Sign in to comment!

Fox News Sunday

House Speaker Paul Ryan talks plans for Congress; Plus, GOP candidates Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham and George Pataki

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," November 1, 2015. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS HOST:  I’m John Roberts, in for Chris Wallace.  

Today, our interview with new House Speaker Paul Ryan.  

And the president shifts his strategy in Syria.  


BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  My answer is simple -- I will not put American troops on the ground in Syria.  

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY:  The decision the president has made will further intensify our support.  

ROBERTS:  We'll discuss the situation with Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the biggest critics of the administration's foreign policy.  

Then, Paul Ryan takes the gavel from John Boehner.  

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-WIS., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE:  We need to make some changes, starting with how the House does business.  

ROBERTS:  We speak with the new speaker of the House on the challenges ahead.  

And the new shape of the Republican presidential race after this week's controversial debate.  

SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  This is not a cage match.  

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE, R-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  We have ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us, and we're talking about fantasy football?  

ROBERTS:  We'll get Carly Fiorina's reaction.  

CARLY FIORINA, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  After the last debate, I was told I didn't smile enough.  

ROBERTS:  And from the undercard stage, former New York Governor George Pataki.  

Plus, our Sunday panel weighs in on the future of Jeb Bush's campaign.  

JEB BUSH, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  You should be showing up for work.  Literally the Senate, what is it, like a French workweek?  

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  Someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you.  

ROBERTS:  All, right now, on "Fox News Sunday."


ROBERTS:  And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

We begin with a shift in strategy in Syria.  The White House announcing it would send around 50 Special Operations forces there to assist in the fight against ISIS.  That contradicts President Obama's earlier vows to not put American boots on the ground.  The White House says the troops are not there for combat.  

Here to discuss the move is Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee, who has advocated sending more troops to the region to battle the Islamic State.

Senator, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

Let’s start there.  You have been saying for months we need troops there on the ground there to battle ISIS.  What do you think of the president sending in these 50 Special Forces operators?  

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:  It will not change conditions on the ground.

Here’s what I’ve said, I intend to destroy ISIL.  They want three things: they want to purify the Islamic faith and take it back to the 1100s, they want to destroy the state of Israel the attack infidels like up.  Al Baghdadi said to the American colonel who turned him over to the Iraqis after he was in an American POW camp in Iraq, "I’ll see you in New York."

President Obama said he will degrade and destroy ISIL.  Sending 50 American Special Forces into Syria in the eyes of ISIL shows that Obama is not all in, it is a sign of weakness to ISIL.  They have sized Obama up and they think he's weak.  

And to our allies, sending 50 troops means that we're not committed to destroying ISIL.  And if we’re not committed to destroying ISIL, they will attack us here.  

So, this is a failure on all fronts.  These 50 American special operators are going to go in into a very bad spot with no chance of winning, and at the end of the day, this will not destroy ISIL.  This is an increment change.  It has not chance to success.  

ROBERTS:  As we said at the top of this, the president was adamant two years ago that he was not going to put American forces in this fight.


ROBERTS:  Let's just roll the clock back and look at what he said.  


OBAMA:  I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.  I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan.


ROBERTS:  Is that a lesson in don’t take any option off the table?

GRAHAM:  Yes, sir.  It is.  

My goal is to destroy ISIL because if we don't hit them over there, they’re going to hit us here.  

And here’s what the president has done basically -- he has surrendered on two fronts.  His goal of degrading and destroying ISIL, this strategy will not work.  At the end of the day, Barack Obama has turned out to be a completely incompetent commander-in-chief.  He doesn't listen to sound military advice.  Leaving Iraq too soon led to the rise of ISIL, and John Kerry, his secretary of state, is a completely delusional man.  

What we're about to accomplish is to turn Syria over to Russia and Iran, and to make sure that we never destroy ISIL on Obama's watch, and pass this mess on to the next president.  

ROBERTS:  Senator, one of the big concerns is we are not going to have American forces and Russian forces operating in the same area with competing agendas.  

GRAHAM:  Right.  Yes.

ROBERTS:  Do you see the potential here for direct confrontation, either accidental or intentional?  

GRAHAM:  Well, there may be some potential, but I see Russia and Iran mopping the floor with Obama and Kerry.  Russia is all in with Iran to support Assad.  President Obama said Assad must go.  The Russians say, no, he will stay.  

They're fighting to keep Assad in power.  Assad is a puppet of the Iranians.  His regime is not going to be accepted by the Syrian people because he slaughtered 250,000 of them.  It will destabilize the region.

And now, Obama's allowed Russia to dismember Syria, like it did Ukraine, and the Russians are back in the Mideast strong -- they've never been stronger since 1973.  

This is a complete disaster for us, it means the war never ends, the refugees continue to flow, and ISIL has recruiting opportunity now -- come to Syria and fight our mortal enemy, the Shia Persian Iranians.  

This is screwed up at every angle.  Assad is winning.  We’re losing.  ISIL is getting stronger, the 50 going on the ground are in harm's way without any chance of success.  I cannot tell you how bad this is.  

And here’s what John Kerry will do.  He will cut a deal with the Russians and Iranians, where they gets control over Syria, the Iranians will have yet another Arab capital under their control and he will declare victory.  Since this deal with Iran, the nuclear deal, Iranians have test-fired a missile in violation of the U.N. sanctions.  They have put troops on the ground in Iran to hurt our interest and they have now jailed the fourth American business person.  

Is this the change we are hoping?

Iran is just slapping Obama and Kerry in the face.  

ROBERTS:  Senators, we’ve just got about 30 seconds left.  But I do want to talk about the debate.  


