00:00

Start with a political question. Put aside your Texas modesty for a moment and tell me where you think you are currently in the race having moved up in the polls in Iowa nationally. Well I'm very encouraged. I mean the momentum we're seeing here on the ground in Iowa and all across the country. I mean it's extraordinary for your front runner. Look I think we are doing well and what we're seeing is conservatives uniting behind our campaign. I mean you know from the very beginning in my view of this race is there would likely end up being one strong moderate candidate and one strong conservative and if conservatives could unite will win. And what I see happening every day both here in Iowa all over the country is conservatives coming together and coalescing behind are you still competing with to be that conservative candidate who still left that could be that besides . Well listen that's going to be a question the voters have to decide. But but if you look at the folks who've dropped out Rick Perry Scott Walker Bobby Jindal all good men strong governors they were all competing primarily on the conservative line. It's a guy who's is a guy who's ahead of you now. Donald Trump is he in that lane or a different lane. Well listen I think Donald Trump is is one of a kind. By any measure. And and I think the voters will decide who they want to support . We're entering the phase of the campaign. You know the last several months national polling a lot of that's driven by name I.D. by earned media as we get into December and January and February you had the primary voters they really start examining the candidates close to the start looking at our records. They start asking the hard questions. All right. Who has done more than just talk the talk who's walked the walk. And I think the reason conservatives are uniting behind our campaign is that of all of the Republicans running that I'm the only one who has been a consistent conservative who's been a fiscal conservative a social conservative a national security conservative. And we're seeing that old Reagan coalition coming back together horrible that in California. A lot of things I could ask you but I want to ask you about one thing in particular one of the alleged murderers was an American citizen. Should there be more surveillance now of American citizens to try to stop these things from happening. Well there should be more surveillance of terrorists and including of American citizens living I'm sure any American citizen that's a terrorist should be subject to surveillance and this is where the left the Democrats and and with all respect the media they get it wrong. So we see this terrorist attack in California. What does the Democrats in the media immediately say we need more gun control. We've got to take the guns away from mom abiding citizens. That's exactly backwards. Listen we are not made safer by the federal government monitoring your cell phone. We're not made safer by Lois Lerner having access to your cell phone records we're not made safer by the federal government disarming you. What the Obama administration gets wrong over and over again is we need to target bad guys and this. But the only way to find the bad guys is to do surveillance sometimes Sahil Kapur who aren't . That's not right. That is fact. You have to. You can't find the bad guys unless you've cast a set somewhat of a wide net sure you can. You only can't find them if you engage in the Obama administration's Orwellian doublespeak of refusing to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism. They don't acknowledge it. They wonder. So let me give some specific examples to show you what we could have done. Nidal Hassan who carried out the horrific Fort Hood terrorist attack. The Obama administration knew Nidal Hassan had communicated with on war all along. He had known right. Radical cleric had asked him about the permissibility of waging jihad against his fellow soldiers. And yet the administration did nothing. And Nidal Hassan carried out a terrorist attack mortar murdering 14 innocent souls while yelling Lou how far right that should never have happened. The Tsarnaev brothers in Boston we knew they were they were affiliated with radical Islamic terrorism Russia told us that the FBI went interview them but then they dropped the ball . They stopped monitoring them. The elder Tsarnaev rather posted on YouTube this wasn't this didn't take surveillance. This just took someone paying attention posted on YouTube a call to jihad . And yet the Obama administration didn't notice it and they went and carried out the bombing at the Boston Marathon. And you look at these two individuals in San Bernardino. The man had traveled to Saudi Arabia. They had had multiple interactions with other people on the terror watch list. We know now that the woman it appears was engaging in social media with ISIS terrorists pledging her allegiance to ISIS. And yet the federal government doesn't focus on the bad guys. Instead their energy is they think the world would be better monitoring Mark Halperin cell phone. I think that's backwards. We need to focus on the bad guys rather than trying to take away the rights of law abiding citizens. I know you've been outspoken saying you don't want to pick fights between Republicans or instigate fights but we're getting time time with voters here and elsewhere choosing so that's why I ask you to compare yourself not a personality not on personal things but on substance. How would you characterize the foreign policy difference on philosophy or or record between you and Senator Rubio who's been pretty outspoken lately and criticizing your record on national security foreign policy. Well you know it's it's kind of amusing a super PAC supporting Marco Rubio. They're spending about two hundred thousand dollars here in Iowa in nasty personal attack ads and the ads aren't working. They're false because they're they're trying to suggest quite literally that I am in some ways responsible for the for the Paris terror attack which is silly and I think Iowa voters are laughing it off at . But do not go to the positive because how would you say here's the here's the Cruz philosophy your record on foreign policy and security. Here's the Rubio one. What's the main difference . You know I've often described the spectrum of Republican foreign policy on one side. You've got my friend Rand Paul on the other side. You've got people like Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio ideal. My position is a third point on the triangle and I think my views are really the closest to Ronald Reagan's. And what what should we be doing. Number one we should always be a clarion voice for freedom just like Reagan was my brand. But I'd say Senator Rubio would say he does as well. But here's the difference what Reagan understood is that the central touchpoint of our foreign policy should be vital U.S. national security interest and that should be the focus we should focus on defeating our enemies not on getting involved in foreign civil wars where we don't have a stake in the fight. So for example Libya in 2009 Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton led NATO in toppling Gadhafi and in Libya. Senator Rubio emphatically supported Hillary Clinton thought it was a good idea to topple cut off. Now listen Gadhafi was a bad man had a terrible human rights record had sponsored terrorism himself. But in response to a U.S. military strike Gadhafi had voluntarily handed over his nuclear program and he was actively cooperating and going after radical Islamic terrorists. He viewed them as a threat to his regime. He was capturing them he was handing them over to America. And what happened