hybrid war. i normally call it unconventional war. hybrid makes it sound neat and new and flashy and all that. really hybrid is just old tools being applied in a different way and i call that unconventional war. and then, south. let me attack that one first because it's easier. as we talked about earlier, in the south, this problem is i think bigger than the core competencies of nato. there's a lot of thing that -- a lot of things that nato can do about the problem in the south but the answer in the south is not military. it's military plus a lot of other things. diplomatic. informational. economic. et cetera, et cetera. and so in the south, nato can continue to develop capabilities and capacities that address the root problem or the problems of

foreign fighter flows, extremists, terrorism, et cetera, et cetera. but the rest of governmental approaches will have to be applied to the bigger part of the problem. ungoverned spaces. governments that cannot meet the expectations of their people. et cetera, et cetera. those are not core nato militaries. we need to be able to enable and pair with other organizations like the eu or the u.n. or whatever. i'm not a real -- i don't think that we should be developing specific capabilities outside of what really is nato's remit. we should pair with other organizations that have capabilities and capacities outside of that remit in the south. i hope you understand how i answered that. to the degree of this quote/unquote hybrid warfare or

what i call unconventional warfare, this is an interesting issue. and in nato, we are already working on this to a certain degree in many of our nations that are along our eastern periphery. and this is interesting because, again, most of the problems of unconventional warfare are not truly military to begin with. most of the problems are addressed by capabilities inside the moi. the little green men as they begin to show up will first be addressed by policing and legal functions. not necessarily military functions. until we determine what they are and that they're a military force. and so, we partner with our nations to help them understand and develop capabilities and capacities.

there are those words again. inside of their nations to deal with these issues. we talk about recognize, characterize and attribute. recognize that you have an unconventional activity going on. not something legitimate. charact eerize it as not a legitimate political movement, characterize it as not something emanating from your nation. and then, third, attribute it to an aggressor nation. if that is, in fact, the case. you might find out that it's a legitimate internal movement. but if we recognize, characterize and then attribute to an aggressor nation, now there are things that the nations of nato can talk about how do we more directly aid a country that's under such an attack? in nato, through several of our military capabilities, to include our special operations

forces, both in nato and ucom, we are working with nations to look at this problem. inside their own country and how do they work it. i'll just tell you that in some of the nations we work with, it's done completely differently. in one nation it's almost an entirely a military remit. and the chief of defense is given the mission. in another nation, actual nation, it is almost entirely a ministry of interior remit and it is handed over almost completely to policing and judiciary functions. so we work with the nations in their own way of dealing with the problemment we help them to build capability and capacity to address it and a framework of recognize, characterize, attribute in order to bring it to a position where we can look at in it a more nato or alliance way. >> we have about six or seven more minutes left. let's see if we can get as many as we can. right there.

>> i'll try to answer shorter. >> i'll try to ask a shorter question so thank you. general breedlove, i'm from bucharest, romania. i'll have a parochial question. obviously, the summit for my country perceived as a watershed moment and the renewed commitment of nato to the flank. still, not so much maybe romania but in other countries of let's say the eastern arc i'll call it with the balkans, poland and bucharest. there are voices who are talk about maybe an insufficiently developed deterrent of the article v commitment of nato, both in operational and political terms. obviously, i will not ask you to comment on the political aspects of this but i would be very interested in hearing what you would have to say from your standpoint as to the necessary and feasible ways that

operationally nato could develop and strengthen the article v deterring capability and also in view of the warsaw summit of next year. thank you. >> that is not a short answer. >> sorry about this. >> i'll try to hit a couple of high points. this is the $64,000 question. what deters? remember that out of wales we were first tasked to assure our nations and then as we developed our assurance measures we started to talk about what are and are there deterrents values in what we're doing. what deters? and many pundits 0pine and i agree that mr. putin understands the difference between a nato nation which has an article v

attached to it and a non-nato nation. i mean, just tick out some of the places around the world. georgia. ukraine and other places where these are non-nato nations where russia has invaded and holds portions of their land mass. so, we have to ask ourself what is deterrence. i'm going to give you a really short answer. i keep telling the nations that we have made a great progress since wales. i have said this a couple of times now. we have increased the readiness and responsiveness of the nrf and certainly of the vjtf. we have given the sacreur tasks back to alert stages. et cetera, et cetera. we have sped up and increased the ability to respond but it is not enough. what i think deters is that the entire -- i have said this now

this will be the third time now i think. what deters i think is increase the readiness and responsiveness of the entire nato force structure. we have to get to these investments, exercises, and training scenarios that raises the responsiveness and the readiness of the whole force and that's what i think deters in the long run. very short answer to a much more complicated question. >> in the back. right there. thanks. >> greg, arms control association. with the iran nuclear deal going forward and with the absence of any iranian irb or icbm flight testing ever, is it time for nato to reconsider its schedule for the european fazed adaptive

approach? perhaps adapting the schedule to a lower anticipated threat level? >> so the short answer i think i would give you is there remains a very dense and deep capability in iran to fire conventionally tipped weapons that can threaten multiple parts of our alliance. and so, i think that we should stay on course with our epaa. >> yes, sir? >> pardon me. kelp smith, stanford university student. question, you were mentioning south asedia. what do you think should be done about these geopolitical anomalies and why do you think what you think?

>> so, i have never heard them called a geopolitical anomaly. i'm not a stanford graduate. i'm a simple georgia tech graduate. i would -- i would offer that the frozen conflicts of which there are several out there are -- are not conducive to any sort of forward progress in places like ukraine and others. these seem to be tools that are used in order to preclude a nation from being able to develop a leaning to where they want to lean. whichever direction it is. we don't go out and try to force a nation to lean one way or another. a nation makes its own choices. et cetera. and then, we see sometimes actions taken to have a quote/unquote veto on how they

might progress. and so, i don't think that we should accept incursions across internationally recognized borders, holding the sovereign lands of another nation in order to preclude that nation's aspirations of taking whatever steps they want to take in whatever direction. we don't recognize that as an appropriate tool. and i don't think that we should into the future. again, if a nation wants to become a part of the responsible nations who address great problems of the world, like isil, then show responsible behavior across all spectrum of these kinds of issues. >> that sounds to me like a great way to end. karen gave me her watch to make sure i kept us on time. thank you very much, general. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you all. president obama along with other world leaders spoke at the united nations general assembly meeting in new york on monday. the president talked about terrorism, syrian refugees and the need for cooperation between the u.s. and other nations. >> i lead the strongest military that the world has ever known. and i will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary. but i stand before you today believing in my core that we and the nations of the world cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion. we cannot look backwards. we live in an integrated world. one in which we all have a stake in each other's success.

we cannot turn back those forces of integration. no nation in this assembly can insulate itself from the threat of terrorism or the risk of financial contagion. the flow of migrants. or the danger of a warming planet. the disorder we see is not driven sole ly by competition between nations. or any single ideology. and if we cannot work together more effectively, we will all suffer the consequences. that is true for the united states, as well. no matter how powerful our military, how strong our economy, we understand, the

united states cannot solve the world's problems alone. and iraq, the united states learned the hard lesson that even hundreds of thousands of brave effective troops, trillions of dollars from our treasury cannot by itself impose stability on a foreign land. unless we work with other nations, under the mantle of international norms and principles and law that offer legitimacy to our efforts we will not succeed. and unless we work together to defeat the ideas that drive different communities in a country like iraq into conflict, any order that our militaries can impose will be temporary. and just as force alone cannot impose order internationally, i

believe in my core that repression cannot forge the social cohesion for communities to succeed. the organization's president of planned parenthood seveal richards testifies before the house overnight and reform committee at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates, at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies and speeches. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and always, every campaign event we cover is available on our website at cspan.org. next, the panel of republican campaign managers on the candidates and strategies in the 2016 presidential race. the event moderated by editor rich lowry.

>> good afternoon and welcome to google. i'm lee dunn and i help run the elections team here and i wanted to welcome everyone to what should be an interesting afternoon. behind all the brilliant youtube ads launched this cycle, behindmost of the creative debate one-liners and the best staged town hall, there's a brilliant campaign manager. today we get to hear from the campaign managers. at google an youtube we're proud to partner with national review to bringing a program to inform all americans about the elections process. and this promises to be an unpredictable and exciting 2016 cycle. americans are hungry to know more about the candidates, the elections, the campaign managers, we have seen a 60% increase in election searches since 2008 cycle.

over 400 hours of video are uploaded to youtube every minute every day. we're live streaming this event with national review on their youtube channel so i hope you go back and watch it again. but we are most proud most americans watch this event even not part of the beltway elite or living here in town. we're hoping that con yeah west campaign manager's watching and taking notes for his election on 2020. so now i want to turn it over to our host, the national editor for -- the editor for national review, rich lowry. >> thank you very much. thanks, guys. thanks for being here. [ applause ] thank you to google and youtube for co-sponsoring this with us. my suggestion is that we would do all these interviews in keeping with google decorum in bean bag chairs separated by a fooz ball table. i just want to thank all of the campaign managers for making the

time to come out here. they're truly in the arena. there's nothing easier than being on the outside and criticizing people for all the things they're supposedly doing wrong which is what i, john, do for an a career. but i've never run a campaign. i have never run for office. i've never had to deal with the press corps every day the way you do but i may have gotten a hint of what it is like because eight weeks ago we had a first baby, a beautiful little girl. and she is -- just a little bit like dealing with the press corps, she is insatiable, requires constant care and feeding. >> and how's the feeding? >> and if you displease her, she will whine and cry shamelessly. this might sound familiar, john. john bra bender is a chief strategist for rick santorum. thank you for being here. >> good to be here.