ROBERTS:  Because there’s a big meeting in northern Virginia tonight you’re campaign is participating, talking about changes in debates going forward at the debacle on Wednesday.  

Very quickly if you can, what changes do you want to see?  

GRAHAM:  I want smaller groups on the stage, better questions, and let us all be heard from equally.  

Reince Priebus is a good man.  He's rebuilt the Republican Party that was pretty much in tatters.  But this debate structure is not leading to the best candidate coming out of the debates.  I would like smaller group, all of us be heard equally, ask better questions.  If we’ll do that, we'll get the best nominee to win an election we can't afford to lose.  If we continue with this process, I think it’s going to hurt our chances for winning in 2016.  

ROBERTS:  Senator Graham, thanks so much for joining us this morning.  Sorry, you didn't get the extra hour of sleep, but I hope you enjoy the football game.  

GRAHAM:  I will.  Thank you very much for having me.  

ROBERTS:  Now to the shake up in Congress, as Congressman Paul Ryan, the party's former vice presidential nominee, takes the top job in the House of Representatives and is vowing to change the way Congress does business.  

Earlier, I sat down with the newly elected House Speaker to discuss his new plans to unify the Republican Party.


ROBERTS:  Mr. Speaker, good to talk to you.  Thanks for taking the time.

You said that you wanted party unity, prior to taking over speaker and in your inaugural address.  For the moment, for the most part, you've got it.  What do you do to keep the party together?  How do you get the two sides of the GOP together so you can actually get things done?

RYAN:  I think we've been bold on tactics, but not on policy.  And I think we've been timid around here for too long.  And I think the key is to offer the country a very bold alternative, a very bold agenda for how we can solve this country's problems.  And I think that is how we unify.

ROBERTS:  How, how much rope do you give the Freedom Caucus?  Because already a lot of members are taking a lot of heat from constituents just for supporting you.

RYAN:  Look, I think the key here is we need to get Congress working like it was intended to by the Founders, a bottom-up consensus-driven process.  That's number one.

Number two, I think it's very important that we are a successful opposition party.  If we don't like the direction the country is headed, not only do we use the tools that we have to be a successful opposition party, but we have to be, number three, a proposition party.  

This is where we have fallen down, and I think this is what unifies the Republicans -- which is to show the country how we would do things differently.  

How do you fix, how do you overhaul the tax code?  What is -- what is a replacement of Obamacare look like?  How do you effectively attack the root causes of poverty, to help people build their lives?  How do you get economic growth?  

Those are the things that people are hungry for, and that is what I think we need to offer the country, because we don't think the country's headed in the right direction.  We ought to show what we would do if we had the ability to do it.  And that's what I think unifies us.

ROBERTS:  Now, in terms of doing things differently, your last vote before you became Speaker was you voted for the budget deal after saying long and loud, this whole thing stinks.

RYAN:  It did.  I think the process stunk.  So here's what happened --  

ROBERTS:  But I talked to several Republicans who say, if you can say that about the budget deal, if you can really be opposed to the whole thing and yet vote for it, then under your speakership, it's going to be business as usual.

RYAN:  I -- what -- I --  

ROBERTS:  What, what do you say?

RYAN:  My colleagues who know that I think differently.  We were coming up to a deadline on Tuesday where we could have had a potential default.

We were coming up with a deadline on appropriations in December the 11th.  And what happened was leadership presented us with a bill a few days beforehand.  We should not be doing business that way, and I've been the first among many to discuss that.

So, what I think we need to do, as a Republican conference, is develop a strategy early on, involve all members of our conference so that we can think about these issues ahead of time and not get right up to the deadlines, so that we can prosecute a strategy early on, and, and show people who we are.  Open the process up.  That is how we have to do things differently.  

Look, I told the members of our conference, I cannot pick up where John Boehner left off.  I can't do things the same way.  We have to do things differently.  I think most members agreed with that, and I think that's one of the reasons why my colleagues asked me to do the job.

ROBERTS:  And the people I talked to agree with you, that the process has to change.  But they also think that, if you're coming up against these hard deadlines, you should use them as leverage to get the things that you really want, as opposed to just going along with this --  

RYAN:  We should have been meeting months ago to discuss how we would have done that.  We didn't do that.

ROBERTS:  Three Republican presidential candidates in the Senate voted against this bill.  The Democrats say that's reckless, they're playing fast and loose with the future of the American economy, and they don't deserve to be elevated to the presidency because of that type of behavior.  Were their votes reckless?

RYAN:  Look, I'm not going to criticize how a person voted one way or the other.

What I think we need to do is change the way we do business.  I think we've been bold on tactics, but not bold on policy. I think we -- we owe the country an alternative.  

And that is why I think in 2016 we need to show people who we are, what we believe, and how we would do things differently, and what our ideas and policies are to change the direction of this country, because we think the country's headed in the wrong direction.  We think the President's leading us in the wrong direction.

And here in the House we have to offer a bold alternative.  And that's exactly what unifies us and what we're going to work on.

ROBERTS:  So, that's your vision.  And I talked to other Republicans who say going forward, in terms of changing up the status quo, what you should be doing as a party is in this presidential year, you should be putting on the president's desk legislation on regulatory reforms, spending bills that puts the Democrats in a difficult place.  Would you agree that that's the right strategy?

RYAN:  Look, I'm not talking about putting anybody in a difficult place.  I think we ought to have to give the country solutions.

ROBERTS:  But this is what the party wants.

RYAN:  The party wants to be on offense.  The party wants to give people alternatives.  We are elected by our constituents to represent them.  And people in this country are very anxious and very frustrated about the direction of this country.  

You know, working people of America are falling behind.  They're not getting ahead.  They're very worried about their future.  Foreign policy is an absolute disaster.

