tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX News November 1, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PST
recommend knee, mi me, nick, jo, kathleen and earl rysssssssss h washington. "fox news sunday" is next. i'm john roberts in for chris wallace. today our interview with new house speaker, paul ryan. and the president shifts his strategy in syria. my answer is simple -- i will not put american troops on the ground in syria. the decision the president has made will further intensify our support. >> we'll discuss the situation in the region with senator lindsey graham, one of the biggest critics of the administration's foreign policy. and paul ryan takes the gavel from john boehner. >> we need to makes changes, starting with how the house does business. we speak with the new speaker of the house on the challenges ahead. and the new shape of the
republican presidential race after this week's controversial debate. >> this is not a cage match. >> we have isis and al qaeda attacking us, and we're talking about fantasy football? we'll get carly fiorina's reaction. >> after the last debate, i was told i didn't smile enough. from the undercard stage, former new york governor george pataki. plus our sunday panel weighs in on the future of jeb bush's campaign. >> you should be showing up for work. literally the senate, what is it, like a french workweek? >> somebody convinced you that attacking me will somehow help you. all on "fox news sunday." hello again from fox news in washington. we begin with a shift in strategy in syria. the white house announcing it will send around 50 special operations forces there to assist in the fight against isis. that contradicts president obama's earlier vow to not put american boots on the ground. the white house says the troops are not there for combat.
here to discuss more, is senator lindsey graham, who as advocated send are more troops to the region to battle the islamic state. welcome back to "fox news sunday." you have been saying for months we needed troops there on the ground to battle isis. what do you think of the president's decision to bring in 50 troops. >> it will not change conditions on the ground. i intend to destroy isil. they want three things, they want to purify the islamic faith and take it back to the 1100s and destroy the state of israel and attack infidels like us. al baghdadi said after he was in a p.o.w. camp, i will see you in new york. president obama said he'll degrade and destroy isil. sending 50 american special forces into syria in the eyes of isil shows that obama is not all in, it is a sign of weakness to isil. they have sized obama up and they think he's weak. to our allies, sending 50 troops means we're not committed to
destroying isil and if we're not committed to destroying isil, they'll attack us here. this is a failure on all fronts. these 50 operators will go in into a very bad spot with no chance of winning, and at the end of the day, this is an inkremtal change with no chance of success. let's just roll the clock back and look at what he said. >> i will not put american boots on the ground in syria. i will not pursue an open-ended action like iraq or afghanistan. >> is that a lesson in don't take any option off the table? >> yes, sir, it is. my goal is to destroy isil. if we don't hit them there, they will hit us here. here's what the president has done basically. he's surrendered on two fronts. his goal of degrading and destroying isil, this strategy will not work. at the end of the day barack obama has turned out to be a
completely incompetent commander in chief. he doesn't listen to sound military advice, leaving iraq too soon led to the rise of isil and john kerry is completely delusional man. what we're about to accomplish is to turn syria over to russia and iran, and to make sure that we never destroy isil on obama's watch, and pass this mess on to the next president. >> senator, one of the big concerns is we are not going to have american and russian forces operating in the same area with competing agendas. >> right. >> do you see the potential here for direct confrontation, either accidental or intentional? >> there may be some potential, but i see russia and iran mopping the floor with obama and kerry. russia is all in with iran to support assad. president obama said assad must go. the russians say no, he will stay. they're fighting to keep assad in power. assad is a puppet of the iranians.
his regime will not be accepted by the syrian people. he slaughtered 250,000 of them. it will destabilize the region and now obama's allowed russia to dismember syria like he did ukraine and the russians are back in the middle east strong. they've never been stronger since 1973. this is a complete disaster for us, it means the war never ends, the refugees continue to flow, and isil has recruiting opportunity now -- come to syria and fight our mortal enemy, the shia persian iranians. this is screwed up at every level. assad is winning. we're losing. isil is getting stronger. the 50 going on the ground are in harm's way without chance of success. i cannot tell you how bad this is. this is what john kerry will do. he will cut a deal with the russians and iranians, where they gets control over syria, the iranians will have another air capital under their control, and he will declare victory.