>> let's start off with one of the big questions of your campaign as well as some others. it seems from the early indications that people aren't interested in traditional political experience. they aren't interested in anyone who's been around the block a few times. and your candidate was in the senate far while. but left in 2006. and has run for president once before. and has been around for a while now. how do you make him fresh and new or is that even necessary? do you -- >> yeah. let me start by doing two things. i feel a little bit like a campaign. we don't have a manager by design and rick ran for president in 2012. we also basically did not have a campaign manager. we structurally have positioned campaigns differently because we feel like this isn't the 1960s anymore. and number two, what i am is a

strategist, the media consultant on the campaign and what i really am finding kind of enjoyable because i do a lot of press for the senator, as well, going on the air and stuff, is i'm getting asked the exact same questions that i got asked four years ago. where they say, you know, you have a candidate. lost the last race by 18 points. >> i hadn't brought that up yet. >> i'm there. he lost it by 18 points. you know, he is running last and, you know, all these other things. last time with two weeks to go before iowa, he was in last place in one poll in i with and only reason it's so notable is he was behind jon huntsman who pulled out of iowa and even said, oh, well, i'm pulling out because in iowa all they pick is corn. in new hampshire they pick presidents. so now, two weeks later rick santorum ends up winning iowa and just to refresh everybody's memory, he won 11 out of the 30 states and tied 2 others as far as delegate counts.

michigan and alaska. and probably the belief was if he would have won michigan outright a lot of people believe romney would have got out of the race. so to us understanding the fluidity of the type of races, understanding, you know, i mean, you look at the cnn poll yesterday. scott walker under 1%. i remember sitting and having a lot of questions about three months ago and people ask me how do you stop scott walker? so if you go back four years ago in the lead was her man cain, michelle bach man, romney and gingrich. a lot of people, you know, didn't -- perry. and some of them didn't get -- most of them didn't get past iowa. so you have to take a look and understand the way the races are and the first thing you have to understand is there's not one primary right now. or there's not one caucus. there are a lot of mini ones. different people are running against different people. in other words, sure, santorum

is probably running against huckabee and there's multiple primaries going on. second of all, nobody wins with 50% in states. they get a lot of 15% and 18%. and so you start running a race that way in these presidential and it's different. i have been involved in last four presidential races. you know? i was with rudy giuliani and strangest experience of my life because we would sit in our war room and we would see all the places where rudy up by 15 points and nationally up by 15 points. yet we knew that he was going to have a lot of trouble because he wasn't conservative enough for republican primary voters and so i think everybody's got to take a deep breath and understand this is unlike any other election. it's like those races on steroids. if you look, john mccain probably this close to getting out of the race when he ends up

winning the nomination so, you know, again, i feel like i'm answering a lot of same questions. we run our race. we don't do it on money. we do it on volunteers. there's an interesting statistic. last time in iowa, rick santorum i think spent $22 per caucus vote. perry spent $768 per caucus vote. and so, the other benchmark that i keep noticing everybody's trying to use is money raised. and money raised doesn't mean all that much anymore and republican primaries because trust me when people walk up and vote on primary days, republicans, they're rarely basing it on ads. i do ads for a living. at least they aren't when there's 20 candidates or 16 candidates. down to one or two they matter a lot more in my opinion. >> let me press you on my initial question, do you reject then the analysis that pretty much everyone has bought into that carly, carson and trump

collectively above 50 says people want outsiders, they want new and different? are you reading that more as just an artifact of temporary polling that you've seen before and saw last time and everyone is overinterpreting it? >> first of all, i think there are some exceptions this time. people say are you kidding me? donald trump, are you serious? and the truth of the matter is -- i'll be the first to say this. i went on cnn three weeks ago and said after the first debate, donald trump i believe has 15 minutes of fame will be up. i was dead wrong. and the reason i believe i was dead wrong is i didn't misunderstand donald trump. i misunderstood the people supporting donald trump. in fact, the closest to them is i think they supported ron paul last time. they -- you know, because we see where the more outrageous the behavior of trump he seems to solidify his base even more and all that is to them is evidence that he is not going to be like

everyone else. and so, you start rules of engagement sort of go out the window when that starts happening. number one, i do think there is this deep desire to be anti-washington. absolutely without a doubt. but second of all, you have to factor into that, too, in the early stages, that's all they know about some of these candidates is they're anti-washington. her mman cain was an anti-outsi washington candidate went way to the top because of that. people tell you very little about herman cain and didn't know if he should be president or not and i think it was proved he shouldn't be president. i'm not telling that's necessarily proven about carly or ben carson or trump but i'm telling you we have gotten nowhere near that period where people made that determination. >> if you look at a difference of last time and this time, you mentioned some candidates are running against specific other candidates rather hand the rest of the field. you mentioned mike huckabee. correct me if i'm wrong.

i would put ben carson in that category. i would put ted cruz in that category. maybe there are a couple i'm missing but doesn't that make for a much more crowded and competitive playing ground in iowa than you guys had last time? >> absolutely. i would say a much more credible field than we had last time. one thing we felt comfortable last time is top three in iowa. once you have in the top three in iowa, there's like a reset, not the romney reset but another reset where you shuffle the decks and you have a smaller number of candidates and we felt we could be the conservative alternative and felt the other candidates moving forward not all that conservative. we saw the path. this time, i like to say there's about 16 people running and none of them are probably the front-runner. i mean, it is -- you know, in fact, my argument with the rnc a little bit i'm saying about limiting the debates, i think this might be the greatest field

of any party putting something and one party running for president in history. i think it's a remarkable field. and i think that you're seeing that when somebody like a scott walker struggling and who in my opinion is a very, very credible candidate. and so, i think it's -- i think, you know, they're all well behind in some sense. i mean, you look at the polls in iowa. if you take the people who are at 1% an enthe people at 7%, it's vast majority of the candidates right now. i mean, that just shows how good the field is, not how poor the field is and difficult for everyone. i think in some sense they're all long shots at this point. >> there was a suggestion from shawn spicer in an interview the other day there's not an undercard debate next time and instead just interviews and you can read beneath the surface there and it sounds like an attempt to sort of rush people off the stage and out of the debate. do you think that interpretation is correct and if so what would you do to push back against it?

>> i saw the comments and i think that is how a lot of people interpret it. it's a huge mistake at this point to say, okay, two debates, sefrg settled. do you know how many debates there were last time? rick santorum was in 23 debates and the rnc said we're going to narrow it down to 10, is 1 debates. okay, fine. 23 is probably too many. everybody got that. but now we are saying not only reducing the number of debates we are going to pick and choose that the people at 3% is in but the person at 2% is not. that's just ridiculous at this point. i mean, case in point is carly fiorina. what if they would have decided that in the first debate? that there was not going to be an undercard. carly fiorina would not never have made it into the second debate in the higher level. so i just think at this stage there's something advantageous for anybody to do this. >> how would you go about doing it? obviously, you know, the 11 on the stage this time around was too many.

>> i agree. i think they shouldn't have done it the way they did it. 8, 8 and 8 or 8, 8 and 7 and random. you want a combination of people. i don't know how many people watched the first debate. it was pretty well covered. they would have done just as well in the second debate. no doubt in my mind that, you know, santorum sat there for 23 debates and did great last time. i mean, right now to use some of these as a factor to say that somebody at 4% or 3% is in, somebody at 2% isn't, they're statistically tied but that makes no sense as a party. they're running against different things and this primarily is not about a winner. it is like three dimensional chess. who's in abe out and will greatly change the field. an enso, donald trump even not the nominee greatly changed the election and will change this election and so, you can take somebody out who you say

shouldn't be there and giving somebody an advantage by doing that. and i just think that it doesn't make sense talking about people who are two-term governors, two-term senators, people who have won iowa, huckabee and santorum last night. it just seems absurd to me. >> so is rick basically back, though, to what he did last time just pounding the ground in iowa, visiting pizza ranch at pizza ranch? >> every county and those type of things. you have to. first of all, look. i'll do like right now i'm doing the governor's race in virginia -- i mean in louisiana, senate races next year. every one of the races is different. every candidate is different. every km pain is run different. so in santorum, you have to remember, not an elected official since 2006. not an elected official to raise money. believe me, it is easier as a gover nor or senator running for president to raise money. he doesn't have a tv she like

trump or huckabee did. his last name is not bush and he has to deal with the fact he is not going to ever have money like they will. on the other hand, what he does have is an asset that he's developed over time and that is in the republican primary, the most conservative or most likely to vote and they see him as a trusted conservative. and then if you go into the pro-life community, evangelical community, home school community, groups like that, he has a lot of trust and won iowa last time is those people end of the day wanted to vote for somebody they believed in and he ended up winning iowa. not on iowa caucus night but eventually he did. >> let me hit you with two lightning round style questions here at the end i hope to ask everyone. what is the one moment, the one move from another campaign or candidate so far that's made you think, wow, that was good? i wish i thought of that. that was shrewd. and two, what is the most

endearing quality of rick santorum that all of us on the outside may not be privy to but you are? >> first of all, i thought trump signing the pledge to say he wouldn't run as a third party. >> why? >> because i think what -- i believe about two weeks ago there was a shift in the trump campaign if you watch it carefully. i think for the first time they started to believe they could win and i think they've tried to become more credible. i thought actually in the debate he tried to be more careful and how he chose his words and i think he understands that he has popularity but he has to prove that he can be the standardbearer to represent the party. >> do you think he can win? >> you know -- again, i told you before i would have said no but i'll tell you the oddity of what i'm seeing out there is incredible. i'm dealing in a lot of state elections where i'm seeing trump's popularity so i think that, you know, let's put hit way. i never thought herman cain was ultimately possible to be the nominee because i thought he had problems and there's other -- i never thought newt gingrich