So, we owe the people of this country a different vision for how we will go forward, and this is what we owe our constituents, and this is what we're going to do.

ROBERTS:  But, you know, you've got to also keep the party together, and there are many conservatives who say we -- we did well in the polls, in the election in 2014, after the government was shut down in 2013.  There's a new AP poll out there that shows a divided public says, OK, if you want to shut down the government in order to force the president to swallow this difficult choice of spending cuts or inflating and blowing out the budget, you're probably right to do that.  

Do you not have -- as history recently at least -- not shown that you can do whatever you need to do to rein in big government?

RYAN:  Look, I think your gauge is too low.  You have to raise your gauge to the horizon, which is: we have to show people where we’re headed.

ROBERTS:  But this isn't my gauge.  

RYAN:  No, I'm --  

ROBERTS:  This is the gauge, the people in your party.

RYAN:  The purpose of your question in what I'm talking about, which is we have not shown -- we've been too timid on policy, we've been too timid on vision.  We have none.  

And so, this is what I think we can unify over: which is so people understand why we make decisions on a day to day basis, they don't understand where we're going.  We have to show people where we're going and what horizon we're shooting for -- meaning what are our ideas?  How do we take the founding principles and reapply them to the problems of the day to get real solutions for working families so that they can get ahead?  So that they can see that we can get this American idea back.  

That's the problem.  We fight over tactics because we don't have a vision.  We have to have a vision and offer an alternative to this country so that they can see that if we get a chance to lead, if we get the presidency, and if we keep Congress, this is what it will look like.  This is how we'll fix the problems that working families are facing.  That is what we have not done, that's what we need to do, and that is in my opinion how we unify.

ROBERTS:  In, in order to do that, some mainstream Republicans have told me you, as Speaker, may have to start throwing the Senate under the bus to get what you want.

RYAN:  No, I don't think we throw any Republicans under the bus.  I think, look, I was not asked to dis-unify the Republican Party in the Congress.  I was asked to unify.

So, throwing Republicans under the bus is not in my job description.  We have to unify, and we have to also understand the limits that the Constitution places on us when we have a president that doesn't agree with us, when we have a president that's unwilling to listen to us.  

So hold truth to power.  Be an effective opposition party, but be a very effective proposition party.

ROBERTS:  In the lead up to taking over as speaker, you promised a new spirit of openness, a new spirit of transparency.  

RYAN:  Absolutely.

ROBERTS:  Will you, as Speaker, make public the full text of the Trans Pacific Partnership?

RYAN:  Yes, it in a law.

ROBERTS:  No, but it's -- it's secret right now.

RYAN:  It hasn't -- we haven't even seen it yet.  They haven't finished drafting it yet.

ROBERTS:  Right.  But when you get it, will you make it public?

RYAN:  The Trade Promotion Authority legislation which I co-authored requires that this trade agreement be made public to all of Americans so that they can see it.

ROBERTS:  How soon will that happen?

RYAN:  That's up to the administration.  They're drafting it right now.  That's not something that's within our control.  We don't draft this trade agreement.  That was negotiated.  

When that text comes to Congress, it has to be made public for at least 60 days, or be made public much longer than that.  

So, John, just to answer your question, the law that we wrote requires that the country get to read every piece of this agreement.

ROBERTS:  In terms of the vote, it looks like the vote's going to happen in a lame duck session of Congress next year.

RYAN:  I don't know when that vote's going to happen.

ROBERTS:  Will you make the vote earlier so that people -- so that Republican voters can get an idea of where your members stand on this?

RYAN:  We haven't even seen this trade agreement yet.  So I don't know when that would occur.

ROBERTS:  Would you be open to that?

RYAN:  I'd be open to anything.  I don't know when the vote's going to occur.  Just so you know, we haven't been sent this agreement yet.

ROBERTS:  No, I understand.  

RYAN:  Right.

ROBERTS:  You said that you will not pass any immigration bill that is not approved by the majority of the majority, the so-called Hastert rule.  Will you faithfully adhere to the Hastert rule on other legislation or will you, like Speaker Boehner, cobble together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats in order to get past the Freedom Caucus?

RYAN:  Let me answer this way.  I was elected to unify the Republican conference, not to dis-unify the Republican conference.  And so, I think on the big controversial issues of the day, I want to reach for not just a narrow majority, I want to get us to consensus.  And that I think is what a good leader does: which is bring us to consensus.

ROBERTS:  So will you, will you --  

RYAN:  So, just to answer your question, I wasn't, I wasn't, I wasn't made dictator of the House, I was made speaker of the House.  And that means I want to facilitate and lead us to consensus.  

There are always exceptions to the rules and, when circumstances dictate, we have to look at all options available.  But I believe it's important going forward that we operate on a consensus basis, especially on the controversial issues of the day.

But on immigration in particular, we can't trust this president on immigration reform.  He's already proven untrustworthy because he tried to circumvent the legislative process with his executive orders.  I think, if we can get consensus on border security and ensuring our enforcement -- fine.  

But on these other issues, this President has proven himself untrustworthy.  

ROBERTS:  In saying that you would accept the speakership, Mr. Speaker, you said that you wouldn't take the job if it interferes with your family time, which has opened up a national conversation about the importance of spending time with your family.  And there are many people in this country who would like to see you make your first priority legislation that gives people the backing in the federal government so that they can have time with their families.  

Would you make that one of your first priorities?

RYAN:  I don't think people asked me to be Speaker so that I can take more money from hard-working tax payers to create some new federal entitlement.  But I think people want to have members of Congress that represent them, that are like them.  

Don't you want your member of Congress to be a citizen legislator who lives with you, among you, who has your own kind of concerns?  Who wants to spend time with his children on Saturdays and Sundays?  

