Singer: A lot of the mainstream or establishment Beltway press - the Chuck Todd/Hotline types - are kind of overlooking your race. Why do you think they're wrong.

Radnofsky: I disagree that I'm being overlooked. I've started to get much more traction and I've seen Hotline mention me several times. So I think that I'm not completely overlooked.

I do agree with you, however, that they find other races more interesting, which I find a mistake. But everybody's entitled to their opinion, and I just need to prove myself more.

I am getting traction in the Texas press, and that's more helpful to me, frankly, because I intend to win it with Texas voters.

Singer: What's one thing that people should know about your candidacy that's not really being reported, whether it's in the national media or in the Texas media?

Radnofsky: The first thing is my opponent's big drop in the polls that are, over time, huge and significant. To have a sitting Senator already drop 17 points to a person, who until I got started was unknown, that's significant.

The other issue is huge level of mistrust that Texas voters have generally against incumbents. In our testing, what we're finding is people do not trust the state's Senior Senator, and that's in particular to my opponent.

Singer: What do you see as the biggest issue in this campaign?

Radnofsky: Probably the waste of taxpayer dollars. And of course that goes across the board. It affects immigration, because Texas bears a disproportionate share of the cost of immigrations. It goes to hurricane relief, which despite the statewide efforts to get hurricane relief we find our folks are completely ineffective in bringing home money to Texas. It includes transportation, where Texas is ranked 49th in the country, in terms of transportation dollars per capita. And of course overall, in terms of bringing home the bacon, Texas ranks 51st.

And folks are aware that government is wasting their money, wasting it in areas they do not agree. Corruption is rank. And there is a great mood for change.

Singer: You brought up the issue of immigration, which I'm sure is an issue that's near and dear to voters in your state as you border Mexico, a country from which many of the undocumented immigrants came from. What do you see as the right response to the immigration issue? Should there be walls going up? Should there be general - if not amnesty, some sort of program to allow undocumented people in the country to become citizens? Or do you think that these people should be criminalized, as the House bill would entail?

Radnofsky: On the specifics of your three questions, a wall is a huge mistake. My opponent voted for the partial wall, which will cost billions of dollars and won't even work. Even Michael Chertoff derides such a proposal as unworkable. So a wall just won't work.

If security is involved, as it is, then we ought to do reasonable measures. But really we need to target something other than legal trade, which is what my opponent would do, choking off the economy of South Texas.

With regard to giving people a free ride, that's not the solution. But we need to give people an arduous path to citizenship, and there's a practical reason. The practical reason is people won't register if they have no hope. And so there is no workable solution that my opponent has proposed. Instead, she's thwarted every time there has been a moderate proposal for immigration reform.

And no, it doesn't make sense to criminalize folks completely. It makes no sense at all. It doesn't solve the problem. Nobody's enforcing our existing laws now, and as I said at the beginning, Texas bears a disproportionate share of the burdens of law enforcement, immigration costs and social services.

Nobody's fighting for Texas. My opponent has made some wacky proposals and I have listed those at www.Radnofsky.com in the issues chart under immigration. And I've contrasted her proposal, which basically place vigilantes at the border, versus what I have proposed.

Singer: Let's talk about the culture of corruption. I know that voters across the country, and probably specifically in the Houston area, are well aware of Tom DeLay's misdeeds and the general culture of corruption in Washington. How tied do you think Senator Hutchison is into this, at least in the minds of the voters?

Radnofsky: Hutchison is intimately tied to corruption. In March of 2006, as you know, she voted against a Senate amendment which would have barred Senators and their staffs from accepting gifts from lobbyists. She has opposed the independent office of public integrity with a director that would have subpoena power.

But I'll tell you what's more important. This is the woman who was the hostess for the K Street Project. And the Radnofsky versus Hutchison will highlight Hutchison's work in carrying out Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist's attempts to completely remove any vestige of democracy.

She was a hostess for the K Street Project. She also was the hostess for Tom DeLay's big fundraiser in Houston in December. She gave money to his criminal defense fund and has defended him post-indictment in an extraordinary letter to the Houston Chronicle.