would be the nominee ultimately. i think there are scenarios with this many candidates in the race that trump has ownership of something, you know, i mean, think about it. chris christie supposed to be the plain talking one, right? trump stole that from him. that's gone. i mean, trump stolen something from almost every candidate that has hurt them and helped himself and so therefore i think with this many people in the field, i don't know how you can rule him out at this point. >> and 29, 28 seconds, the most endearing quality of rick santorum we aren't aware of? >> he doesn't change my ads. so we did one, i'll tell you real quick. against romney, romney chasing or lookalike chasing santorum and he was shooting mud at him. >> are you sure he shouldn't have changed that one? >> i thought when he saw it he would think i was crazy. he thought the font needed to be

larger. >> thank you. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> take care. . good luck. >> chip. welcome. >> good to see you. >> thank you so much. chip englander of the rand paul campaign. so, chip, i'll sort of start at the version of the same question i asked john. which is that there seems to be an emphasis on candidate who is are new and different who don't represent politics as usual and i think a year ago or so a lot of people will say, well, who does that describe? when's very likely to be a candidate. rand paul but that doesn't seem to have applied to him yet. what is your thought on that? >> well, i think there's no question there's a tremendous hunger for something new. people are sick of the system. you know? and they want to shake things up and plays to the senator's credit and as you mentioned a

year ago, something maybe very strongly associated with him. the reality is and john talked about it quite a bit. it is a fluid race. things go up, things do down. you might have seen the news breaking of governor walker and getting out of the race tonight and he was in first place and that's how it's historically been. you look four years ago, talking about with rick, first place, michelle bachmann in first in september and rick perry and cain and then gingrich and none of them finished in the top two. iowa, new hampshire, nevada, four years before that, right now huckabee and mccain in single digits. they win iowa and new hampshire to be the nominee. before that, howard dean up by a bigger margin than trump and this is sort of just this is how they go and that's what makes it a lot of fun. if it was easy, a lot of people

do it. >> another factor people will raise with you guys that has shaped the environment in a way that's perhaps been difficult to deal with is it seemed the with beheading of james foley that public opinion shifted in a more hawkish direction. certainly among republicans and a lot of people think that's made it harder going for rand than they would have thought. so, one, do you accept the premise that there's the shift in public sentiment? and, two, has it made the sledding tougher for the campaign? >> well, you know, rand, he follows the ronald reagan foreign policy doctrine of peace through strength. so he believes america should have the greatest military in the world and shouldn't be afraid to protect american interests but that doesn't mean that we should be for intervention for the sake of intervention. he did oppose unnecessary interventions in libya and he opposed the arming of al qaeda -- isis' allies in syria. the reality is, we're -- isis

fights us with western arms. and we have to be careful on our foreign policy approach and have a responsible foreign policy to keep america safe. >> but did you feel that shift in public opinion? do you think that's a real thing? >> i certainly wouldn't want to talk to the politization of beheadings. i think everybody is concerned about national security, as we should be, and as rand is. >> it's not that the beheading itself is politicized, it's just that after people saw that and were appalled by it, you looked at the numbers and for ground troops in theory to fight isis and some polls you've seen majority support for that, i believe, which seems to be an issue environment that's much different than immediately after the end of the bush years when there was a really reaction on the right. we were involved too much, these interventions didn't work out, we can't donation building.

>> well, rand thinks we need to have boots on the ground it should be their boots on the ground. i mean, that's the area it most impacts and we don't want to send our young men and women to go and die and the reality is that's where a lot of americans are and where the classic sort of republican foreign policy has been historically. >> so i hate to do this to you but let's talk more about trump. a few weeks ago rand began to go after him hammer and tongs and the result of that seemed not to be evident and certainly didn't seem to help rand. what was the thinking behind that tactic? are you guys going to keep it up going forward? what's your thought on that? >> it's interesting. nate silver at 538 a few weeks ago did an analysis of the media coverage out there and found that trump was getting more coverage than all the other candidates combined. so that's an extraordinary share of voice in the race.

so if you're not engaging trump you risk completely falling out of the conversation. and if he's going to be the front-runner then we need to have a conversation about where we stand and what that means as a party so that's really about jump starting that conversation. >> so it wasn't something that senator paul particularly expected to gain from? just something that you guys considered necessary given trump's status in the race. >> well, i think that rand speaks from the heart, and he speaks about the things that he cares about, and i think that he worries about having somebody that -- i think there's many parts of trump's record that are concerning to lots of conservatives out there. and primaries are the time to litigate those things. >> so there are people who will tell you in iowa and, to be honest, most of them are associated with ted cruz but they'll tell you that ted cruz

has been able to eat into rand paul's libertarian support out there. do you think there's any truth to that? and how's iowa lining up for you? >> i'm sure ted cruz would tell you that ted cruz is doing very well, and i don't blame him for that. no. i think things line up very well for us in iowa. the reality is, you take a look at the iowa caucuses. so caucuses put disproportionate value on passion and organization which are things that we do very well at. there's 131,000 people who participate in the iowa caucuses 4 years ago. there are 120,000 students in iowa. four years ago, ron paul finished 3,803 votes short of winning the caucuses and they were january 3rd. why is that significant? winter break. this time it's february 1st. this will be the first time in over a decade the caucuses have occurred when school is in session, when students are going to be afternoon. so so you look at that math and you can see how much opportunity

there is out there. so no. the caucuses and organization and student strength, those are where we are very well positioned. >> so in other words some of those kids who are at cpac and love rand paul and make him the winner of the straw poll every year are going to be in school in iowa? >> yes, absolutely. >> at the time of the caucuses. how do you reach them? >> it's interesting. iowa has doubled the population of new hampshire by half the participants because it's a caucus state. and when you look at how many students are there, iowa also it's not one of the bigger states but yet it has schools like university of iowa, iowa state, those are two of the biggest schools in the country. so there's a massive student population there. it's very disproportionate. student strength. you were mentioning the cpac straw poll, just that this past weekend it was mackinaw straw poll which is -- since they canceled the iowa straw poll, this was the biggest straw poll of the year so far and this past weekend, rand paul won that

finishing just ahead of carly fiorina. carly obviously riding a wave from the debate last week. yet, we still won that. that's indicative of the strength of our organization and the passion felt for us among our supporters. >> talk a little bit about a particular aspect of that organization because something ron paul was kind of pioneer at was digital, the online, the e-mail organizing. how have you guys followed that up and taken the ball down the field? >> yeah, the reality is if republicans are going to be competitive it's -- this is this isn't as simple as we need to go capture what obama did digitally. if republicans next year do what obama did, we'll lose. there will be a whole evolution in digital, and we're running the savviest, best digital campaign. it's a crowd sourced digital campaign. we're the only campaign that has released our logos in a file, the only campaign that has bumper sticker and t-shirt

design contests. we're putting out videos every single week. we're the first candidate to do a snapchat interview. we did a periscope interview. doing all these different things. we have millions of followers between twitter and facebook so we have a real emphasis on it. the reality is is that facebook and -- a lot of these digital things have become the 21st century door knocker. >> so the other side of the coin in these kind of campaigns is big dollar fund-raising and there have been reports out there that senator paul doesn't necessarily like doing that so much which i wouldn't blame him for. i would hate doing it myself, is that true? >> listen, i've been working on political campaigns. my first cycle was 2000. a lot of candidates out there, who this is one of the important parts of the campaign, it's not -- and he works at it and he does it. he makes those calls. those are stories put out by bad guys but -- [ laughter ] >> the reality is -- >> do you want to name names of bad guys? >> no.

>> no, he does the necessary things to be successful. >> john, just before he came on was talking about how everyone is working against a certain set of other candidates and not necessarily the rest of the field. do you think that's true and who is rand paul running against? >> i think we are running against ourselves. i think we've got -- i think the reality is is that, you know, the country has nearly intractable problems and i think people want a bold transformational leader and i think senator paul is that person and that means getting out there and talking about our flat tax, our plan to balance the budget, his support of term limits and requiring congress to read the bills. i think we do those things, we're in great shape. >> now, he is real hell on career politicians. some critics, though, look at the maneuverings that happened in kentucky so he could run both for president and for senate is by changing from primary and caucus and saying, well, if there's anything that would define a typical career

politician type move that would be it. >> well, the reality is if you look at most -- it's been pretty common in presidential elections for things like that to occur. four years ago paul ryan was simultaneously running for reelection and vice president. four years before that you had joe biden running for reelection in the senate. it's actually a fairly common thing. it is not unusual. >> i think that's making my point. it's something politicians do all the time. >> well, paul ryan, is he a typical politician? >> he doesn't claim not to be a career politician, i don't think. >> i think that will be up to voters to decide but i don't think anybody would ever classify rand paul as a conventional politician. >> are you privy to how often he talks to ron? and does ron give him advise and say "hey, son, this is how it's done"? >> ron's been out a few times. he was at our announcement speech. they saw each other. rand was in texas a month or so ago doing some fund-raising and

ron was there at an event. just two weekends ago they saw each other in st. louis at an event where rand's mom received an award from eagle forum. so they see each other from time to time. >> let me ask you the two questions i want to ask everyone at the end. is there any moment from another candidate or campaign where you thought that was smart, that was shrewd, gosh, we should have thought about that? and what is the most endearing rand paul quality the rest of us might not be aware of? >> there have been several moments. i think there are several really good campaigns that are out there. i mean, i think the way carly handled trump and the remark that trump had made about her appearance, i thought that was well done. >> she really cut his balls off with the precision of a surgeon. >> i thought, you know, carson's -- his closing statements from two debates ago, that was well done. i think rubio's announcement was well done.