I'm going to keep living in Janesville, Wisconsin, where I'm from, where I raised my family.  I'm going to keep going back and forth to D.C., and yes, Sundays are going to be family days and Saturdays are family and constituent days.  That I think is what most people want in their life is a balance.  

So if you're asking me, because I want to spend -- I want to continue being the best dad, and husband, and speaker I can be, getting that work-life balance correct, means I should sign up for some new unfunded entitlement, that doesn't make any sense to me.

ROBERTS:  One final question: much of the Republican base hates the people in power.  One of the reasons why you were so popular with the base was because you eschewed power.  You're now the guy in charge.  

How do you avoid becoming one of the hated?


RYAN:  It’s a good question.  Yes, this is not a job I was ever seeking and looking for.  And I believe in what we call around here regular order.  I think the committee should write the bills.  I think members of Congress should have the freedom in an open process to represent their constituents in passing legislation.  

And that's why I don't think leadership should be trying to, you know, covet power and write legislation.  I think I want to have a more participatory process, which is really what the founders envisioned the House to look like.  And that is something that so many of us, myself included, have been concerned about the way this place has been run.

This is why it's a new day, we're wiping the slate clean, and I'm going to do the speakership differently than it's been done in a long time.

ROBERTS:  Do you expect a long honeymoon or a short honeymoon?

RYAN:  About 35 minutes.


ROBERTS:  Mr. Speaker, thank you so much for taking the time.  Congratulations.

RYAN:  Thank you.

ROBERTS:  I appreciate it.

RYAN:  I appreciate it.


ROBERTS:  Up next, Carly Fiorina faces the critics after this week’s debate.  We’ll talk to her about her performance, the fact checkers and those comments made by the ladies at "The View".



FIORINA:  I was recruited to HP to save a company.  It was a company that had grown into a bloated, inept bureaucracy that cost too much and delivered too little to customers and shareholders.  


ROBERTS:  Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina at this week’s GOP debate defending her record as Hewlett Packard CEO.  She joins us now this morning from Des Moines.  

Ms. Fiorina, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."  Good to see you again.  Sorry, no extra hour of sleep today.  

FIORINA:  Good morning, John.  It’s fine.  Daylight -- we fell back, so I did get an extra hour's sleep.  

ROBERTS:  That's good.  

Listen, we talked to Lindsey Graham about this.  I wanted to get you to weigh in on the president sending 50 Special Forces, operators into Syria.  You talked a lot about what you would do as president when it comes to fighting ISIS.  What do you think of the president's plans to send in these 50 operators?  

FIORINA:  Well, first of all, it's a recognition that you cannot have a successful bombing campaign without people on the ground telling you where to place the bomb.  So, he's sort of come to reality.

On the other hand, it's also too little too late.  I think this is a reflection of the reality, that when America does not act, when we do not lead as we have not the last three years under this president, our options become very constrained and the situation becomes more dangerous.  I’m glad he did this, but we still do not have a strategy in Syria.  We do not have a strategy to deal with ISIS.  I’ve laid mine out.

And so, as a result the situation is far more complicated than it was three years ago when he started talking big about Bashar al Assad must go and red lines cannot be crossed, and now we have Russia and Iran in the middle of Syria calling the shots.  When we do not lead, the world becomes a much more dangerous and tragic place, and we are seeing that in Syria.

ROBERTS:  Russia is bombing the same rebels that we’ll be training and advising.  If U.S. troops get caught up in a Russian bombing attack, what should the president do?  

FIORINA:  Well, you know, the president has said he doesn't believe in no-fly zones, for example, and, of course, no fly zones are very effective.  They have been effective in the past.  And we need to establish one.  We need to makes crystal clear to Vladimir Putin that our jets will fly when and where they want, that our troops cannot be threatened in any way by Russia.  

But so far, this president has done none of that, although he and his secretary of state continue to talk to Russia, which is inexplicable to me, because it’s pretty clear that the Russians while they’re talking to us are also lying to us.  We need to act now, in the way that sends an unmistakable message.

And it is why, as president of the United States, in addition to having a strategy in Syria and for ISIS, I would also be rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, right under Vladimir Putin’s nose, rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, so he must see strength and resolve from the United States of America.  And he has not.  

ROBERTS:  Let's go back to the debate on Wednesday.  In your opening statements, you joked in the Ronald Reagan library debate, that you didn't smile enough, and the ladies of "The View" decided to take issue with that.  

Let’s listen to Michelle Collins said about your performance at the debate.


MICHELLE COLLINS, "THE VIEW":  She kicked off her thing, you know, people tell me I didn't smile enough during the last debate.  She looked demented.  I mean, she did not -- her mouth did not downturn one time.  She was like --    

JOY BEHAR, "THE VIEW":  She’s on Halloween mask.  I love that.

COLLINS:  Smiling Fiorina, can you imagine?  


ROBERTS:  Demented, Halloween mask, is there a double standard here, Ms. Fiorina, for Republican women?  I can't imagine they would say things like that about Hillary Clinton?  

FIORINA:  Oh, you think?  Yes, I think there’s a double standard.  It’s funny, you know, I was on "The View" several months ago.  They said none of that to my face.  

There is nothing more threatening to the liberal media in general and to Hillary Clinton in particular than a conservative woman.  So, of course, there's a double standard.  

Conservative women from Sarah Palin to Michele Bachmann to Carly Fiorina are long used to this.  It will not stop me.  It will not scare me.  Maybe the ladies of "The View", if I come back on again, let's see if they have the guts to say that to my face.  

ROBERTS:  You know, they said something similar about Miss Colorado after the Miss America pageant on stage in a nurse's uniform.  I had a chance to meet Kelley Johnson last weekend in Denver.  She is a lovely woman, committed to her profession.  

