liz mair's tweets should have fallen into the reasonable people can disagree. say i think the iowa caucus is wonderful because he's someone trying to win the iowa caucus. it depends on what the staffer did. if you had a white supremacist staffer, you wouldn't go out and say, i'm not a white supremacist. the question is there's this -- if we have the spectrum that goes from like what order the nominating process ought to go to white supremacy and you have things in the middle you have to figure out what are the things the candidate can say i disagree with my staffer but that's just a reasonable disagreement. >> are candidates guilty by association? is that fair? >> i don't know if they should be guilty by sosh yags but in advance when they're doing the hiring they have to figure out am i willing to stand by this person and as sabrina says in the case of liz mair those are easily findable. so i think if a candidate is hiring a staffer who is going to be public facing in particular but who also is going to be with them for a long period of time it's up to the cand

liz, let me start with the easy stuff, which is liz mair, a republican, whether you agree with what sheed the internet to say the iowa caucus shouldn't have so much power. there are a lot of people who say that. whether you agree or not, it wouldn't seem like a fireable offense. >> this social media is a new thing. it's been innovating in different ways and taking different directions. but ultimately we can't claim technology for people's bad behavior. it's up to everyone to know that everything they tweet is going to be on the record. >> was this bad behavior? >> it's up to the public to find that out. and look, you can be fired for many reasons. and if the representative doesn't want her representing him anymore, based on these tweets, he can do that. >> she went back to twitter, so she's not been pushed completely off the platform. but she wrote -- >> i read that as her digging her heels in to part of this which is, she doesn't feel she should be fired for having a position about when iowa gets to vote. >> i admire that she is sticking to it in a sense. i think it's significant that

we're joined by liz mair, april ryan, author of "presidency in black and white" and nicholas confessoref the "new york times." i'm going to start with liz. this is -- well, people tell me what he is doing is running for the establishment. that's his first goal. take on hillary later on. >> i think that's probably correct. the question that i have about the strategy is, is this really a field that is going to be whittled down to the usual two where we have an establishment or anti-establishment or are we going to see this splinter into four, a more moderate candidate, somebody who is a mainstream conservative for this field, probably somebody in the rand paul area, the more libertarian, and then somebody who is the more social conservative, evangelical. >> so four arenas? >> that's what i think. and i thought it was very interesting with cruz's announcement, he seems to be gunning for the fourth arena that i think is more dominated by mike huckabee and cruz thinks he can make a play for that. >> going to liberty university was certainly that. >> you think there are four arenas that you c

liz mair is more libertarian than your average republican. here's the thing, so is every single gop strategist under the age of 40. they are more libertarian than your average republican. she wanted to get rid of farm subsidies, right? >> i met her at some con fab in d.c. years ago, and she immediately struck up a conversation about farm subsidies. and let's just be clear, this is how a conservative principle stands. ethanol is basically a wasteful government mandate that has been put in there by red seeking large corporations that benefit handsomely from it and use their lobbying dollars to keep the mandate flowing so they can make money off of it. it's inefficient and bad for the environment. >> this is exactly what scott walker used to say. yes, he is a semi front-runner at this point. right now there's a strong anti-establishment mood on the right. it hasn't expressed itself yet in presidential nominees. it didn't in 2012. mitt romney was not the anti-establishment candidate. john mccain certainly was not the anti-establishment candidate.