i think there have been a number of opportunities that people have done well and as for rand and endearing qualities, i think the fact that for about 20 years he has done free eye surgeries. he's an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon and he's been doing charitable ones. >> i hear from donald trump he's an okay surgeon. [ laughter ] >> this year he went to haiti. last year he went to guatemala to do it chair it bring and i think that speaks to his heart and passion. >> how long have you known him? >> have i known rand? >> yes. >> i've known him for a few years. in cycles past, he had supported some candidates that i worked for but really working day and so well really less than a year. >> thanks so much for being with us. appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. [ applause ]

>> we're waiting for danny diaz of the bush campaign. he might be too busy reorganizing his strategy in light of the scott walker news. i felt a little like dan rather when someone handed me the note "a.p. reporting scott walker quitting the race." is this true? [ inaudible ] well, if the "new york times" says it, of course it's true. ladies and gentlemen, danny diaz making his dramatic entrance on the stage. [ applause ] thanks so much for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> how shocked are you by this news about scott walker? >> well, it's surprising.

i mean, i think these campaigns, you know, they're tough. and i think scott walker is a good guy and we'll see what the news is that's coming out of this. i think his press conference is at 5:00 central so i'd like to hear it first. he's a good man, sure. >> so let me ask you a couple questions that come from the conventional narrative about your campaign. you're obviously welcome to push back. one narrative is that you guys coming into this supposed shock and awe, you maybe were going to scare people out of the race but you certainly were going to be in a fairly dominant position from the beginning, at least where mitt romney was which is a pretty solid second all along even though people bumped up ahead of him at various times and instead we see bush kind of -- 9% but just kind of there.

>> well, i think when you're running for the presidency of the united states you can take nothing for granted, and you have to work hard everyday and we have a candidate who will not be outworked, who works his staff, outworks his staff each and everyday. outworked. who outworks his staff each and every day. and we're very confident that our deteam and our strategy and everything that we've put forward has a long-game focus. this isn't about be being the president of the united states in september or object. it's about rising in february. being competitive in the march states and being able to communicate your message more effectively than anyone else. i think from our perspective, we're pretty confident once the cards are on the table that jeb bush will be the nominee. ? so when you say he outworks his staff, tell us what that looks like. >> he's putting in 18 hours a day, every day, to be elected president. and anyone who knows him should

know that's not entirely surprising. that's the way he governed for eight years as governor of florida. so from our perspective, you know, that's what we see each and every day. >> another thing you'll hear often said about the governor is that he famously said prior to getting in, i'm only going to do it if i can do it joyously. and it seems as though a presidential campaign in this era just sort of inherently is not that joyous for a guy like jeb, who's a policy wonk. maybe a little bit of an introvert, and especially this time, when it's been dominated by a guy, you may not say this, but i'd be almost certain jeb bush considers donald trump a clown and he hasn't seemed to enjoy this process very much to those of us looking at him from the outside. >> well, someone who looks at it

from the inside, what i can tell you is -- >> i see what you did there. that was good. >> he's having a lot of fun running for president. i think the thing is jeb really enjoys meeting for people. he really enjoys hearing their stories. he really likes talking about his ideas and policies and the impact that they'll have on these individuals. so, you know, when the governor rolls out a tax policy, for instance, and he's able to meet with real people and talk about the impact that it will have for them, when he's able to kind of look back on his fwubna torrial record, and we're able to talk about some of those stories, i think he enjoys that a lot. so we're having a great time running for president. you may see something different, but i get to look under the hood. >> it's also taken as gospel among journalists that the constant low-energy jibe from trump has gotten under his skin and gotten in his head, because he seeps to bring it up all the

time himself now, and in fact, his secret service code name is going to be a response to this charge. he's going to be ever ready, because that's high energy. >> well, everready was the term he used even when he was governor. there is a consistency there. so i think there's a lot of talking in presidential campaigns. i think there needs to be more showing in presidential campaigns. i'm not worried about the blip in september. i have a candidate out there working hard every day, rolling out serious policies, whether it's how to reform washington, whether it's how to beat isis, whether it's how to grow the economy, whether it's regulatory reform tomorrow and on and on. those ideas buttressed with a record of performance that is unmatched in the field, unmatched, he has the best conservative record of accomplishment in the field. so i think he has a lot of credibility, when he goes out and says you know, this is what i'm going to do for america. why? because this is my record in

florida, 4.4% growth, 1.3 million jobs, $19 million in tax cuts. $8 million in the bank account, aaa bond rating. america would be better off if we had a record like that. so from our perspective, we know that if we tell the jeb story, really confident that he's going to be the last guy standing in the nomination battle. >> so you're absolutely a real pro and have been at this for a while. did you at any point or do you at any point now worry that jeb as someone who hasn't run since 2002, has some rust? >> no. >> and you don't think he has -- you think his performance right now is as good as it's going to be three months from now? >> i think any candidate, every candidate, needs to improve every day, as does his team. that's part of the process, and from our perspective, we're

working hard every single day. and there are always things that can be done, you know, differently or more creatively or whatever else. and so, from our perspective, as i said, this is about growing. this is about building on yesterday. this is about getting better. this is about winning. that's what winners do. it's a long season. we're not going to declare who the winner is of the baseball season halfway through. you need to get to the playoffs of and from our perspective, that's where we're at. >> so circling back to trump, a couple months ago, the governor made a really definitive statement, i am done talking about donald trump. enough, i'm just going to do my own thing and not address him. and then within another couple of weeks, he was really deliberately going after him and at war with him. what changed? >> well, i think, you know, your

colleagues and the great fourth estate have a tendency to ask questions that are exclusively focussed on one individual. and you know, so there is that. but from our perspective, you know, while that may be focussed on, i think what needs to be focussed on to a greater degree is the policies that he's rolling out, what he's doing each and every day, for instance, today, address the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce. a regulatory policy tomorrow. and that's really the crux of this campaign. it's those ideas. it's those policies. and that's what he's talking about day in and day out. now, you know, in the scrum of the campaign, some things may get kind of heightened kind of attention. it's the nature of the beast, if you will. but i think if you look at what the candidate talks about in its totality, i think far and away, he is focussed on what he believes, what his record is and how he can help people. >> so there was no moment when

people sat down and said, you know what? everyone thought trump would be a summer phenomenon. that's not true. we have to wield and throw some punches? >> i think no candidate or campaign is going to allow attacks to go unresponded to. and so there's an element of that for sure. but, you know, you win the presidency by selling yourself. you win the presidency selling your ideas. you win the presidency by making sure you connect with people on how those ideas are going to positively impact their lives in a forward-looking way. i mean, that's what needs to be met. that's the threshold that needs to be crossed. i mean, we're running for the highest office in an incredibly consequential time. from our perspective. when i know i have the candidate with the greatest level of achievement, the best vision to move the country forward and i think has the most credible argument to be a great president, why would i hide that? why wouldn't i put that front and center and make that

argument the krubs of what we do each and every day. and that's what we're doing. >> so how seriously are you guys going to play in iowa? and can you survive, say, a fifth or sixth place finish there? >> you know, we play and play to win. you know, you don't play to lose. >> so are you expecting iowa? ? from our perspective, we plan to run a competitive campaign in all the early states, and we intend to do well. we have a candidate that ran three times in the third, i think it was the third now it's the fourth, the most competitive state in the country, the largest purple state. and he left office with something near 60% approval rating. somebody who got outsized amount of hispanic votes, an outsized number of female votes. we believe with that record of success, with the policy ideas that we can compete anywhere, and we will. and we happen to have the resources to be able to do it handily. >> so you're all in in iowa.

there's not going to be some of this cute footsy that mccain and romney played. >> we're playing to win there. we're playing to win in all the four primary states, and afterwards. >> in new hampshire, you're probably playing to win there. >> smart man. >> i learn, slowly. how much harder is it going to be in new hampshire having to deal with a john kasich that at least early on here has shown some potency in new hampshire and chris christie, who i think we can conclude from the last debate may have more life in him than he's shown so far. and at least the conventional wisdom is, those are two more establishment center right candidates who are in your lane. >> yeah, look, i think the republican party should feel very, kind of proud of the

riches that we have on the stage. there are a lot of really accomplished guys running for the highest office in our land, and, you know, from our perspective, obviously, we're going to compete and compete very hard in new hampshire. we have visited there very, you know, frequently. that's going to continue to be the case. i think when you look, for instance, at the issues in new hampshire, such as the economic and tax issues and the governor's record of accomplishment, it fits very nicely. when you look at some of the concerns with, you know, how d.c. is so broken and dysfunctional, and you look at the reforms that he instituted in tallahassee, look at the policy that he's put forward with regard to the term limits, the balanced budget amendment. some of these areas, line-item veto. those are items that resonate strongly with voters in new hampshire. so we look forward to a spirited conversation with governor

christie, with govern kasich. as i said -- >> should i read that as a threat, a spirited conversation a threat? >> i think from our perspective, once again, i think we have the best, most accomplished conservative record on the stage. i think we have the soundest policies, and we look forward to the conversation. >> what do you think one of the governor's best moments in the debate last week when he pushed back against trump on his brother, and said one thing i know about my brother, he's kept us safe, and you've had columnists saying that's untrue and showing the photos of the world trade towers being pushed down on september is11th. what do you think of that push back? >> i think it's a fairness for any objective person that's looking at what transpired and very proud, obviously, of his family as he has said repeatedly, his dad and his brother. so there's that. but once again, i kind of get back to what i was saying