since the nuclear deal, the iranians have test-fired a missile in violation of the sanctions. they have put troops on the ground in iran to hurt our interest and have jailed the fourth american business person. is this the change we are hoping for? iran is just slapping obama and kerry in the face. we have about 30 seconds left. i do want to talk about the debate. there's a big meeting in northern virginia, talking about changes in debates going forward after the debacle on wednesday. what changes do you want to see? >> i want smaller groups on the stage, better questions, and let us all be heard from equally. reince priebus is a good man, he's rebuilt the republican party, but this debate structure is not leading to the best candidate coming out of the debates. i would like smaller groups, all of us be heard equally, ask better questions, if we do that we'll get the best nominee to
win a election we can't afford to lose. if we continue with this process, i think at the hurt our chances for winning in 2016. thank you for joining us. sorry you didn't get the extra hour to sleep in today, but i hope you'll enjoy the football game. >> i will. thank you. congressman paul ryan, the party's former vice presidential nominee, takes the top job and is how issing to change the way congress does business. earlier i sat down with the congressman to discuss his if you plans. you said you wanted party unity. prior to taking over speaker and in your inaugural address. for the moment, for the most part, you've got it. what do you do to keep the party together? how do you get the two sides of the gop together so you can actually get things done. >> i think we've been bold on tactics, not on policy, and i
think key is to offer the country a very bold alternative, a bowled agenda how to solve this country's problems. i think that's how we unify. >> how much rope do you give the freedom caulks? a lot of members are getting a lot of heat for just supporting you. >> i think the is it key is we need congress is it working as the founders intended. that's number one. number two, i think it's very important we are a successful opposition party, not only do we use the tools that we have to be a successful opposition party, but we have to, number three, be a proposition party. this is where we have fallen down. i think this is what unifies republicans, which is to show the country how we would do things differently. how do you overhaul the tax code? what is the replacement of obamacare look like? how do you effectively attack the root causes of poverty to help people build their lives? how do you get economic growth? those are the things that people are hungry for. that's what we have to offer the country. we don't think the country is headed in the right direction, we ought to show what we would
do if we had the ability to do it. i think that unifies us. >> in terms of doing things differently, the last vote, you voted for the budget deal, after saying long and loud, this whole thing stinks. >> it did. i think the process stunk. here's what happened. >> but ooii've talked to severa republicans, if you can say that about the budget deal and yet vote for it, then under your speakership, it will be business as usual. >> my colleagues who know me think differently. we were coming up to a deadline on tuesday where we could have had a potential default. we were coming up with a deadline on appropriations on december 11th. what happened was leadership presented us with a bill a few days beforehand. we should not be doing business that way. i've been the first among many to discuss that. what i think we need to do as a republican congress is develop a strategy early on and involve all members of our conference so
we can think about these issues ahead of time and not get right up to the deadlines to prosecute a strategy early on and show people who we are and open the process up. that's how we have to do things differently. i told the members of our conference, i cannot pick up where john boehner left off. i can't do things the same way. we have to do things differently. i think most members agreed with that. i think that's one of the reasons why my colleagues asked me to do the job. >> the people i talked to, agree with you, the process has to change, but they also think if you're coming up against hard deadlines, you should uses in a leverage to get things you want. >> we should have been meeting months ago to discuss how we would do that. we didn't do that. >> three republican presidential candidates voted against this bill. the democrats say that's reckless, they're playing fast and loose with the american economy and they don't deserve to be elevated to the presidency because of that type of behavior. were their votes reckless? >> i'm not going to criticize
how a person voted one way or another. what i think we need to do is change the way we do business. we've been bold on tactics, but not bold on alternatives. i think in 2016, we need to show people who we are, what we believe, and how we would do things differently, and what our ideas and policies are to change the direction of this country. we think the president's leading us in the wrong direction, and here in the house, we have to offer a bold alternative. that's what unifies us and with a we'll work on. >> that's your vision. i talked to other republicans that say going forward in terms of changing status quo and what you should be doing as a party in this presidential year, you should be putting on the president's desk legislation on regulatory reforms, spending bills, that puts the democrats in a difficult place. would you agree? >> i'm not talking about putting anybody in a difficult place. i think we give the nation solutions. >> this is what the party wants. >> the party wants to be on offense, give people alternatives. we are elected by our constituents to represent them.
people in this country are very anxious and very frustrated. working people of america are falling behind, not getting ahead, very worried about their future. foreign policy is an absolute disaster. we owe the people of this country a different vision for how we will go forward and this is what we owe our constituents and this is what we're going to do. >> but you also have to keep the party together. there are many conservatives who say we did well in the polls in the election in 2014 after the government was shut down in 2013. there's a new ap poll says a divided public says, okay, if you want to shut down the government in order to force the president to swallow this difficult choice of spending cuts or inflating or blowing out the budget, you're probably right to do that. has history not shown that you can do whatever you need to do to reign in big government?
