING BOOTH?

Ganske: I WANT THE REPUBLICAN -- AVERAGE REPUBLICAN VOTER TO SELECT SOMEBODY WHO WILL -- HAS A PROVEN RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT, WHO CAN WORK ON IMPORTANT PROBLEMS FOR IOWA, LIKE TRYING TO FIX THE FACT THAT IOWA MEDICARE IS DEAD LAST IN THE COUNTRY, WHO CAN HELP SENIORS WITH THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? I THINK MORE THAN THAT, I THINK PUBLIC SERVICE IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK PEOPLE -- I'M GOING TO RUN -- I AM RUNNING A CAMPAIGN AND WILL CONTINUE TO RUN A CAMPAIGN THAT WILL MAKE OUR KIDS PROUD. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE OUR KIDS GET INVOLVED, AND SO I ASK FOR THE VOTE FROM REPUBLICANS. AND I WOULD ALSO ASK FOR THE INDEPENDENTS AND THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE SEEING ALL THOSE NEGATIVE ADS AGAINST ME, NOT TO BELIEVE THEM. [ SPEAKING AT ONCE ]

Borg: WE'RE OUT OF TIME. THANK YOU. ON OUR NEXT EDITION OF "IOWA PRESS," OUR FOCUS IS GOING TO BE ON THE OUTCOME OF TUESDAY'S PRIMARY ELECTION. I CAN'T FORETELL WHO OUR GUEST WILL BE NEXT WEEK. IT WILL BE ONE OF THE WINNERS IN TUESDAY'S PRIMARY ELECTION. SO IF YOU VOTE IN THE TUESDAY PRIMARY, YOU'RE HELPING TO CHOOSE NEXT WEEK'S GUEST. AS ALWAYS, "IOWA PRESS" FRIDAY AT 6:30, SUNDAY AT NOON. I'M DEAN BORG. THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.

ANNOUNCER: FUNDING FOR "IOWA PRESS" HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY FRIENDS OF IOWA PUBLIC TELEVISION; BY THE IOWA BANKERS ASSOCIATION... FOR PERSONAL, BUSINESS, AND COMMERCIAL NEEDS, IOWA BANKS HELP IOWANS REACH THEIR FINANCIAL GOALS; BY THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF IOWA... THE PUBLIC'S PARTNER IN BUILDING IOWA'S HIGHWAY, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE; AND BY IOWA NETWORK SERVICES AND YOUR LOCAL INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE COMPANY... IOWA NETWORK SERVICES, YOUR CLOSEST CONNECTION.