earlier, kind of my core message. when you run, particularly for the presidency. it's kind of, it's the most personal vote that a voter makes. when you look at the next most personal, it's probably like a governor. and so voters are really going to look at you. they really want to know who you are. what you believe, what you've done and whether, you know, they're going to watch you on that television set in their kitchen the next four, eight years. from our perspective, we need to show our heart, run hard, tell our story. luckily, we believe that we have the resources to do that fairleigh effectively, and we're going to compete everywhere. we're going to build a grassroots organization that's technically savvy and compete to win. >> so comprehensive imdprags reform. some version of which the governor supports was defeated in 2006, almost sank john

mccain's campaign when he supported it. the gang of eight bill was defeated. >> terry's in the wings. >> this is a warning to terry it might come up. [ inaudible ] [ laughter ] >> it seems further right on immigration than it was in '06 than it was a year or two ago. how hard does it make it for the governor to sell his position on immigration and two, are you worried with the talk we've heard about immigration, the well has been poisoned some. and jeb's, not his entire, but an element of his general election campaign of appealing to hispanics will be much more difficult? >> i think the polling data clearly demonstrates that people want a solution. there's a problem. they want it resolved. i think the governor's put forward a comprehensive plan with respect to how one addresses the border.

he's written a book on the issue of immigration. and you know, this is one of those big issues. it's one of those big issues that's been like 30 years since it's been addressed. so, you know, who has the wherewithal to get it done? maybe the person that dealt with medicaid in florida. maybe the person has big, big achievements. you know, so that would be a key indicator if you have the wherewithal to get it done. and it's an important issue. it's an important issue that we need to debate. when you talk about governor bush as i said earlier, he's someone that had an outsized performance with hispanic voters in florida. he's someone even today who i think around 35, 36, 37% in polls, general election polls with hispanic voters. he's someone who can compete. he can win. he's campaigning with his arms wide open. he's campaigning, bringing people into the process, and i think, look, conservatives can be confident that he's someone who's going to put forward a solution, that's going to secure the border and put in place the

mechanisms to ensure that this is an issue that's addressed and addressed once and for all. and i think the record bears that out, and i think he's going to continue to campaign to someone who is solution oriented. >> so quickly, best moment for another candidate or campaign, most endearing quality. >> i think the most endearing quality is that he gives out his e-mail address to everybody that he meets. and people e-mail him and he responds, and a lot of the exchanges are like this isn't you, is it really you? the back and forth. and he's someone who really wants to engage people at a very individual level, at a very personal level. and i think that is a really important quality in a leader. as far as something one of the other campaigns did that was pretty smart, i thought the response ad from fiorina's super pac to the donald trump attack was well done. >> great. danny, thanks so much, we

appreciate it. [ applause ] next up is terry sullivan of the marco rubio campaign. terry, welcome. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> good seeing you. >> so, since we live in an instant reaction world, any instant reaction to the thing that's not quite happened yet, but it's been reported that it's going to happen, scott walker's exi exit. >> yeah, we've just nailed down his new hampshire co-chair to endorse marco. a little bit of news i got for you just a minute ago. and we've got a few other folks. but, you know, we're prepared, as people move on from the race and to kind of capitalize on it and pick up their supporters. >> how shocked were you to hear

the news? >> not really. i mean, you know, people don't stop running for rpresident because they run out of ideas or a desire to stop giving speeches. they stop because they run out of money. that's why we run lean, taking knocks for it. but keeping control of the budget is an important thing. and we don't know exactly why, but i would assume that is the case. >> so tell us a little bit more about how lean the operation, what are some examples of things that you guys aren't doing that other people are doing that you think is smart in a way to husband your resources. >> staff is so expensive. it is extremely expensive to go out and pay someone, especially early staff. late staff, when you're paying someone for three months, it's not so bad. when you're paying someone for 12 months it's a bit different.

actually everybody on our campaign has taken a pay cut to take the job. myself included. that for whatever job they had, some people came from the official office. other people came from other lines of work or other campaigns. everybody who's joined the campaign is making less. on, you know, i want people in the office to be there because they want to be. we qbyjuy we never, you know, w don't make staff news. we don't send out news releases. it's not really a money saving thing, obviously, but it's a state of mind. we're all here for one person, for marco. it's not about us. we're not writing our own news releases on this. we're not looking for exorbitant amounts of money. it is really about saving money, staying lean, staying disciplined. the, you know, every expense over $500 in the entire campaign i sign a piece of paper on. it is a giant pain in the ass. there are days that i question why i implemented that policy. i was asked recently by one of

the staffers, look, couldn't we bump it up to $1,000? that some of these, in some of these county fairs they want a table and the table's a little over $500, and it's become really onerous. and i said, well, you think there are cases that we're actually not getting a table at the such and touch event because of it? because it's such a pain? and she said to me, well, yeah. and i said, perfect, then it's working. this is great. because no one ever won or lost the presidency because they had a table at the manchester affair. that's not why you win. we hardly give out anything in the way of bumper stickers or yard signs. you can go on our website and buy them. we've got a county chairman pac. you can put in there if you want to >> do people have to pay to be part of the campaign? >> if they want collateral, absolutely. you can sponsor a county, you can sponsor someone and say i want it sent here or since

there. que have a lot of people who say ah, come on, we just need this. we need it in our area. great, go on the website. we'll send it wherever you want, or find a donor. i get this from some of our folks, go find someone to spend $100 on the website. and suddenly, and it happens, and it works. so part of it is, you know, oh, well, that's only $100 here or this, it adds up, and it creates a culture and mind-set that's very different. marco flies 95% commercial. always coach, you know, he gets mileage upgrades. we just booked a frontier airlines flight for him today which is a special kind of hell for anybody. [ laughter ] but, you know, we do what we've gotta, because we're going to put the resources where it matters. these are the things, when you look at winning campaigns and losing campaigns, it's all about how much money they've gotten in the direct voter contact. not about how much staff they have or anything else. >> let me ask you the way i have

everyone else. some hostile questions. >> sure. >> more and directly of the conventional wisdom. >> not as enough as were you to danny, though, right? >> i'm going to play some quick catch up here. one thing you'll hear at least prior to the last bump after the debate. one reason rubio is so low is he needs bush to collapse. >> right. right. >> or to fizzle on the. >> sure. >> launch pad. any truth to that? am whether or not there is truth to that, is bush fizzling on the launch pad? >> yeah, we need everybody not named marco to fizzle. that is the plan. so yeah, we need everybody to slowly fizzle out. and we think they will. it's no disrespect to them or their candidacy or campaigns. it's just that we're building this for the long haul. we've got a candidate we believe is designed for the long haul in

that he is not going to make headlines every day. he's not going to be the guy at any debate that comes up with the best one-liner of the debate. not going to be him. but he's going to be the guy that over the course of the debates, you're going to say, i'm kind of comfortable. i believe that voters want to elect a president that they can drink a beer with, but they know he's responsible enough to not drink too much so he can drive them home afterwards. it's really what it comes down to. >> and he's paying you a cut rate for this stuff? this is great. >> i now. i know. he just pays me a beer. no. it is, but just the sense that, look, you want someone who's a little more responsible and frankly, you know, feel like they have a command-and-control of the situation, but that they're, but you can identify with them still. and so the, you know, and that's where marco's at. you feel like you watch him up there on stage, and you know,

just from a personal, this is a guy who can talk east coast versus west coast rap and makes jokes about the chappell show, but at the same time is amazing on foreign policy, the schools of best foreign policy experts. so to have someone like that, i think, is a unique candidate. and we're fortunate that way. >> so to simplify and sum up i think what you said, you are kind of making a bet on his talent. >> yeah. >> and you think it's a very good bet for the long term. >> i think every -- this sounds a little bit like spin or b.s., but i think every campaign, successful campaign, has to bet on their candidate. now every candidate has strengths and every candidate has weaknesses. but you've got to. if you're trying to make your candidate somebody they're not, voters, you can say what you want about voters, and sometimes i do.

but they have this unique ability to sniff out about. >> b.s. if you try to tell them no, this is not who our candidate is, look over here, instead, if you say this is exactly who our candidate is and you may disagree with some stuff, but at the end of the day, this is why it's a good thing. our job is to say this is a good thing, not to say it isn't this or it isn't that. and that's a successful campaign. and when you try to make voters believe someone is something they're not, it doesn't work. >> speaking of having a dim view of voters, one of my favorite statements of that is the late great mo udall who came out at the podium and said the voters have spoken, the bastards. so you're making this bet on his talent. the criticism you'll hear of the strategy is it's much riskier than a candidate who has a clear ideological base the way ted

cruz does, the way john kasich, the other wing of the party does. or a clear geographical base, the way, again, i think of cruz would in the south. >> so i guess you're saying like john mccain, mits romney, george w. bush, bob dole? look, none of our nominees have had any of those things for quite a while. so, it's, you hear a lot about well, which is the three, which of the legs of the try-legged stool are you going to be? which is your line in this. you hear reporters say that. you know what? it's a three-legged stool for a reason. and republicans do best when they embrace all three legs. and when you're only, you know, a one-legged candidate, you can't stand up. and so to that extent, look, we're not a niche candidate where we've only got one lane and we're going to really double down on that lane. but we also don't scare anybody.