>> i think your gaze is too low, raise it to the horizon. >> this isn't my gaze, but your party. >> we've been too timid on policy. we've been too timid on vision. we have none. this is what i think we can unify over which is so people understand why we make decisions on a day-to-day basis, they don't understand where we're going. we have to show people where we're going and what horizon we're shooting for. what are our ideas and apply them to the problems of the day to get solutions for working families so they can get ahead and they can see that we can get this american idea back. that's the problem. we fight over tactics, because we don't have a vision. we have to have a vision and offer an alternative to this country so they can see if we get the chance to lead, if we get the presidency and keep congress, this is what it would look like, this is how we'll fix the problems working families are facing. that is what we have not done. that's what we need to do.
that's in my opinion how we unify. >> in order to do that, some mainstream republicans have told me that you as speaker may have to throw the senate under the bus. do you agree? >> i don't think we throw any republicans under the bus. look, i was not asked to disunified the republican party. i was asked to unify, so throwing republicans under the bus is not in my job description. we have to unify, and we have to also understand the limits that the constitution places on us when we have a president that doesn't agree with us, when we have a president that's unwilling to listen to us. so i would truth to power, be an effective opposition party, but be a very effective proposition party. >> in the leadup to taking over as speaker, you promised a new spirit of openness. a new spirit of transparency. will you as speaker make public the full text of the transpacific partnership? >> it's in the law. >> it's secret right now. >> we haven't even seen it yet. they haven't finished drafting it. the trade promotion authority legislation which i co-authored
requires that this trade agreement be made public to all americans so they can see it. >> how soon will that happen? >> that's up to the administration. that's not something within our control. we don't draft an agreement. it was negotiated. when that text comes to congress, it has to be made public at least 60 days, it will be public longer than that. to answer your question, the law that we wrote requires that the country get to read every piece of this agreement. >> in terms of the vote, it looks like the vote will happen in the lamb-duck session. >> i don't know when that will happen. >> will you make the vote earlier so the republican voters can get an idea of where your members stand on this? >> we haven't even see this trade agreement. i don't know when -- >> would you be open to that? >> i would be open to anything. i don't know when the vote is going to occur. just so you know, we haven't been sent this agreement yet. >> i understand. >> you said you will not pass any immigration bill that is not approved by the majority of the majority, the so-called hastert rule.
will you faithfully adhere to the hastert rule or cobble together a coalition of democrats and republicans to get past the freedom caucus. >> i was elected to unify the -- not to disunified the republican conference. so i think on the big controversial issues of the day, i want to reach for not just a narrow majority, i want to get us to consensus. that's what i think a good leader does. bring us to consensus. so to answer your question, i wasn't -- i wasn't made dictator of the house, but speaker of the house. that means i want to facilitate and lead us to consensus. there are always exceptions to the rules. when circumstances dictate, we have to look at all options available, but i believe it's important going forward we operate on a consensus basis, but on immigration in particular we can't trust this president on immigration reform. he's already proven untrustworthy, because he tried to circumvent the legislative process with his executive orders.
i think if we get consensus on border security, fine. on these other issues, this president has proven himself untrustworthy. >> in saying you would accept the speakership, you wouldn't take the job if it interferes with your family time, which opened up a national conversation about the importance of spending time with your family. there are many people who would like to see you make priority legislation that gives the backing of the federal government so they can have time with their families. >> i don't think people asked me to be speaker so i can take more money from hard-working taxpayers to create a new federal entitlement, but i think people want members of congress that represent them, that are like them. don't you want your member to be a citizen legislator who lives among you, who has your own kinds of concerns, who wants to spend time with his children on saturdays and sundays? i'm going to keep living in janesville, wisconsin, where i'm from. where i raised my family.