Are these women out of touch?  

FIORINA:  Well, I think what these women represent is a set of liberal feminists who believe that if you do not agree with them on their liberal orthodoxy that you don't count, that somehow you're not a woman.  You see, I know that women represent half the nation, so, of course, our views are going to be as diversion as men's.  

I also know that unless and until women's potential is fully unlocked in this country and women have been crushed under the Obama economy, that we will not be as good a nation as we can be, and frankly I’m tired of being insulted by liberal feminist who talked about women’s issues when the reality is every issue is a woman's issue, from the economy, to ISIS, to Russia, to health care, to education, to the national debt.  Women care about all of it.  

So I am sorry I don't agree with the women of "The View."  Nevertheless, I’m going to continue to stand up, stand strong, talk about what I believe in, and I am Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare as a result.  

ROBERTS:  On the subject of women and their plight under the Obama administration, one of your most talked about moments from Wednesday's debate is when you want this.  Let's listen.  


FIORINA:  Ninety-two percent -- 92 percent of the jobs lost during Barack Obama’s first term belonged to women.  


ROBERTS:  What women are talking about Ms. Fiorina, in relation to that statement is that the data that you used does not represent the totality of the Obama administration’s first term.  There are people from your campaign said to me yesterday you misspoke during the debate.  

Do you want to take a moment to clarify those remarks?  

FIORINA:  You know, this is what the liberal media do, they try to discredit the messenger when the message is true.  Yes, it is true.  The 92 percent refers to the first 3 1/2 years of Barack Obama's term, not the first four years.  

Here's what’s undeniable.  Women have been hurt under this administration's policy.  The extreme poverty rate among women is the highest ever recorded.  The poverty rate among women, 16.1 percent, is the highest in 20 years.  

Women have been harmed by this administration's policies, just as African-Americans have, just as the poor have been.  Progressive policies are bad for the people that they claim to help.  That is true of women, as well as men.  

ROBERTS:  Let me just ask you again.  If you're using a data set that stops in March of 2012, because that's the most advantageous point to make that point, are you doing voters a disservice by not telling them what really happened during the entire first term of the presidency, which is that by January to 2013, the jobs for women had actually increased by about 400,000?  

FIORINA:  Yes, as my campaign said, we misspoke, about that reality doesn't change the reality that women have been harmed under this administration.  Think about what I just said, John, and this is what the liberal media tries to do.  Let us discredit the messenger so we ignore the truth of the message.  

Here is the truth of the message -- women are harmed by this administration's policies, record numbers of women have lost jobs, are living in poverty or living in extreme poverty.  That is the debate we're going to have to have to win in 2016.  What is the real human impact of progressive policies?  

And the reality is the human impact of progressive policies is to keep people unemployed.  We have record numbers of people who are no longer working or who have quit looking for work.  We have record numbers of people on food stamps.  We have record numbers of people living in poverty.  

Those are the facts.  That is the truth.  

ROBERTS:  All right.  We’ve got to wrap it up there, Ms. Fiorina.  Thanks so much for joining us again.  Good to see you.  We'll see you down the campaign trail I’m sure.  

FIORINA:  See you, John.  Thank you.  

ROBERTS:  All right.

Up next, our Sunday panel joins us to discuss Syria, and later the shake-ups in the Republican race and on the Hill.  

Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the challenges ahead for the new speaker?  Just go to Facebook or Twitter @FoxnewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air. Be right back.



EARNEST:  These forces do not have a combat mission.  If we were envisioning a combat operation, we probably would be contemplating more than 50 troops on the ground.  


ROBERTS:  White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explaining a major shift in President Obama's Syria strategy.  It's time now for our Sunday group.  Syndicated columnist George Will, Ron Fournier of the "National Journal," Fox News contributor Liz Cheney, and former Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.  Liz, why don't you start us off here?  The president said two years ago definitively I'm not going to put American forces on the ground in Syria.  Two years later, there we are.  

LIZ CHENEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR:  It's no longer news that the president has done something that directly contradicts statements he made previously.  It happens on such a regular basis, but the bottom line here is that we've got a militant Islamist terrorist organization that has established a caliphate in the heart of the Middle East.  This is a clear and direct threat to the United States of America.  They have to be defeated, and they have got to be defeated by force.  There's no diplomatic solution.  There's no negotiation that's going to defeat ISIS.  We have got to take the territory from them that they now hold.  

And we have a president who seems either not to know that or not to care.  And so he has no plan in place to defeat them.  We have got these incremental deployments of forces that include rules of engagement for example, for our pilots, that really preclude them from doing the job that he says they're out there to do.  

So at the end of the day, the notion that we're in Vienna negotiating, that the Russians and the Iranians somehow brought in as positive partners in the president's view in this effort, is all folly.  And the president is going to have to answer to history.  I'm sure he's now looking towards his legacy in this last part of his administration, and  the question for him is going to be, why did you stand by while this threat to America, this grave threat, grew and gathered strength across the Middle East?

ROBERTS:  Senator Bayh, he's been operating off the 2001 war on terror resolution.  Does he need to go to Congress now for further authorization?  Because it seems there's a real potential for mission creep here.  

FORMER SEN. EVAN BAYH, D-INDIANA:  John, a president is always stronger when you go to Congress and you get Congress's support.  The real issue is whether this Congress would lend that, because on this issue, as on so many others, Congress is divided.  You have some members of my party who would strongly resist adding even the 50 advisers he's proposing to put in.  On the other side, you have people like Senator Graham was on your program earlier, they want to go a lot further.  So there's really not a consensus.  So I think the administration will probably be in the role of consulting and advising, rather than seeking an official resolution of some kind.