when you look at these, yes, you have to become the first choice of enough people. but the pathway to do that is to not be scary to any part of the party. there are diehard ted cruz supporters who think, yeah, i like marco rubio. and there are diehard jeb bush supporters who are, like, i like marco rubio. that's important. it's not just about -- you know marco said to me a long time ago, i probably get in trouble when i repeat conversations i've had. but he goes i would never want to be the nominee of the wig party. and so to that point, look, if you're not, if you don't have a sustainable party, and you're in the a sustainable candidate for a general election, what's the point? and so you shouldn't be just about general election, you shouldn't abandon your principles or be about a general election viability only, but you should absolutely not sacrifice, and we've seen our candidates in the past get hurt by that, by

trying to overcompensate, say things they probably really don't believe in order to win a primary and then have to try to backtrack them in a general. >> now was there ever a moment when you guys sat down, saw trump's rise and considered what to do about it? or did, did trump's rise fall in the category of everything that you had just considered noise and in your long-range plan? >> yeah. the, no. because couple things, number one, last week i had, our research team, you know, who, let's look at historically speaking who has been in first place at this point. so in the second week of september, based on public polling that was available. recently it's been the real clear politics. before that you're looking at gallup and things like that. four years ago last week, the front runner was rick perry by 11 points. eight years ago it was hillary clinton by 16 points and rudy

giuliani by 11. and you can kind of go back from there. the point is i've said a lot, look, early polls don't mean anything. turns out i was wrong. it means if you are in first place in the second week of september you are guaranteed to not be the nominee of your party. so, you know, there would be nothing worse in my mind than being in first place right now. it's terrible. it is, we were there for a short while. and that was actually the time we most concerned, because the "new york times" writes stories about how big the windows are on your house and how well manicured your yard is. so we are very happy where we're at. ideally, i only want to be in first place on one day. if i have to be a few more than that, i'm okay with it. >> comprehensive immigration reform. >> yes. >> i understand that senator rubio supports every single element of that to this day but just wants to do it on a

different timetable and at a different order, is that correct? >> here's why it's called meet the campaign managers and not meet the policy directors. nobody has ever paid my for my policy vi policy advice. he tried to do something about it. this is why i go back to about not trying to make your candidate something you're not. marco, if nothing, is about getting stuff done. he's a bundle of energy and wants to accomplish things. and the, he very much did on immigration reform. he just felt like look, this has to happen. he had a lot of people come to him and say we need you for the party, this has got to happen. he took the ball and ran with it. it failed. and he's the first to admit look, we did it in the wrong way. so i don't want to put words in his mouth and i wouldn't do that on any issue, much less this one. but he now believes, and politics is the one thing, in business or anything else, if something doesn't work and you

continue to do it, you're, you know, you're an idiot. in politics, if something doesn't work everybody expects you to do it or you're a sellout. it's unique. but he is, he believes that the only way we're going to get anything done, because the real heart of it was no one believed that we were going to secure the border, and probably rightfully so, that the obama administration was not going to secure the border. and so, look, let's prove to the american people, here's what we're going to do. and then let's work from there. >> so, completely shamelessly superficial question, do you ever worry he looks too young? >> no. no. anymore than, you know, bill clinton's campaign or barack obama's gain or john f. kennedy's campaign and i realize i'm talking about only democrats. >> republicans never nominate the new, exciting guy. >> i got to believe this time they will.

we get our asses kicked when we don't. no disrespect to some of the nominees we've had. but when we do the person whose turn it is, we just get trounced. and there's a reason for it. because when american voters are faced with the choice between the past and the future, they pick the future every time. i mean, we've got to stop being charlie brown to the democrat's lucy. let's not try to kick that football again. >> let me try to hit you with a couple really quick questions. >> sure. >> was there ever a moment when you knew jeb was getting in that you thought marco's not going to get in? >> never. never. >> and so the chatter out there, oh, jeb's going to cut off the fund-raising, going to take his base in florida, his friends with him. >> you know, that was the point is that he was going to clear the entire field and no one would ever consider getting in because it was going to be a

juggernaut. that hasn't quite worked out. so, look, steady wins the race. the we were never intimidated. we were unintimidated by the prospect of a jeb candidacy. >> have you ever had a ride on marco rubio's luxury speed boat? >> i have not, actually. as a matter of fact i tried to convince him that we needed to do it for a fund-raising gimmick, you know, like enter online. he's like absolutely not, man, that's my boat, man. no way. he's not going to let somebody enter and win a contest online, he's certainly not going to invite me. >> best moment for someone else, and most endearing quality. >> you know, the best moment for anybody else, i think, is ted cruz who has run a really smart campaign, for the candidate he is. they really bind ted cruz to my earlier point, inviting -- >> they what? >> bend. >> bend him.

>> they bend ted cruz. they are their candidate. they're not trying to make him somebody he's not. but inviting donald trump to that press conference was brilliant, because none of you people would have covered it. >> the iran event? >> yeah. and no one would have courvered it, but instead, they carried ted cruz on all the networks, never would have gotten that coverage, but he got it because he invited trump there. balan ballsy, but smart. it's intriguing to have a candidate who you can talk about music with. first time he talked with bono, i happened to be there, and they started talking about music, and then marco explains to bono how he really believes that u2 was kind of the first christian rock band and here's why and i thought oh, god, you're embarrassing me man, this is bono, and bono's like, yeah, you're right.

we try have a message that, you're right. so he's just, he's someone of our generation, and that's pretty cool. >> terry, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> good luck. [ applause ] not unexpectedly, we have a little change in programming that i'm alerted by this post it note. rick wily from the walker campaign will not be joining us, and instead, we are going to go straight to timmy teepell of the bobby jindal campaign. i'm going to ask you to react to the news about governor walker. >> it surprised me. >> why? >> well, you saw, he did get an early rise in the polls. he came out really strong in

january, and it's always hard once you take the dip down to come back, but i still didn't expect him to drop out this quickly. >> now, if you've been lurking back there, as you know i've been asking hostile questions to everyone based ond conventional wisdom. so fair warning. the criticism you'll often hear of governor jindal in his campaign is here's a guy who is running the state's health care system, i don't know, age 26 or something, who's a wonk's wonk, in almost every room he's in, he's the smartest guy in the room. but he seems to be running a bomb-throwing campaign that's not necessarily true to who he is. >> mm-hm. >> what's your reaction to that? >> well, our most visited page on our website are policy positions. and he's laid out policies on

repealing obamacare, replacing it. i guess, after 6:00 tonight, he'll be the only candidate in the race with a plan to replace obamacare. he's got an energy position, education position. he's got position on national defense, and you know, you still have to break through the clutter. you still have 17, 20, 40 candidates in this race. you still have to break through the clutter in putting out 40-page policy doesn't allow you to break through the clutter. the press doesn't allow you to do that. if you are going to make your point, you have to do it in a way that's reported. if it's not reported, it's not said. >> and what have been some of those moments where he feels he's broken through the clutter? >> well, i would say that he came up here to lay out his case

for why he thought trump would be the wrong nominee for, the wrong candidate for america, the wrong candidate for conservat e conservativism, that shouldn't put someone who doesn't share other values. >> and talk about the decision, if it was one, to go after trump that hard. >> i think the decision was more of a -- this election is monumental. this election, we're at a crossroads. and you know, you look at the candidacy of trump and you know, if we go ahead and invest the presidency in a man like trump who cares about himself, who

doesn't care about freedom, about conservative values, liberty, the first principles, we're going to make a big mistake as a country. he doesn't have a problem with big government, you know, his problem is that he's not in charge of it. he's not going to reduce the size of government. he's not going to get rid of the burden of taxation, and get the economy going. he's not going to, you know, get the federal government out of education, allow choice to spring up. you know, the things that we need to do as a country to bring back freedom, he's not interested in. and so somebody needs to stand up and say hey, this isn't the right guy for the republican party. he doesn't represent our principles, so. >> was there any worry that that kind of attack on trump so far hasn't seemed to work for anyone? rick perry? >> sure. >> it seemed to hurt if

anything. it seems to have gotten rand paul nowhere. so how much of a concern is that? >> yeah. absolutely. definitely risk involved, because he's able to use a megaphone when he responds, but it was important. you know, at this moment in the campaign, at the time, he was the issue of the campaign. and it was the wrong, the wrong direction for our party to go, the wrong direction for our country to go. and so regardless of the risk, it was important to say. >> so plot out for us what you guys see as what gjindal's breakout would be. how's it going to happen? where's it going to happen? when's it going to happen? >> our track is an early-state strategy. it's iowa. he's on a 99-county tour. he's halfway through it. he's been spending a lot of time in iowa. and he's, you know, the great

thing about america's presidential elections is it's not a national primary. it's an early-state primary, and that gives people in iowa, new hampshire, a chance to get to know the candidates, on a one on one basis, not just from what they see on tv or in the news but to actually visit with them. and these voters are serious. they'll go to every event, every candidate. they'll meet them, ask them questions. they're going to make their own decisions. so that's key to our strategy for success is spending time in iowa, getting to know the voters one on one and allowing them to be able to get a sense of who governor jindal is and his experience and his vision. >> yeah, i've sometimes told people, if govern jindal could just campaign in rooms of 12 people at a time he would win the presidency going away. it sounds like that's a little bit like your strategy in iowa. >> well, you need a little more than 12 of them. [ laughter ] but he does have a -- and