i'll keep going back and forth, and yes, sundays will be family dates and saturdays are family and constituent days. that's what most people want in their life is a balance. if you're asking me because i want to spend -- i want to continue being the best dad and husband and speaker i can be, getting that work/life balance correct means i should sign up for new unfunded entitlement doesn't make sense to me. >> one final question. much of the republican base hates the people in power. one of the reasons you were so popular with the base is you eschewed power. >> this is not a job i was ever seeking or looking for. i believe in what we call around here regular order. i think the committee should write the bills. i think members of congress should have the freedom and open process to represent the constituents in passing legislation, and that's why i don't think leadership should be trying to covet power and write legislation. i think i want to have a more
participatory process, which is really what the founders envisioned the house to look like. that's something that so many of us, myself included, have been concerned about the way this place has been run. this is why it's a new day. we're wiping the slate clean and i'm going to do it differently than it's been done. >> do you expect a long or short honeymoon? >> about 35 minutes. >> mr. speaker, thank you for taking the time. congratulations. >> i appreciate it. carly fiorina faces the critics after this week's debate. we'll talk to her about her performance, the fact checkers and those comments made by the laid at "the view."
i was recruited to hp to save a company. it was a company that had grown into a bloated inept bureaucracy that cost too much and produced too little to customers and shareholders. carly fiorina defending her record as hewlett packard ceo and joins us from des moines. ms. fiorina, welcome back to "fox news sunday." good to see you again. sorry, no extra hour of sleep today. >> good morning, john. we fell back, so i did get an extra hour's sleep. >> that's good. i wanted to get you to weigh in on the president sending 50 special forces, operators into syria. you talked a lot about what you would do as president when it comes to fighting isis. what do you think of the president's plans to send in these 50 operators? >> first of all, it's a recognition that you cannot have a successful bombing campaign county people on the ground
telling you where to place the bomb, so he's sort of come to reality, but on the other hand, it's also too little too late. this is a reflex you have the reality, when america does not act, does not lead as we have not the last three years, our options become very constrained and the situation becomes more dangerous. i'm glad he did this, but we still do not have a strategy in syria. we do not have a strategy to deal with isis. i laid mine out. and so as a result the situation is far more complicated than it was three years ago when he started talking big about al assad must go and red lines must not be crossed and now we have russia and iran calling the shots. when we do not lead, the world becomes a much more dangerous and tragic place. we are seeing that in syria. >> russia is bombing the same rebels that will be training and advising. if u.s. troops get caught up in a russian bombing attack, what should the president do? >> well, you know, the president has said he doesn't believe in no-fly zones, and says they
aren't very effective. they have been effective in the past. we need to establish one. we need to make it clear to vladimir putin that our jets will fly when and where they want, but so far this president has done none of that though he and his secretary of state continue to talk to russia, which is inexplicable to me because it's pretty clear that the russians while they're talking to us are also lying to us. we need to act now. in a way that sends an unmistakable message. it is why, as president of the united states, in addition to having a strategy in syria and for isis, i would also be rebuilding the 6th fleet right pund under vladimir putin's nose, rebuilding the defense program in poland, he must see strength and resolve from the united states of america. he has not. let's go back to your opening statements. you joked in the ronald reagan library debate, that you didn't smile enough, and the ladies of "the view" decided to take issue with that.
let's listen to what was said about your performance at the debate. >> she kicked off her thing, you know, people tell me i didn't smile enough during the last debate. she look demented. her mouth did not downturn once. >> demented, halloween mask, is there a double standard here? i can't imagine they would say things like that about hillary clinton. >> you think? yeah, i think -- i was on "the view" several months ago. they said none of that to my face. there is nothing more threatening to the liberal media in general and hillary clinton in particular than a conservative woman, so of course there's a double standard. conservative women from sarah palin to michele bachmann to carly fiorina are long used to this. it will not stop me. it will not scare me. maybe the ladies of "the view" if i come back again, let's say if they have the guts to say that to my face.