So she is heavily involved in what you call a culture of corruption. And what brings it home to Texas? What brings it home to Texas is we're paying the costs of that corruption. We see it with hurricane relief, we see it at the border in terms of cronyism fills boards, and it's got to end.

My opponent is the person who went on Meet the Press as indictments were anticipated perhaps for Rove but were anticipated for Libby, this is the person who said, "I certainly hope if there's going to be an indictment that it says something happened that it be not a mere technicality such as perjury." Now that is an outrageous statement. And it underviews the entire concept.

Singer: Well I suppose it's specifically outrageous from someone who voted to [remove] the President for the crime of perjury.

Radnofsky: That shows the entire cynicism, but the quote on it's own - even had she not known better - the quote on it's own shows that she's got no business being a US Senator. This is someone who considers perjury a mere technicality. When you cover up a crime and let the criminal go free, you ought to be prosecuted.

Singer: One of the stories that's trickling out right now and has been trickling out for several months is the effort by the administration to eavesdrop on the American people. The newest chapter in this story is the surveillance of bank records of many, many Americans. Do you feel the balance is right, that the administration has the power under the Constitution to surveil Americans' records, be they telephone records, telephone conversations or bank records? Or do you think that Congress needs to be more assertive in reigning in the administration's activities?

Radnofsky: I'll tell you who needs to be assertive in protecting our rights, it's the independent judiciary. If the law has been violated and the constitution has been violated, our bulwark is an independent judiciary. So with all do respect, I think your question should be not only should Congress protect the law but the role of the independent judiciary is key. And don't you find it interesting that this day and age you have to ask your candidates what's your position not only on perjury but what's your position on the independence of the judiciary?

I can tell you my position: I'm against perjury and I think judiciary should be independent. I believe in three branches of government.

Singer: I know that your state's junior Senator, who of course you're not running against, but your state's junior Senator and also Congressman Tom DeLay made comments that seemed to indicate that they did not like the independence of the judiciary, that they would rather see it be more in line with what they see as their traditional values. You strongly disagree with that stance?

Radnofsky: Obviously we need an independent judiciary. It's what our founding fathers understood was key. We need a strong Congress, we need a strong President and we need a strong judiciary. I think that public officials who consider perjury a technicality, like my opponent, ought to resign. And I think that public officials that would countenance terroristic threats against the judiciary also have no place being in office.

Singer: Let's move over to the issue of Iraq. There is a plan being put forward that would give amnesty to insurgents, perhaps even some who have killed Americans (it's not clear in the details). What do you see as the right path towards success for Americans in Iraq or is it time to being extricating troops?

Radnofsky: We should set a timetable and withdraw. And I think giving amnesty to those who have killed Americans and our soldiers is a bad idea.

Singer: Let me ask you one more political question and then we can start wrapping up. Given the Texas governor's race with so many strong independent candidates - Kinky Friedman and Carol Keeton Strayhorn - how do you think that's going to affect your race? Will more independents be out there? Will more people be willing to vote against the Republican?

Radnofsky: Yes, yes. The two points you've just made are key. There will be more independents out there. There will be more people who will not be voting a straight Republican ticket. The Republican ticket is flat out going to be split in Texas and the folks who come out to vote for these independents are not going to be the ones who vote for my opponent.

Keep in mind she rubberstamped the administration 95.6 percent on the time last year. This is the rubberstamp for failed administration policies I'm running against. So this Radnofsky-Hutchison race, according to the political scientists, with the downfall of Tom DeLay and with the massive interest that isn't traditional interest in the governor's race, this is where Texans will be able to voice their vote as a referendum on how they feel about the direction the country's taking. And so it's really emerged to my benefit.

Singer: Final question. If there's one message that you could send out to the progressive blogosphere, to the Netroots, what would that message be?

Radnofsky: I guess the bottom line that God's gift to the Senate is sitting in Houston right now having won 60 percent of the vote in the runoff and raised more than a million dollars and spent less than that to win two statewide races, her first two statewide races. They ought to get engaged, they ought to get involved and they ought to donate at www.Radnofsky.com would be my message. And if Radnofsky's difficult to get to they can go to www.VoteBarbaraAnn.com.

Singer: Terrific. Thank you so much for your time and good luck in your campaign.

Radnofsky: Thanks very much.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]