louisiana's a state that's very retail heavy. it's a state that when you run for governor they expect that you're going to visit with them, they're going to get a chance to get to know you. and he was anz"ea÷ unlikely cane for governor when he ran. but he spent time. voters got to know him, and they elected him twice by historic margins. >> so are there any harbingers, anything that you guys look at as early indications of jindal catching on or potentially catching on in iowa? >> sure, you see the, in the polls, you'll see the faves go up. and traditionally, your image questions are leading indicators to ballot movement, and so, you know, we're watching that. as he's traveling around, you can see that we've got over 600, 662 volunteers signed up in iowa, so building out the organization. that's what we're looking a number of volunteers, you know, and our faves and that moves

into the ballot, and hopefully it does it right before the election. >> what does he say or do out there that gets the most reaction? it seems to me not having been out on the trail with him, but just hearing what others say and hearing, reading reports that it's the immigration without assimilationism invasion. is that the thing that gets people going the most? >> that has. i tell you, religious liberty is an issue that has a lot of people worried. you know, this idea that year' losing something as a country if, as a christian businessman you can't operate a business according to your beliefs and according to your conscience. if we're going to force people to attend, you know, religious ceremonies against their conscience. that's something that strikes a chord. most recently, it's been having

a frank conversation about what's going on here in d.c., that we have republicans have control of the house and senate, yet it seems like on the big issues we continually surrender. when the democrats are in charge, you know, they, they have no problem are, you know, going balls to the wall to get done what they want to get done. i mean, you look at socialized medicine. ted kennedy pushed it, then hillary pushed it. then obama came through and rammed it through, despite, in a lame duck significance. they just never gave up on t republicans tend to surrender even before we get a chance to fight on it. you know, you look at the, you look at the corker framework. you know. we went ahead and unilaterally said okay, we'll let you do this. so, anyway, there's a lot of anger about republicans and our

inability to fight and accomplish what we campaign on. >> so is the governor really and truly more angry at mitch mcconnell than barack obama? you might think that mcconnell hasn't been too aggressive, hasn't been aggressive enough, is too much of a tactician, but he's basically this inoffensive guy rung the senate and obama's trampling on our laws and going overseas and going as far as he can to soigsizing things? >> i think the anger comes in from the fact that president obama and the democrats are honest about it, what they want to accomplish. and they go very hard at accomplishing what they want to accomplish. and we are told by republicans this is what we hope to accomplish. this is what we're going to accomplish. and then we're told later that oh, sorry, we really can't do that. >> so you think mitch mcconnell. >> and that gets you angry, you

know. >> do you think mitch mcconnell and john boehner are dishonest, that they're just pretending to oppose them and don't fight them? >> i just wish we had the same level on our side that the democrats do on their side. >> so the, shawn spicer at the rnc has said there's not going to be an undercard debate next time and seems to want to shove the candidates down in the polls to interviews rather to a debate stage even early debate stages, what do you think of that, how would that affect you guys and how can you push back against it? >> well, i mean, the rnc has a lot of important roles, but i wouldn't think an important role of the rnc is to limit the field, limit the number of candidates that you have on the debate stage prior to anyone actually voting. you know, and i know that a lot of smart people got in a room after the 2012 elections and decided that the reason why republicans lost that election

was we did, we got too many debates. you know, we allowed the front runner to get asked too many questions. and to be criticized too much. and too much conflict. when, as a party, did we become afraid of ideas? when did we become afraid of having robust debates about ideas? i mean, that is a great thing to have, in a democracy. where you want it to be a meritocracy. and so the idea that would you have folks in d.c. say oh, we need to limit the number of debates and the number of people participating in these debates because we've decided that's the best thing for you voters to, you know, have. i think it's silly. >> so you think the rnc is trying to shut down the debate and shut down candidates and get them out of the race? >> i think that their autopsy said that what they wanted to do was have fewer debates, right? because they felt like mitt

romney got beat up too much going through the debates, and i just don't think that that's healthy. i think as a party, we shouldn't be afraid of debates. we shouldn't be afraid of ideas. let's have these debates. >> so one criticism you'll hear of governor jindal, especially from the left is how is this guy running for president a plausible presidential candidate when he's so unpopular at home. >> mm-hm. >> is he unpopular at home? and if so, why? >> i think he, right now, from what i can tell, from polls i've seen, he's got a 40% approval rating. i think that the reason is he, he told the people in louisiana two things. that he was going to shrink government and grow the economy. and in louisiana, we had a very top-heavy government for a long time. he came in and created a government that was outsized. and we couldn't afford it anymore. it was crushing our economy.

and so governor jindal came in and over the course of eight years, he cut the budget by $11 billion. that's a lot of money. he fired 30,000 state employees. so in a state where you have 2 million adults, everybody knows somebody who got laid off. a state employee who was laid off. so, you know, is it popular to, i mean, if you want to be popular, what you do is give money away, right? you expand medicaid so that everyone gets health care. you give free stuff to people. that's how you're popular as governor. he didn't run to be popular. he ran because our state needed generational change. and that's what he did. he sh rungs government substantially. we had a government-run hospital system in louisiana. a government-run hospital system that had been there since the 1920s. now it's all privatized.

people said you can't privatize the charity hospital system? it's just too ingrained into the culture of our state. he privatized it. you look at education. state-wide school choice. he got rid of tenure for teachers. it's not a popular thing to get rid of tenure for teachers. he cut, gave the largest income tax cut in louisiana history. and of course that resulted in fewer revenues. people said we've got these budget problems. no it's not budget problems. we did it on purpose. we cut revenue so we could cut government. and he cut government. if you look at when he ran, he won by historic margin the first time. the only non-incumbent governor to ever win in the primary over 50% and got a record reelect rate. and but, you know, he went in there and accomplished what he needed to accomplish. and i think that -- >> i can hear someone tweeting right now. some journalist tweeting jindal's campaign manager,

agenda unpopular. >> mitch daniels took a swoon when he came in and changed things. scott walker did in wisconsin eventually. chris christie's backed down now, but swooned and came back up when people saw results. so what's different in louisiana? >> well, you know, we've had to continue to reduce the size of government. you know? it's and it's not always popular to cut the size of government. i think at the point we're in in america, there's too much government spending. i think our debt is too large, and the spending is too much. and it does take somebody with backbone to go in and cut spending. i think that the spending is going to threaten our security, economic security. when you have president obama say that he, he didn't have the leverage he needed with iran

vis-a-vis china in negotiating a deal because we owe china a bunch of money. and when you have the president saying that, the amount of spending, and debt we have is affecting our country and the strength of our country. so cutting government's important. >> so the final two questions i ask everyone. what is the best moment for another campaign or candidate where you thought, gosh, that was really smart, and two, what's the most endearing quality about bobby jindal that the rest of us don't know. >> i would say the best moment was trump's has. that hat is fantastic. >> wish i had thought of that. never wear a hat. here's a guy wearing a hat everywhere. >> it's counter intuitive, but it's great. the most endearing quality i think about governor jindal is he's a very kind man. and i think that doesn't always come across, because he's got so much intellectual horsepower. >> can you give us an example? >> he's a very kind man.

you know, there are times when he'll call me on my phone and one of my kids will answer. talk to the kids and, you know, he just takes time with people. you know. he'll, he just makes people feel at home and welcome. and, you know, you go to these iowa town hall meetings, and he won't leave until everyone's had a chance to talk to him. he will sit and talk to every single person. because he's a kindtimmy, thank. [ applause ] and joining us next will be christian ferry of the lindsey graham campaign. [ applause ] >> thanks for doing this. >> thanks so much for coming. so your reaction to the big scott walker news? >> i think like everyone else has said, kind of a surprise to see that news this early in the

race. but the one thing i would say about it is it tells everyone that whatever you're reading today in the polls, whatever you're seeing in terms of conventional wisdom about who's winning, who's losing, who the front runner is, it's all nonsense. it's all nonsense today to try to determine what's going to happen next january, next february based on where you sigh things today. scott walker's a good man, a good governor, he's been really good for our party. and he was at one point the frontrunner in this race. today he's gone. things change quickly. >> so i don't mean this to be an insulting question, but i've really been personally curious, because senator graham is so lively. he loves the game. and that first debate, was there something a little bit wrong? was he sick? was he under the weather? because it was just night and day, that first debate. like where's lindsey -- the second debate was the typical

peppery, funny, lively lindsey graham. >> look, that was his first debate as a presidential candidate. it's a big stage, bright lights. but it was also a very strange debate. they put those candidates in an arena. with no people in it. you could hear, you know, a pin drop from behind, it was bizarre. it was a very difficult, you know, situation to expect, especially someone like senator graham who feeds off of people, who loves interaction, who has this great sense of humor, to perform in such a stale environment. and i think this was an unfortunate way to introduce those candidates in that sort of setting. >> why you guys aware beforehand that there would be not a soul in the arena except for a few family and friends in. >> i don't want to get too far into what we heard, what we -- >> that's what we're here for,

we're here to get in the weeds. >> we were told a number of different things, before, afterwards, things changed. we knew there was not going to be much of an audience, that was not a surprise. >> and how did you think he did in the second debate? >> i would say by far he was the winner of that first forum at the reagan library, and i would say, i'm a little biased, i guess, but i would say that he was the only one of anyone on either stage who was ready to be commander in chief on day one, who laid out a plan how we're going to defeat radical islam and is prepared for that task. >> so i've been asking all the of managers hostile questions. the snok the knock on senator graham is that this is a one-issue candidate, kind of a one-policy candidate. because what he comes back to again, again, and again.