>> they said something to miss colorado when she appeared on stage in a nurse's uniform. kelley johnson is a lovely woman, committed to her profession. are these women out of touch? >> well, i think what these women represent is a set of liberal feminists who believe that if you do not agree with them on their liberal orthodoxy that you don't count, that somehow you're not a woman. see, i know that women represent half the nation, so of course our views are going to be as diverse as men's. i also know that unless and until women's potential is fully unlocked and women have been crushed under the obama economy, we will not be as good a nation as we can be and frankly i'm tired of being insulted by liberal feminists who talk about women's issues when the reality is every issue is a woman's issue from the economy to isis to russia to healthcare to education, to the national debt.
women care about all of that. so i am sorry i don't agree with the women of "the view." nevertheless, i'm going to continue to stand up, stand strong, talk about what i believe in, and i am hillary clinton's worst nightmare as a result. >> on the subject, one of your most talked about moments from wednesday's debate is when you want this. let's listen. >> 92%. 92% of the jobs lost during barack obama's first term belonged to women. >> what women are talking about is the data you used does not represent the totality of the obama administration's first term. people from your campaign said to me yesterday you misspoke during the debate. do you want to take a moment to clarify the remarks? >> thiis what the liberal media do, they try to discredit the messenger. yes, it is true, the 92% refers to the first 3 1/2 years of
barack obama's term, not the first four years. here's what is undeniable. women have been hurt under this administration's policies. the extreme poverty rate among women is the highest ever recorded. the poverty rate among women, 16.1%, is the highest in 20 years. women have been harmed by this administration's policies, just as african-americans have, just as the poor have been, progressive policies are bad for the people they claim to help. that is true of women as well as men. >> let me ask you again. if you're using a data set that stops in march of 2012, that you use because that's the most advantageous point to make that point, are you doing voters a disservice by not telling them what really happened during the entire first term of the presidency which is that by january of 2013, the number of jobs among women had increased by about 400,000. >> >> yes, as my campaign said, we
misspoke, but that reality doesn't change the reality that women have been harmed under this administration. think about what i just said, and this is what the liberal media tries to do. let us discredit the messenger so we ignore the truth of the message. here is the truth of the message -- women are harmed by this administration's policies, record number of women have lost jobs, living in poverty or living in extreme poverty. that is the debate we'll have to have to win in 2016. what is the real human impact of progressive policies? the reality is the human impact of progressive policies is to keep people unemployed. we have record numbers of people who are no longer working or who have quit looking for work. we have record numbers of people on food stamps. record numbers of people living in poverty. those are the facts. that is the truth. those are the facts, that is the truth. >> we have to wrap it up there. thank you. it was good to see you again.
we'll see you on the campaign trail i'm sure. >> thank you, john. the shake-up in the republican race and on the hill. plus what would you like to ask the panel? just go to facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday, and we may use your question on the air. looks like some folks have had it with their airline credit card miles. sometimes those seats cost a ridiculous number of miles... or there's a fee to use them. i know. it's so frustrating. they'd be a lot happier with the capital one venture card. and you would, too! why? it's so easy with venture. you earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, every day. just book any flight you want then use your miles to cover the cost. now, that's more like it. what's in your wallet?
combat vision. if we were envisioning a combat operation, we probably would be contemplating more than 50 troops on the ground. white house press secretary josh earnest explaining a major shift in president obama's syria strategy. it's time for our sunday group, syndicated columnist george will, ron fournier, liz cheney, and former senator evan bayh. liz, start us off here. the president said two years ago definitively i'm not going to put american forces on the ground in syria. two years later, here we are. >> it's no longer news that the president does something that contradicts statements he made previously. it happens on a regular basis. bottom line is we have a terrorist organization that established a caliphate in the heart of the middle east. it's a clear and direct threat to the united states of america. they have to be defeated and defeated by force. there's no diplomatic solution. there's no negotiation that's going to defeat isis. we have to take the territory from them that they now hold. we have a president who seems to either not know that or not
to care. he has no plan in place to defeat them. we have these incremental deployment of forces that include rule of engagement for or pilots, for example, that preclude them from doing the job he says they're out there to do. at the end of the day the notion that we're in vienna that we're negotiating, that the russians and iranians brought in as positive partners in the president's view is all folly. the president will have to answer to history. i'm sure he's looking towards his legacy, and the question for him will be why did you stand by while this threat to america, this grave threat grew and gathered strength across the middle east. >> senator bayh, does he need to go to congress now for further authorization? it seems there's a real potential for mission creep. >> a president is always stronger when you go to congress and get congress's support. the real issue is whether the congress would lend that, because on this issue, as many others, congress is divided.