ROBERTS:  We are in there for 50 now, do you expect two years from now we'll be in for 5,000?  

RON FOURNIER, NATIONAL JOURNAL:  It sure feels like a slippery slope.  And I disagree with one thing.  I do think it's still news when the president of the United States deceives the American public.  And he did say that there would be no ground troops.  Either he knew at the time that was B.S. and that's a lie, or he didn't know that was BS, and that's awfully naive.  

And then they had again, when they announced it, they spent all day talking about how this was not a strategic change.  It was a shift.  But those are synonyms, I'm sorry.  So they seem to be spending all their time, all their strategic thinking on how to spin these conflicts, and not as much time explaining their real strategy and how they're going to either keep us out of the Syria, keep us out of these conflicts, or win them.  

ROBERTS:  Let's let George in for just a second and we'll come back.

GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST:  Let's begin by understanding there are no good choices in the region in which there are now four barely functioning states.  Yemen, Syria, Libya and Iraq.

Now the president is being accused of, I think John McCain's phrase, grudging incrementalism.  And that's probably true, but again, what is the choice at this point?  Liz said that there's a caliphate that has been established, and we have to take the ground back.  I don't know what the antecedent of that pronoun is.  The --

CHENEY:  The United States of America.

WILL:  OK, because the conventional forces of our sometime allies in the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, all the rest, are perfectly capable of doing this, with our assistance.  Now, whether 50 special forces, perhaps being used as air controllers to make our Air Force and our Navy aviators just that much more effective, whether that will have a big multiplier effect, I don't know.  But we as the United States of America, are not going to take the land back.

CHENEY:  We certainly won't under Barack Obama.  You're right about that, George.

ROBERTS:  (inaudible), should the president have acted three years ago?  Wouldn't it have been much easier, before ISIL got such a foothold there, and now before Russia is in?  

BAYH:  With the benefit of hindsight, John, the answer to that question is yes, we should have taken a more muscular approach.  But I would take issue with one thing Ron said.  Clearly the president's change is an admission that the previous strategy was not working.  I'm not prepared to say he was actually lying to the American public.

ROBERTS:  But wasn't he told by a lot of people that is not going to work?

BAYH:  There was a difference of opinion.  Liz is right about it, this is a prelude to a negotiation.  A negotiation will be determined by facts on the ground.  Facts on the ground in that part of the world are determined increasingly by boots on the ground.  So the previous strategy was to try and support some sort of a moderate alternative.  That was an unmitigated disaster.  The Department of Defense's effort did not work.  Trained like five people.  What our intelligence services are doing is more effective, but not enough, so we're now trying to support the Kurds, who are an effective force on the ground.  They are supporting Assad using Hezbollah and the Iranians, and so all this will play itself out, and eventually there will be a little more stability and we can have a negotiation.

But it's a very complex place, it's a mess, and for anyone to imply there's an easy, simple solution, I think that would be somewhat naive.  

ROBERTS:  A prelude to negotiations, negotiations are under way right now in Vienna to try to sort all this out.  No timetable for Assad to leave at this point, although the United States is saying we want him to go.  How do you think these negotiations are going to end up?  

CHENEY:  I think that they probably are on a track, basically to end up in a place that is just as beneficial to the United States of America as the Iran negotiations were, which was frankly not at all, but you have a problem here fundamentally, which is that ISIS is a threat to the United States.  What George says about the complexity of the region is absolutely true, but right now our focus has got to be to defeat ISIS and it's clear it's going to take the United States of America to do it.  

ROBERTS:  Two seconds left, George.

WILL:  You just mentioned Vienna.  One of the Napoleon's many famous axioms is, if you start to take Vienna, take Vienna.  In other words, don't be tentative in military affairs.  

However, I am not sure any Republican is going to go to the American people and say, elect me, and I will put forces on the ground sufficient to retake--


CHENEY:  You have heard most Republicans, even in the last debate, say the United States of America, the security of this nation requires that we defeat ISIS, and we do what it takes to defeat ISIS.

WILL:  The devil is in the details, and so is defeat.  

ROBERTS:  We'll have to hold it there, panel, but we'll be back in just a little while.  Thanks so much.

When we come back, he is a popular former three-term Republican governor from a heavily Democratic state.  But George Pataki is struggling to break from the pack in the GOP race for the White House.  We'll go in depth on the issues, next.  



GEORGE PATAKI, R-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE  To change Washington, you have to understand government as well.  You can't just be an outsider, you can't just be someone who throws stones at Washington.  You have to be someone who can actually bring people together across party lines.


ROBERTS:  Former New York Governor George Pataki at this week's undercard debate in Boulder, Colorado, explaining how he would lead if he became president.  Governor Pataki joins us now from New York City. Governor, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

PATAKI:  Great being on, John.  

ROBERTS:  Governor, I don't want to be indelicate here, but this question has been asked before, and I think it bears asking again.  Why are you still in this?  You are at 0 percent in the polls in every early state.  You've been in this for five months, the numbers have not moved for you.

PATAKI:  Two reasons.  First of all, I know if I have the opportunity, to get my party's nomination, that I can win the election and run the country.  And the second is while I'm out there meeting people in New Hampshire, small retail groups, what I'm hearing constantly is we know where you are in the polls, but please stay in.  Right now, there are two frontrunners who I don't believe are going to be the nominee.  I don't believe they should be the nominee.  Pretty much every other candidate is struggling.  At the end, the Republican voters are going to want someone who can win, and who has a vision as to how we can move America forward.  I know I can do that, so I'm encouraged by the reaction I get from people on the ground.

