>> tomorrow, a discussion with reid wilson and a member of the new america foundation. later, a discussion of about cyber security, here at 11:00 eastern on c-span. coming up on "newsmakers", the republican national committee chairman. then, former white house senior adviser on working and the white house. later, remarks on president obama's policies and the federal budget. >> we are what -- we are pleased to welcome reince priebus, who took over the gavel of the republican national committee. >> thank you for having me. >> we have to start with the

obvious. it is friday afternoon and the deadline for the expiration is living. eight -- are you positive there will be one and what are the political ramifications of a government shut down for the party? >> i'm not sure if there is going to be a deal or not. i know the republicans and the speaker are very concerned about spending in the country. it's the number-one issue out there in america right now. voters around the country and republicans and conservatives are concerned about the trajectory of our spending and debt that is crushing our economy. i think that is front and center with the speaker. that is the most important piece of this debate -- to get spending under control. i think the american people are demanding it. the deal depends on how much the president is willing to move on those spending numbers and if they're willing to move, i think there will be a shutdown and if

they will not, there will be. it is at the spending issues. >> let me introduce our to reporters. >> are you worried the president will emerge as the political winner as somebody with strong leadership and the grown-up in the room, going forward to 2012? >> i'm not worried he will come across as a political winner. i think if the spending issues are not put under tight reins and if if we do not get some real sanity on that issue, i think we're all going to be losers. i think everyone is going to be a loser to the american people. that's the number one priority. i'm not worried about whether the president is seen as a winner or loser. i think he already comes across as a loser in this debate in that he has just recently engaged after doing his

n.c.a.a. brackets on espn and golfing. he is not engaged. i think we all know the president has not been engaged in the budget debate until just recently and i think that is an issue he will have to deal with. >> you are very much a engaged in talking about engaged in debt with the rnc debt. as of the end of february, your were facing about $21 million in redding. when you can't -- when can you tell donors to the rnc that the rnc will be free and clear of that? >> my goal is by the end of the year, we will have $5 million less in debt. that is my goal. when we first came into the building, and feel free to cut me off, but we were in at about $24 million in debt when we came into the building.

>> in january? >> yes, january. we had to add more bills to the overall debt as we went forward. our cash on hand was very low and we owed more in payroll i first came in in january and our cash on hand in the building. what i have had to do is rebuild trust, rebuild credibility with our committee and you all know when you have to rebuild trust and credibility in any organization, that is a tough place to start. >> but you are still going to be $5 million in the red during a presidential year when you're trying to take the senate and hold on to the house. how's that going to work when you are still that far in debt? do you expect the eventual nominee of your party to help close the gap? >> maybe i was not clear.

i said $5 million or less in debt. we could have zero, but i would rather under promise and over deliver. my cash on hand number will be tens of millions of dollars by the end of the year. my obligation is that the republican national committee -- i need to be operational, functional -- we are the only committee in america that can coordinate our dollars, the money we raise directly with the republican nominee. with that in mind, i have to balance the effect of being debt free to the necessity of having a lot of cash on hand to coordinate with the presidential campaign. i get what you are saying. i do not want that. i hope it is zero, but i know that no cash on hand it does not help us get over the finish line. i'm trying to balance those objectives with getting our party down to business,

functional, operational, and defeating this president that i think is taking this country of the financial rails. >> why do you think the rnc is even necessary in terms of funding voter turnout efforts? why not just leave it to outside groups? >> because outside groups cannot by law coordinate arm in arm -- if i was a 527, i could not sit down with a presidential nominee or their campaign and literally coordinate we are doing with our money, where we are putting our money, what needed to polities in ohio -- how much absentee -- how much absentee balloting work we should do -- look at what barack obama is doing -- who is the coordinating with? the dnc. that is the same thing we have to do at the end -- at the rnc. >> so without that, you are at a

deep disadvantage? >> people ask me all the time what was different about wisconsin? why was wisconsin doing better than the rest of the country? the reason is, during the last month of the campaign, there was not a state in the entire country and knocked on more doors, did more bone calls -- you cannot take the numbers. his there are real numbers. absentee ballots -- not a single state in the country did more than the state of wisconsin. you cannot win a campaign with an air force alone. we are the army. we are the boots on the ground. we left a few races on the table last time because we were not fully prepared. >> you cannot talk to a member of your party nowadays without hearing someone of a pining for someone else to get into the presidential race.