some members of my party would resist adding even the 50 advisers that he's proposing to put in. on the other side, you have people like senator graham that want to go a lot further. there's not really a consensus. so the administration will be in the role of consulting and advising rather than seeking an official resolution of some kind. >> we're in there for 50, do you expect two years from now we'll be in for 5,000? >> it sure feels like a slippery slope. i disagree with one thing. i think it's still news when the president deceives the american public. he did say there would be no ground troops. either he knew at the time that was b.s. and that's a lie, or he didn't know that it was b.s. and that's naive. they talked about how it was not a strategic change. it was a shift. but those are synonyms. so they seem to be spending all their strategic thinking on how to spin these conflicts, and not as much time explaining
their real strategy and how we'll keep us out of syria, keep us out of these conflicts or win them. >> let's begun by understanding there are no good choices in a region in which there are now four barely functioning states. yemen, syria, libya and iraq. now the president is being accused of, i think john mccain's phrase, grudging incrementalism. that's probably true, but what is the choice at this point? liz says a caliphate has been established and we have to take the ground back. i don't know what the antecedent of that pronoun is. the conventional forces of our sometime allies in the middle east, from saudi arabia, jordan, vi egypt, all the rest, are perfectly capable of doing this with our assistance. whether 50 special forces perhaps being used as air controllers to make our air force and navy aviators just
that much more effective, whether that will be a big multiplier effect, but we as america will not take the land back. we certainly won't under president obama. >> should the president have acted three years ago, wouldn't is it have been much easier, and now before russia is in? >> with the benefit of hindsight, yes, we should have taking a more muscular approach, but i would take issue with one thing ron said. i'm not prepared to say he was actually lying to the american public. >> wasn't he told by a lot of people that that's not going to work? >> there was a difference the opinions. this is a prelude to a negotiation. a negotiation will determined by facts on the ground. facts on the ground in that part of the world are increasingly determined by boots on the ground, so the previous strategy was to try to support some moderate alternative. that was an unmitigated disaster. the department of defense's effort didn't work. trained five people. what our intelligence services are doing is more effective, but not enough so we're now trying
to support the kurds, who are effective on the ground. they are supporting hezbollah. so all this will play itself out and eventually there will be more stability and we can have a negotiation, but it's a very complex place, it's a mess and for anyone to imply there's an easy, simple solution, i think that would be somewhat naive. >> a prelude to negotiations, negotiations are under way right now in vienna to sort this out. no timetable for assad to leave. the united states is saying we want him to go. how do you think these negotiations will end up? >> i think they probably are on a track basically to end up in a place that is just as beneficial to the united states of america as the iran negotiation were, which was frankly not at all, but you have a problem here fundamentally, which is isis is a threat to the united states. what george says about the complexity of the region is absolutely true, but right now our focus has to be to defeat isis and that will take the united states of america to do it. >> you just mentioned vienna one of the napoleon's favorite maxims is if you start to take
vienna, take vienna. in other words, don't be tentative in military affairs. however, i'm not sure any republican will go to the american people and say elect me and i will put troops on the ground sufficient -- >> you have heard most republicans, even in the last debate say the united states of america, the security of this nation requires that we defeat isis and do what it takes. >> the devil is in the details, and so is defeat. >> we have to hold it there. we'll be back in just a little while. when we come back, a popular former three-term republican governor from a heavily democratic state. george pataki is struggling to break from the pack. we'll go in depth on the issues, next.