ROBERTS:  The four key words there.  You said if I can win.  You've raised less than half a million dollars, which for the Bush campaigns, which is on the ropes, is basically a rounding error.  You had $13,000 cash on hand at the end of September.  Do you even have the money to mount a meaningful campaign?  

PATAKI:  We knew from the beginning we were going to have to run a grassroots campaign.  And that's what we've been doing.  We are not going to be running expensive media ads, but that's okay, when you have the opportunity to talk directly to the people like I am right now.  And I think the American people, honestly, and the Republican voters, yes, they're angry at Washington.  Right now two people who have never held public office have more than 50 percent of the Republican vote, and pretty much everyone else is struggling as well, but I think at the end they're going to say yes, we want an outsider, someone who is not one of those Washington insiders, but someone who has a proven record of being able to bring people together and actually change government and put in place conservative policies.  

And if I get the chance for the American people to hear both what I was able to accomplish in New York, a deep blue state, and my vision for America, I'm confident that not only can I win, but I will win.  

ROBERTS:  Let me go back to the debate on Wednesday night, Governor, if I could for just a moment.  You attacked Hillary Clinton for using a private server for conducting her State Department business.  Here is what you said.  


PATAKI:  Hillary Clinton put a server, an unsecured server, in her home as secretary of state.  We have no doubt that that was hacked, and that state secrets are out there to the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese and others.  That alone should disqualify her from being president.  


ROBERTS:  Certainly, Governor, there's a big controversy out there about the e-mails, the FBI is conducting an investigation, but you were very declarative in your statement that her server was hacked, and that the secrets are out there.  What evidence do you have to back that statement up?  

PATAKI:  All you have to do is look at what other countries have been able to do, to hack the CIA director, to hack our State Department, to hack the military, the Defense Department.  They have hacked very secure e-mail systems in the United States.  

ROBERTS:  But wasn't that just an assumption on your part?  

PATAKI:  I think that's a very safe assumption, that when you send out over 60,000 e-mails on an unsecured server in your own house that -- and you are secretary of the state of the United States and you know foreign countries are looking at this, trying to find out what she is communicating -- there's no question in my mind that her e-mails have been hacked and identified.  And I don't think anybody who looks at this fairly is going to come to any other conclusion.  Just look at how successful they have been getting through the encryption that our State Department, our Defense Department, our CIA has.  And yet they have all been hacked.  Imagine how easy it is when you're dealing with a home server.  

ROBERTS:  Governor, one point where you part ways with many people on the Republican side of the fence during the debate, and many people in your party, is you believe that manmade circumstances, or at least possibly, are -- rather partially responsible for creating global warming.  You also part ways with your Republican opponents, who believe that if you were to take meaningful steps toward addressing global warming, you would ruin the U.S. economy.  Let's listen to what Marco Rubio said at the Reagan Library debate a month ago.


RUBIO:  Every proposal they have put forward are going to be proposals that will make it harder to do business in America, that will make it harder to create jobs in America.


ROBERTS:  Governor, is he right?  

PATAKI:  Yes, he's right, because what he said is every proposal that they made.  There are two points that I want to make here, John.  First, I am different from every other Republican seeking the nomination, in that I'm a limited government conservative.  And that means economic policy, social policy, leave it to the states and people in accordance with the Tenth Amendment.  

And second is, Republicans have to embrace science.  There's no question, none, that co2 emitted by humans is a greenhouse gas that will warm the atmosphere, all things being equal.  That doesn't mean we have to accept Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton's big strategy of raising government power, government control over energy and manufacturing in this country.  

What I said at that debate and what I deeply believe is Republicans should embrace innovation.  American invention.  We are the only country in the world that today has fewer greenhouse gas emissions than in 1995.  And it's not because of the EPA or big government programs, it is because of private industry innovation, fracking, that has allowed us to change from coal to natural gas-powered plants.  And in the process, create many more jobs and more security here in America.  Embrace science, embrace innovation.  We're Americans.  We can look at the 21st century with confidence and optimism.  

ROBERTS:  Governor, thank you so much for joining us.  Really appreciate it.  Good luck on the campaign trail, and we will see you on the 10th of November.  

PATAKI:  Thank you, John.  

ROBERTS:  Up next, Jeb Bush says his campaign is not on life support.  After the last debate.  Our Sunday panel weighs in on the former frontrunner, and the rise of his one-time protégé Marco Rubio, who now has a big new donor.



BUSH:  It's not on life support. We have the most money, we have the greatest organization.  We're doing fine.


ROBERTS:  Jeb Bush in New Hampshire, the day after this week's debate, insisting his campaign is not on the down and out.  We're back now with the panel.  George, is he on the glide path to the death spiral here?

WILL:  Well, there is a kind of self-fulfilling mechanism that starts here.  People start saying you're in trouble, you're in trouble because people have said you're in trouble, because the donors panic, and that feeds back into this loop, and then Marco Rubio gets Peter Singer -- I -- Paul Singer -- I can't remember which.  

ROBERTS:  Paul Singer.  

CHENEY:  Paul.

WILL:  A major donor, and it cascades.  

I think Jeb Bush is probably feeling not unreasonably that he's the victim of a debate process that no one really think tests in a broad way the essential attributes of the presidency.  But he didn't make the rules, this is the landscape we play in, and so right now I would say it's not as bad as the self-fulfilling mechanism indicates, but it could be in another week.  

ROBERTS:  One of the things he's doing too is he's going hard after Marco Rubio.  That presentation he made last weekend to supporters in Houston, included a 112-page Power Point presentation in which they said about Rubio, quote, "those who have looked into Marco's background in the past have been concerned with what they found."