you could almost ask him anything and he would say 10,000 troops in syria. >> it's called message discipline. [ laughter ] >> i'm going to try to do the same thing. let me ask, i mean, turn the question back to you, maybe. what's more important than getting this right? these people are trying to destroy our entire way of life. they're wreaking havoc around the world. it doesn't matter what our social security policy is if our citizens aren't safe. and if we don't get this war against radical islam right, nothing else truly matters. our country is at threat, our citizens are at threat, our families are at threat. we have to get this right, and that's going to continue to be the major focus of his campaign. >> i know you're not a military expert, at least i i a sum you're not a military expert. >> no, i'm not. far from it. >> where does that number come from, 10,000, except being a nice, round number. because my limited understanding of military affairs, if you have 10,000 guys in the country, when

you take logistics, force protection, search and rescue, you probably have about 50 guys who are actually going to be fighting. >> look, i'm not running for president of the united states, and senator rand has been working in the a r-- senator grm has been working in the arena for decades. he talks to military commanders. he talks to foreign policy, national security experts, folks like jack king. these are numbers he's become comfortable with based on his conversation and his experience. i couldn't tell you based on my own experience, because that's not where i become a political consultant. and you don't want me giving military advice. >> so, when does he get his bump? and do you expect any bump from that undercard debate last week? >> i do. i do expect a little bit of a bump from that debate. look, this campaign is a long, grinding process.

and if it were, if the facts were determined today, we wouldn't bother to run a campaign. our job, my job as campaign manager is to have gradual incremental progress and peak in january before people vote. not trying to win the race in september the year before. trying to win it next year when folks start going to the polls, when caucuses start happening, and we're going to have a slow, gradual climb to do that, and that's been our strategy all along. >> and how does he match up in your mind in iowa? because, again, the conventional wisdom would be iowa tends to reward these very conservative, very socially conservative candidates and senator graham has a reputation as a more center right guy. >> i think that's a fair point. i think we have to see how this race is going to shape out in iowa. a few weeks ago we were talking about scott walker be being the front runner in iowa. he's not in the race today.

i don't know how many candidates are going to be in the race come the caucus next year. and i don't know how the ideological puzzle breaks up in terms of who's dividing up what segment of the vote. but senator graham, his big focus has been new hampshire and will continue to be new hampshire. >> i've asked the other guise this question, but shawn spicer said there's not going to be an undercard debate next time. and that's a policy that seems to be designed to relegate candidates like yours so some tofrt interview format and not let them on a stage whatsoever. >> i think it's interesting to hear the rnc say that. because supposedly, the rnc has nothing to do with the debate criteria. how is it that you know what cnbc's going to do if you have no role in what cnbc's planning to do. i think we should let the next moderator of the debate determine their criteria, and i think the rnc as any republican

should want, we have a lot of great candidates running for president. let's find a way to feature as many of them as we can. it's good for our party. we should be embracing this as a good thing about conservatism, a good thing about our message, rather than having the party play the role of the role that the voters are supposed to play. the voters get to winnow down the race, not the rnc. >> would you be open to participating in some alternate debate sponsored by some other mig media organization? >> take all the people who are still in the race, divide them in half by random draw and have two forums. that way you can really see in a smaller setting all these candidates show off their talents and make their case. and i would hope that the rnc, i hope that cnbc, i hope that others, i don't know how many candidates are going to be left by the time we get to october 28th either, so this may be a moot point. >> so how would you characterize

the senator's position on where the party's position is? he's been very outright and forthright about his position for a long time and some would k say banging his head against the wall over it, and the party is lo only sliding further to the right. >> immigration is a problem. we're not doing anything about it right now. we've got to find a way to fix the problem or by doing nothing we're continuing to grant amnesty, and i think that's the one thing all republicans agree on is that we've got to do something to solve this problem. people have different ideas about how to do it, but i think senator graham, as he thinks about most issues looks at it in a prag natsic way, what's actually do-able. and i'm going to be honest, whether it helps me politically or not, i'm going to be honest with the american people and give them what i think is the straight story. >> would you characterize his

personal view of donald trump as appalled? >> i don't think he liked it when donald trump gave out his cell phone number. that was a interesting day. why is your phone ringing? something has happened it's got to be great. i hope they're donors. it was not. it was very angry donald trump supporters. i think that his personal views about donald trump are probably that donald trump's not ready to be commander in chief of the greatest fighting force in the world and we should be focussing on candidates who are. >> so back on the phone, were you secretly relieved that donald trump forced the issue and forced the senator to get a more modern phone? >> well, it's a mixed bag. because now, you know, he knows how to use apps, and read polls and read your news articles, and so he's getting a lot of information on his own. but, yes, i think it's great that he has joined all of us in

using a smartphone. and, as i said to him, when it all happened, i said, you know, i had only been his campaign manager for four or five months. donald trump just did something i've been trying to do for five months. i'm a total failure. he's pretty good at it. so it worked out well. >> as i read it basically by the senator's criteria, no one else besides him is fit to be commander in chief because no one else is on board the 10,000 troops in syria? >> i think we're waiting to see how this race shapes up and how people feel about that particular issue. from his point of view, there is no debating it anymore. what we need to do in syria, what we need to do in iraq, and the mistakes that we made before, that he's been very vocal fighting against in the obama administration. i think that he feels that this is the right path forward. he's going to make his case, and he feels he is best prepared,

otherwise he wouldn't be running for president. >> so as you plot out your path to a breakout, does it require a number of these other candidates, including jeb bush to fizzle out? >> i'm not sure it means anyone fizzle out. any time in politics, you need to have a little bit of luck. to sit here as a political consultant and tell you it's all the genius in our heads, that's b.s. you need to have a little bit of luck, but you need to put your campaign in a position to take advantage of that luck. i think many of you six months ago have said lindsey graham's campaign manager's not going to be on the stage when rich and google and national review have there for ruir forum, but we're. in order to remain in the race, you've got to still be sitting there, and that's the campaign we've had planned from day one

pan the one we' and the one we're going to continue to execute. >> can you kwauptfy for us, give us some example of how small, what corners you're cutting and what it means to be lean and mean in the lindsey graham world? >> yeah, we have an extremely small, national team, you know, dozen people? we sit in one giant room about this size. we all yell at each other all day long. it's a great deal of fun. fun place to work. and i think that actually reflects a lot of our candidate's personality. i think a good campaign should reflect who your candidate is and where he came from. our campaign is kind of like that. we are all a small team. there for the right reasons. there because we believe in lindsey graham. and if we were doing it for the money, if we were doing it because he's a front runner or because of polls, we would all be there for the wrong reasons, and we're not. >> and do you buy, i've asked some of the other candidates who, former senators, do you worry that just the mood is so

much in favor of outsiders and people that have no political experience, the single worst case you can make as a candidate is i've been in the senate a long time. i know things. i've tried to do things. give me this job. >> it's a tough case to make right now, isn't it? but i think at the end of the day, when you get closer to election time, people start thinking about different things. they're going to think about who's ready to take this fight to radical islam. they're going to think about who's going to be kmader in chief. for military families out there, they're going to think who do i want commanding my son or daughter as they go off to do this job? who do i trust to make sure that our troops have the capacity, the weapons, the support that they need to do their job? and i think that when we get down to it and when we get down to crunch time in this, the importance of who our commander in chief is is going to be more relevant in people's minds and that's where lindsey graham's going to shine.

>> can you talk about the history of lindsey graham as a votegetter. he's the best votegetter in south carolina history, eclipsing even strom thurmond. >> he has never lost a race in south carolina. he won his last primary against six opponents with an overwhelming majority. he's never, till recently, not necessarily been seen as the front runner in those races. but he's a great grassroots politician. what you see is what you get with lindsey graham. he can interact with people as good as anyone i've ever worked with, and i think that sort of talent that helps him so much in south carolina is perfectly tailored to iowa and new hampshire as well. >> would you expect him along the line here to begin to pick up endorsementing from his fellow senators? >> i don't know if endorsements really the are the name of the game? i think it's more how you're doing in iowa and new hampshire, and that's more our focus than

what washington, d.c. thinks. >> do you have a secret weapon there and the large number of people in the national guard? >> i think that helps out. senator graham is the only person in the race assize from jim gilmore who has served in the military. was in the national guard. has been a reservist. there's a large population of national guard and reservists in north carolina that are going to good for him, and in new hampshire and south carolina as well. >> does he have a tactic for reaching out for those people? >> i think that talking about his national security credentials is important and also talking about how we make sure that our veterans are cared for and taken care of is something that's important to that community and, you know, serving in the senate on those issues and working on them for a long time. he has a good, you know, breadth of experience on it. >> so last two questions i've asked everyone. what is the moment that other candidate or campaign has had that you've been most impressed with that you wish you guys had thought of first or something

like that. and what is the most endearing quality of lindsey graham that you see on the inside working with him closely that the rest of us might not be aware of? >> you know, i think one of the things that i find most fascinating about this campaign and hopefully in the long run it's a good thing is donald trump has truly turned the political consulting conventional wisdom on its head. he's done everything that people like me would tell a candidate not to do. so maybe that's a good thing for my profession. maybe we have too many, you know, political consultants who are operating out of the same playbook. >> wait, that's a good thing for your profession? >> i think it is. i think it's a good thing that we have people challenging the way things have always been done. i'm not saying donald trump's doing it necessarily the right way. but i think it's good for folks like me to think differently, and the whole consulting class is looking at the trump race and going, are we really? how else can we look at what we

do? in terms of lindsey graham, i think the one word i would use to describe him is sincere. what you see with lindsey graham is exactly what you get. he's, he's as approachable as anyone i've ever worked with in politics. he is as sincere and caring a person as i've ever been around, and he's also just funny. he is a really funny person to be around. and it's not so much that he has the same kind of jokes that you hear over and over and over again, you know, i worked with john mccain. i can tell you john mccain's six jokes front and back.