to change washington you have to understand government as well. you can't just be an outsider, you can't by just someone who throws stones at washington. you have to be able to bring people together across party lines. >> former governor george pataki in boulder, colorado, explaining how he would lead if he became president. governor pataki joins us from, welcome back. >> great being on, john. >> i don't want to be indelicate, but this question has been asked before, and i think it bears asking. why are you still in this? 0% of the polls, the numbers have not moved. >> two reasons. first of all, i know if i have the opportunity, that i can win the election and run the country. the second is while i'm out there meeting people in new hampshire, small retail groups, what i'm hearing constantly is
we know where you are in the polls, but please say? there are two front runners who i don't believe they should be the nominee. pretty much every other candidate is struggling. at the end the republican voters will want someone who can win and have a vision to move america forward. i know i can do that. so i'm encouraged by the reaction i get. >> the four key words there. you said "if i can win." you've raised less than half a million, which the bush campaign on the ropes is basically a rounding error. $13,000 cash on hand at the end of september, do you even have the money? >> we knew from the beginning we were going to have to run a grass-roots campaign. that's what we've been doing. we won't be running expensive media ads, but that's okay when you have the opportunity to talk directly to the people like i'm right now. i think the american people and honestly, the republican voters, yes, they're angry at washington. right now two people who have
never held public office have more than 50% of the republican vote, and pretty much everyone else is struggling as well. i think at the end they're going to say, yes, we want an outsider, someone who isn't a washington insider but someone with a proven record of being able to bring people together and actually change government and put in place conservative policies. if i get a chance for the american people to hear what i accomplished in new york, and my vision for america, i'm confident that not only can i win, but i will win. >> let me go back to the debate on wednesday night. you attacked hillary clinton for using a private server for conducting state department business. here is what you said. >> hillary clinton put a server, an unsecure server in her home as secretary of state. we have no doubt that was hacked and that state secrets are out there to the iranians, russians, chinese and other. that alone should disqualify her from being president. >> certainly, governor there's a
big controversy about the e-mails, the fbi is conducting an investigation, but you are very declarative that her server was hacked and the secrets are out there. what evidence do you have? >> all you have to do is look at what other countries have been able to do to hack the cia director, to hack our state department, to hack the military, the defense department. they have hacked very secure e-mail systems in the united states. >> wasn't that just an assumption on your part? >> i think that's a very safe assumption, when you send out over 60,000 e-mails on an unsecure server in your own house and you are secretary of state of the united states, and you know foreign countries are looking at this trying to find out what she is communicating, there's no question in my mind that her e-mails have been hacked and identified. i don't think anybody who looks at this fairly will come on any other conclusion. look at how successful they have been getting through the
encryption that our state department, our defense department, our cia has, and yet they have all been hacked. imagine how easy it is when you deal with a home server. >> governor, one point where you part ways with many people on the republican side of the fence during the debate and many people in your party, you believe that man-made circumstances, or at least possibly are -- rather partially responsible for creating global warming. you also part ways with your republican opponents who believe if you were to take meaningful steps toward addressing global warming, you'll ruin the u.s. economy. let's listen to marco rubio. >> every proposal will be proposals to make it harder to do business in america, harder to create jobs in america. >> governor, is he right? >> yeah, he's right, is because what he said is every proposal they make. there are two points. first, i am different from every other republican seeking the nomination.
i'm a limited government conservative. that means leave it to the states in accordance with the tenth amendment. second, the republicans have to embrace science. there's no question, none, that co2 is a greenhouse gas that will warm the atmosphere. that doesn't mean we have to accept barack obama or hillary clinton's big strategy of raising government power, government control over energy and manufacturing in this country. what i said at that debate and what i deeply believe is republicans should embrace innovation, american invention, we are the only country in the world that today has fewer greenhouse gas emissions than in 1995. it's not because of the big government programs, but because of the private industry innovation, fracking has allowed us to change interest coal to natural gas-powered plants.
embrace science. embrace innovation. we're americans. we can look at the 21st century with confidence and optimism. >> thank you for joining us, and see you on the campaign trail and we'll see you on the 10th of november. >> thank you, john. jeb bush says his campaign is not on life support. our sunday panel weighs in and the former front runner and rise of his one-time protege marco rubio has a big new donor.
it's not on life support. we have the most money, the greatest organization. we're doing fine. jeb bush insisting his campaign is not on the down and out. we're back with the panel. george, is he on the glide path to the death spiral? >> there is a self-fulfill be mechanism that starts here. people start staying you're in trouble, you're in trouble because people said you're in trouble because donors panic and that feeds back into this loop and marco rubio gets peter singer -- or paul singer. i can't remember which. >> paul. >> it cascades. i think jeb bush is probably feeling not unreasonably that he's the victim of a debate process that no one really thinks tests in a broad way the essential attributes of the president.