FOURNIER:  I talked to people over the weekend, and they're second-guessing themselves.  Saying it's their job to go after Marco Rubio, and it's the PAC's job to go after Marco Rubio, but it's just not Jeb's nature to be that confrontational, and they're going to try to have him focus more on connecting his policies with the real people and shortening his answers.  

But I agree completely with George.  It is -- he seems to be right now a man who doesn't quite fit the times.  I'm not a fortune teller.  I don't know if he's going to make it or not.  Bushes aren't quitters.  But when you -- you've watched him deal with the debate process, filled with loud candidates, filled with loud reporters, a very vapid and vain political process that we're kind of in now, he does strike me as the Charlie Rose candidate in a Charlie Brown world.  

ROBERTS:  You're very close to his brother.  Is Jeb just not cut from the same cloth when it comes to campaigning?  

CHENEY:  Look, I think what Ron said is true, in terms of somebody seems -- and Senator Rubio said this in the debate.  Somebody seems to have advised Jeb that the right way to respond to falling poll numbers is to attack Marco Rubio, and you can see when he does it, that he's not comfortable doing it.  It seems very out of character.  I hope you're right.  I hope in fact, he stops it, because it's not good for him, it's not good for the party, and it's not good for the future of the Republican Party either.  

ROBERTS:  Rubio addressed that on Friday night.  Let's listen to what he said.  


RUBIO:  It was part of a strategic decision they have made, and they have the right to make it.  I just don't think it's a smart thing for Republicans to do Hillary Clinton's job for her.  One of the reasons I think we lost in 2012 was Republicans attacking each other.  It weakens the eventual nominee.


ROBERTS:  Senator Bayh, the Republican establishment is worried that if Jeb on his way down takes out Marco Rubio, too, that leaves Ted Cruz as the strongest candidate.  And how does Cruz do against Hillary Clinton?

BAYH:  Hillary Clinton wins against Ted Cruz.  She would have much more appeal to Hispanics, to young people, to suburban women, et cetera, et cetera.  But the good news for the Bush campaign is that things can change pretty quickly in politics.  If we've been talking about Hillary Clinton three weeks ago, we would have been talking about how she is struggling, things are looking tough, and now she's up by 40 points and is a dominant figure once again.  

So I think what he needs to do, Ron is exactly right.  His background and who he is, is just a little out of tenor with the times.  A product of the establishment, upbringing of privilege.  It's almost as if he needs to be humbled, and come out and say, look, forget my last name is Bush, assume I'm Smith.  I was Governor Smith of Florida, I was a crusading conservative, here is what I got done, and present himself that way.  And say that's the person I am, not the person you've been led to believe I am.

FOURNIER:  Can I say something about Marco Rubio?  

ROBERTS:  Yes, go ahead.

FOURNIER:  Yes, he is obviously a very talented candidate, maybe the most talented candidate in the field, but he's not flawless.  If you go back and look at that exchange, his initial answer to it was very robotic, obviously very scripted, and he compared himself to Barack Obama and John Kerry.  That's the kind of opening that Hillary Clinton would just drive a truck right through.  

ROBERTS:  The problem with Bush -- or for Bush, at least, is when you get in these death spirals, as Scott Walker discovered -- not to say that Bush is in the death spiral, but you go along and you say, oh, we're in trouble, and next thing you know you're off the edge of a cliff.  So who knows how long--


ROBERTS:  Let's talk about the debate, because there's a big meeting tonight going on in Northern Virginia, a lot of the campaigns are getting together to say this is what we need to do going forward.  We need to make changes after the debacle at the CNBC debate.  George, does this mean that these debate formats are going to change, or at least the campaigns are going to put a lot of pressure on the RNC to change things up?

WILL:  The most important function of a modern American political party is to dispense a presidential nomination, and they really therefore ought to have more control over the process than they have had.  

I don't blame Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican Party.  He inherited a system and a tradition, and the tradition is now, thanks to CNBC, has been proven to be intolerable to Republicans.  And I wish this meeting well tonight.  And I think there ought to be a way -- have the debates, stream it on the Internet, but the idea that you have to turn, make the party a hostage to a broadcast entity, whether or not it's sympathetic, and none of them are, to the Republican Party.  That's what has to be, you have to emancipate the party.

ROBERTS:  You're in the Ben Carson or the Ted Cruz camp on that.  Ted Cruz wants moderators to be bona fide conservatives.  Sorry, you are in the Carson camp.  Carson wants them off TV, on the Internet, fewer questions, more candidate statements, fewer debates.  But does that really serve, Liz, the democratic process?

CHENEY:  The issue I think is not that the Republicans are afraid to answer tough questions.  What happened at that CNBC debate is the moderators began to act like they were Democratic presidential candidates.  And they consistently interrupted the candidates, they did not let them answer the questions, the questions were snarky.  I think that Reince and the RNC have done a great job.  I think that we need to be ready as Republicans, because in order to defeat Hillary in the general election, we have got to recognize most of the media is going to be on Hillary's side, not ours.  

ROBERTS:  30 seconds.

BAYH:  The candidates need to have more confidence in the American public.  They can spot a phony a mile off.  They can spot gotcha questions and debates that are more about entertainment and ratings than real substantive debates.  And so the rules are that they have to be prepared for anything and everything, and the public will eventually decide what's fair and not.  And I think they should have more confidence in that.  

ROBERTS:  Next debate, Fox Business Network, November 10th in Milwaukee, we'll all be there, so looking forward to it.  We'll see how it goes.  Neil Cavuto, Maria Bartiromo, the main moderators.

Panel, thanks so much for being with us today.  Appreciate it.

Chris Wallace will be back next Sunday.  Have yourself a great week, and we will see you next "Fox News Sunday."

Content and Programming Copyright 2015 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.