do you want to see more candidates run in the presidential race and do you think you can win the presidency with the current crop of candidates? >> i'm always in favor of having a big field of candidates. i think the more, the merrier. we will have plenty of candidates running against this president who i think financially, when you are running up to spending 42 cents on every dollar made in america, we are in a battle for freedom in this country and i think that the battle many people from many different walks of life for going to want to engage in and defeat this president. the second part of your question was -- what was that again? >> do you think what the current crop of candidates, that you can beat this president? >> absolutely. they are credible, they are intelligent, they can speak to the issues that are important.

>> why this hunger for more options among folks in your party? >> i don't know what the statistics show, but i think people have a lot of different views on who would be a good challenger to this president. there are many fractions and divisions within any organization and people have their choice. in the end, people will unify against a democratic president who is taking this country off the financial rails. i think we are going to be fined and have a great -- we're going to be fine and have a great president. am i satisfied? yes. if you hearken back to the days of bush 41 and what was his approval rating? maybe 90% in 1991. saturday night live used to have skits and they would show all of these potential democratic candidates and it was

a joke. they were talking about how each person deserved the opportunity to run against bush 41 and get killed. lo and behold, what happened? bush 41 at 97 -- 90% approval was beaten by bill clinton. it is important to keep in perspective that polling changes rapidly. this president just a week ago, at a rating at 42%. i think he is very beatable and we're going to beat him. >> you said all of the republican candidates in the field are credible. is donald trump a credible candidate? >> i don't know if he is in the field or not. i think all of these guys are credible and i think they all have different angles and the points they are going to articulate and it's going to be

up to the voters. i don't get to choose to the candidate is going to be, but i have to do what we can to get across the finish line. >> is a good for the party to have a candidate like kim talking to some much about is this president and american citizen? is that further debate good for the party? >> i think it's up to the primary voters to decide that. you have different opinions and different candidates who are running that will talk about different things at different times. i think it is up to the primary voters. having a diversity of opinions is fine. but the voters usually get right. it's up to me to turn the party into a functional, operational -- >> do you have any questions over whether this president is an american citizen? >> i don't have a question. but here is the thing -- he's the president, but he's not doing a very good job keeping

our economy on track. it is up to me to see he is defeated. >> isn't that a distraction, if there is this question over his birth certificate, if there are so many questions about his stewardship of the economy and leadership in the world, isn't all of that distraction from what you believe are the central issues facing the country right now? >> you might call it a distraction -- listen -- my view -- >> is it a distraction? >> i don't know if it's a distraction. it is a nonstarter for me. i don't consider it a distraction or anything other than something i don't need to deal with. i need to deal with defeating this president who is taking this country financially in the wrong direction, who is not fulfilling its promises when it comes to debt, not fulfilling

his promises when it comes to deficits he promised he would deal with. he did that in the last budget. my view is this is an america that is not an america want to pass on to my kids. it is an america where financially, we are off the rails and i need to do what i can do to build up a committee to make a presidential candidate competitive to defeat barack obama. >> but doesn't that suggest the road to success is focusing on economic issues? >> i think that is true. i think the road to success to the american people is focusing on the economic issues of debt, the deficit, the crashing trajectory of our entitlement programs. those are the things the american people are concerned with right now. >> the voters in the country are the most interesting in terms