but he didn't make the rules, this is the landscape we play in, so right now i would say it's not as bad as the self-fulfilling mechanism indicates, but it could be in another week. >> he's going hard after marco rubio, that presentation he made to supporters in houston, including 112-page power point presentation who was about rubio, those who looked into his past have been concerned. >> i talked to people over the weekend, and they're second-guessing themselves. it's just not jeb's nature to be that confrontational and they'll try to have him focus more on connecting with the policies with the real people and shortening his answers. i agree with george. he seems to be right now a man who doesn't quite fit the times. i'm not a fortune teller. i don't know if he's going to make it or not. bushes aren't quitters. when you watch him deal with a debate process filled with loud
candidates, filled with loud reporters, a very vapid and vain political process that we're in now, he does strike me as charlie rose candidate in a charlie brown world. >> very close to his brother. is job just not cut from the same cloth when it comes to campaigning? >> i think what ron said is true. somebody senator -- advised jeb that the right way to respond to falling poll numbers is to attack marco rubio. you can see what he does it, he's not comfortable doing it. it seems out of character. i hope you're right. i hope he stops it, because it's not good for him, it's not good for the party, and it's not good for the future of the republican party either. >> rubio addressed that a friday night. let's listen to what he said. >> part of a strategic decision they made and they have a right to make it. i don't think it's a smart thing
for republicans to do hillary clinton's job for her. one of the reasons we lost in 2012 is republicans hacking each other and weakened the eventual nominee. >> by the republican establishment is worried that jeb talks down marco rubio that leaves ted cruz as the strongest candidate. >> hillary clinton wins against ted cruz. she would have more appeal to hispanics, women, young people. but the thing is things can change quickly. if we had talked about hillary clinton three weeks ago, we would have been talking about how she's struggling, things are looking tough and now she's up by 40 points and is a dominant figure once again. ron is exactly right. his background and who he is is a little out of tenor with the times. product of the establishment. upbringing of privilege. and it's almost as if he needs to be humbled and come out and say, look, forget my last name is bush. assume i'm smith. i was governor smith of florida, a crusading conservative, and here's what i got done and
present himself that way. that's the person i am. not the person you've been led to believe i am. >> is there something about marco rubio? >> yes, obviously a most talented candidate in the field, but he's not flawless. you look at that exchange. his initial answer was very robotic, very scripted, and he compared himself to barack obama and john kerry. that's the opening that hillary clinton would drive a truck right through. >> the problem with bush -- or for bush, at least, when you get in these death spirals, as scott walker discovered -- not to say that jeb bush is in the death spiral. you say you're in trouble and next thing you know you're off the edge of the cliff. there's a big meeting tonight, a lot of campaigns getting together to say this is what we need to do going in order. we need to make changes after the debacle it is cnbc debate. will they change, or at least the campaigns will put pressure on the rnc to change things. >> the most important function of a modern american political
party is to dispense a presidential nomination and they really therefore ought to have more control over the process than they have had. i don't blame reince priebus, he inherited a system and a tradition and the tradition is now thanks to cbs been proven to be intolerable to republicans. i wish this meeting well tonight. i think there ought to be a way -- have the debates, stream it on the internet, but the idea you have to make the party a hostage to a broadcast entity whether or not it's sympathetic, and none of them are for the republican party. that's what has to -- you have to emancipate the party. >> you're in the ted cruz on that. so you are in the carson -- fewer questions, more candidate statements, fewer debates. does that really serve the democratic process? >> the issue is not that the republicans are afraid to answer tough questions.
what happened is the moderators acted like they were democratic presidential candidates. they consiste enen enen enently the candidates. the questions are were snarky. i think reince and the rnc have done a great job. in order to defeat hillary in the general election, we have to recognize that most of the media will be on hillary's side, not our. >> the candidates need more confidence in the american public. they can spot a phony a mile off. they can spot gotcha questions and questions about ratings. the rules are they need to be prepared for anything and everything and the public will decide what's fair or not and they should have more confidence in that. >> fox business network, november 10th in milwaukee, we'll all be there, looking forward to it. we'll see how it goes. panel, thanks so much for being with us. appreciate it. chris wallace will be back next sunday. have a great week, and we will see you next "fox news sunday."
have a great sunday, everybody. \s on the buzz beater, the republican party declares war on nbc after the awful debate on cnbc, with the moderators sometimes sounding snarky, conned se condesce condescending. >> they said you have as much cutting taxes without increasing the deficit as you would away of flying frrp from that podium. when you look at the average of national polls right now is donald trump. when you look at him, do you see someone with the moral authority to unite a economy. >> that's such a nasty question, but thank you, governor. >> even in new jersey what you're doing is called rude. >> the questions