of independent voters. how they go will give an indication of how this goes in 2012. the independent voters in wisconsin, how do they view discussions like this? this is from a president who won the wisconsin by 14%. >> i think the voters -- they might be the same everywhere around the country. i don't want to sound like a broken record, but people are most concerned about out of control spending, a country that is about to spend 42 cents on every dollar made to run the federal government. a government and elected representatives that do not seem to care enough about the deficit in this country and we have a president that has accumulated more debt than every president before him combined. we have a probe -- president who has promised to deliver a $seven

trillion deficit. they are concerned about the future of this country and they get it. >> if that is the case, should not some republican elder advised some other candidate to focus on these issues? >> i think they are focused on those issues. they are talking about paul ryan's budget. they're talking about debt and deficit. that is what they are talking about. occasionally, there is another subject but i think the focus is on the economy. >> one of your potential candidates was in florida this past weekend said he will be competing in florida if he gets in the race regardless of what happens with the primary calendar. when you hear that kind of language, what does that say

about what is going to happen with florida and the primary calendar? how can you threaten to strip away their delegates if they are saying they don't care? >> you have to understand that i inherit rules as chairman. it is my obligation to enforce the rules of the committee. it would seem any ceo or have any organization, one of their top obligations is to enforce their articles of incorporation. my articles and might bylaws say there are four states that go into the primary window. any other state outside of that can compete after the first tuesday in march. the rules also say that any state that violates those rules of loses half their delegates. that's not my decision to decide

whether they lose their delegates or who can go in what place on the calendar. it is automatic. is not something that is decided. there is no buttons to press. it is in the rules. >> is there any chance you would move the gop convention from tampa to a different state? >> no. the convention has been set. it is going to be in tampa. we are doing a good job getting that convention in place. the host committee is doing a good job. the convention is one issue, the primary calendar is another issue. >> sketch out how this gets resolved. >> as you know, our chief of staff was just in tampa on tuesday.

they had a good conversation. i have been talking to the governor -- i think the first thing is you have to communicate with each other. there is a little misconception of how easy it is to simply change the rules of the republican national committee. sari -- i will not stay in the weeds, but just so you can understand, the rules of the republican national committee cannot be changed until the national convention. think about this -- even if i had complete unanimity of the 160 voters, and you know how hard that is -- if i have all of that, those rules cannot be amended until the national convention. ultimately, florida is going to be outside the window. i would hope so. i think we have rules for a reason.

the florida delegates support it. the primary calendar as currently adopted by the national committee. they supported it. >> and the other states on the horizon that worry you like michigan or states that have long complained about iowa or new hampshire? >> i don't have any other states i am overly concerned about. i think everyone is working hard to get into the march and april window. >> what are you telling the speaker and the state senate president -- what is your message? >> i'm not going to get into the confidential communications. i get their position and i enter stand where they are coming from. they have a lot of great points to make. it's not an argument, it's a

good, cooperative discussion, taking in my necessity to educate folks as far as what our limitations are on the calendar issue and then listening to their issues which are very good, but unfortunately, there is not a whole lot -- not a lot the chairman can do about changing the calendar made prior to me being here. >> [unintelligible] >> i'm looking forward to getting to know her. i know she is impressive and smart and articulate. i just do not know her very well other than what i hear, which are good things. >> in the primaries and caucuses will be in flux. some rnc members have tried to bring order to the debates with limited success. what should the role --

have you heard any positive reaction? >> lots of positive reaction. i'm not going to get into the details, but it has been very positive as far as having -- the idea is simple and it is being worked in different angles. the idea is the republican national committee would put our stamp of approval or sanction or whatever word you want to call it over one or two debates of month at the most. try to just do one month, starting in august through dates in february or march and we would try to work with other organizations, other state parties in putting these debates on. that would mean you could limit some of the debates. we do not have candidates going

to 70 debates in the next eight months and parading around like they did in 2008, which i don't think it says anywhere in defeating this president. the idea is to simply limit the number and frequency of the debates to some reasonable amount. i'm not saying to debates, but i'm not saying 50 debates. >> what should the fund raising component of this be? what would you like to see that campaigns doing to raise money for the rnc? >> that is a piece that is misinterpreted. fund-raising is simply something we are going to do wherever we go. if there are going to be people at the debate or an opportunity to create a fund-raiser outside of the debates, we might do that, but fund-raising peace is not going to be a deal --

>> it sounds like you are walking back away from what the chairman of the debate committee, who you appointed, proposed last weekend, which was at each one of the rnc- sanctioned debate, you would have a fund-raiser with candidates agreeing to raise money for the rnc, but you say you are not committed to that? >> i think he was simply putting that option on the table, not saying this is how we're going to do it every single day. i think it is possible that at some debates, the republican national committee does have fund-raisers at some debates. but this is us sponsoring or sanctioning or putting our stamp of approval on a debate that might be happening. the iowa party will be doing a debate. we're not talking about adding another debate.

bartok thing about the republican national committee coming in and assisting the state of iowa in that particular debate. we might do a fund-raiser, maybe we do, maybe we down. >> so that was not a take-it-or- leave-it, or the suggestion of ideas -- >> of course it is not take it or leave it. we will try to act in the best interest of our candidates. we need to communicate with them what the ideas are and how we can be helpful. the same thing that dnc did. they did this and more. >> office to you want -- do you want to see more conservative figures moderate the debates? >> that is something they can decide. >> what do you believe right now that president obama's biggest strengths are and will make the most difficult path to be him?

speech good at giving a and he is good at making money. i think he's terrible following through on promises. i think he's been awful for our economy and i think those issues will from his ability to raise money. >> do you believe his segue since the midterm collection -- cutting the deal on extending the bush tax cuts -- that his attacking to the center is reminiscent of bill clinton in 1995 and the end result could be the same? >> i do not think so. if you look at this stimulus -- >> that was at the beginning of his term. >> if you look at where americans are on obama care and if you look at the strong opinions held by average voters in this country, they do not like the spending more the stimulus or government-run

health care. whether he tacked slightly to the right on a particular issue, i don't think he will get much out of that. the real legacy of barack obama is out of control spending, at a controlled debt and a lot of broken promises, and a president who is disengaged, whether it is domestically or foreign-policy, he is coming across as aloof and disengaged because he is. >> do you think health care needs to be a central part of the argument against president obama? >> i think it has to be a major part of the argument. i think it's something most americans don't think is working. having government get between you and your doctor is something most americans do not believe in. more importantly, health-care, spending and unfulfilled promises on debt and deficits.

>> is it some -- is it harder for someone like mitt romney to make that argument? >> i will leave that to him. i think he can clearly make the argument. i think he has articulated reasons and i will let him do that. i think it's a different situation and different program altogether. >> let me ask you about wisconsin. there is a closely watched special alexian for the supreme court. -- election for the supreme court. what is your take away? >> either way, democrats and the public employee unions were so geared up in predicting enormous victories in wisconsin, whether the 7000 votes were there or not, they fell flat. wisconsin is a of bread state

and looks like they are even outside the margin for a recount. we verified that governor walker is for real and these are new times in wisconsin and i think new times in this country. it is a battle of whether we want more makers or takers. >> will you guarantee your nominee next year will be from wisconsin? >> i think we are going to win wisconsin. it is going to be a battleground state. >> id is -- it is a purple state? >> i think under the right circumstances, it can go read. as long as people are focused on economic issues, people are fiscal conservatives in wisconsin. i think we win on those issues.

those are the issues governor walker is talking about. >> will your party take back the senate? what are the key races you need to win? >> i am not going to say it is a key race, but besides nevada and a typical race as we talk about, watch wisconsin. i don't want to get into it right now, but i think you will see a replay of the fine gold race. i know they seemed very different types of candidates, but it's the same message -- it's an out of control deficit and an out uncontrolled debt ratio. my guess is he is not going to run and you will see a couple of strong candidates come out. >> will paul ryan run? >> you have to talk to paul about that