Obama and Hillary and Senator Rubio toppled Gadhafi and the result was Libya was handed over to radical Islamic terrorists that now are battling it in a lawless warzone. It's much much more dangerous for U.S. Matt Miller you care if you're in your view the Rubio worldview is like the Clinton Obama world you go in and make changes. CRUZ You paraphrases be more cautious don't topple people because there's implications as well. Well it's two things. One it is an over eagerness for military adventurism an over eagerness every problem. The answer is send the marine right. You know America's historically been very reluctant to send our sons and daughters into harm's way but it's to it's systematically failing to appreciate that when you topple a stable government and you don't have a good alternative creating chaos for radical Islamic terrorists to step in is dangerous and in Syria both Hillary and Senator really are making the same mistake in both instances in Syria just like they did in Libya. They're trying to topple Assad Assad just like Gadhafi is a bad man terrible human rights record. But if the Obama administration succeeds in toppling Assad radical Islamic terrorists will take over Syria ISIS will take over Syria. And that hurts U.S. national security. That's what we ought to be doing instead is we ought to be defeating ISIS. And here's the difference. You know Senator Rubio went on TV and basically suggests that anyone that doesn't think we should get in the middle of these Middle East civil wars is somehow an isolationist. That's just standard attack. Either you got to invade everywhere or you're an isolationist. What followed. What we should be doing is utterly destroying ISIS because they've declared war on us what we should be doing is making clear that under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Why. Because that's a threat to our national security. That's what the Obama Clinton foreign policy fails to do is understand what is and isn't a threat to our nationals. He reaffirmed yesterday that is at war against since the shooting given there were words. What's the argument you the vote against the defense authorization bills which you've consistently done . Shouldn't you fund the troops and not try to make a point. Look of course you should fund the troops. Well why not keep voting against. I have been active on every defense authorization bill I serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee have introduced amendments have had them passed into law but in the end I supported against them. And the reason is when I ran for Senate I promised the American people I would not support a defense authorization bill as long as the statute supported by John McCain and Lindsey Graham has the power for the federal government to indefinitely. And that's principally and that's why I'm strong on U.S. law on important principle but you're still not funding our troops at a time of war. It's actually not funding you're misunderstanding the bill now. It's not funding. It's it's authorization they say about it but it has a nice sunset clause. But it's both symbolically it's symbolically important it's a step along the way to funding that's vital if we're gonna find them eventually. So so two things that your critics would say that in a time of war you're making political points. No. Two things I would say no one I'm honoring a promise I made to the voters and you know there was a time when folks in the media thought it was a good thing when politicians honored their promises. You want to ask why people are supporting my campaign it's because they look at me and they say you know what 10 is doing what he said he would do. And secondly there's an easy fix to this. My friend Senator Mike Lee has introduced year after year an amendment that would make very clear in the law that the federal government doesn't have the power to arrest you or me without any due process and hold us indefinitely without any charges against us. And yet the Republican establishment won't allow a vote on that. And I told them that the voters of Texas I wouldn't support a bill until we protect protected the rights of law abiding citizens that's a promise I'm going to keep. Yesterday at the Republican Jewish Coalition you were asked a question How can someone who's pro-choice. How can you earn their support. And you gave an answer about inspiring the base of the Republican Party to turn out. I was confused by that answer. There are two groups of Americans who I think in general you don't have much support from right now pro-choice Americans and people who favor more guns gun control laws to regulate guns. A candidate Cruz a President Cruz. How do you reach out to those groups and say despite our differences you should still support litmus and I understand the media is confused by that argument because the media buys in to the argument of the Washington establishment that the only way for Republicans to win is to run to the middle and sound like Democrat like. But that's not the question I understand I understand I understand. I believe me. Let me answer your question. You may not like the. Well no but you're not you're going down the same path you went down yesterday. No I'm answering the question which is every election cycle the media says you know what. The Republican who is most electable is the one that sounds the most like the Democrat. He's the most electable. And then what happens question when we nominate that person. What happens next is the Democrat wins and all the media says now go with the real thing. That's that's it. So your strategy what you just said no isn't the only. I'm not asking about winning I'm asking but you want to be president of everybody not just the pro life. That's what the RJC was asking about they were asking how do we view their suggestion just like yours. I'm not I'm not making you look like you can ask your questions and I'll answer them well but I'm not making any suggestion about strategy. I'm saying what I understood the question to be and I'm asking you forget what the question was yesterday. There are a lot of pro-choice Americans whose you'd like their support. There are a lot of people who favor more gun laws regulation of guns that you'd like their support right . You know reject the support of people who disagree with you on those two issues. So I'm asking you how do you reach out. I'm not saying your strategy is to abandon your principles or to say I'm pro life Mark Crumpton the way we win. No I'm not asking about winning and talking about bringing the country together . You're allowed to ask your questions you're not allowed to answer your. But be sure that you can have the interview yourself. I'm just asking you how to answer the question yes . Let me try a different way to ask him how would President Cruz unite the country including those people who disagree with you on abortion and gun control. Unite the country's president not when you stand for shared values that matter. What am I running on you. You've traveled on the road. I'm running on bringing you back jobs and growth and opportunity. And you do that through tax reform and regulatory reform. I'm running on defending our constitutional rights. All of that and I'm running on restoring America's leadership in the world. Every one of those issues is not a narrow 51 percent wedge issue . Those are 60 70 80 percent issues those bring us together. And let me make the point folks in the media like you said gosh no one who is pro-choice could support you. No one. I didn't vote for very very few people. It's interesting that that actually don't back you up on that. And one of the things that is amazing about the coalition that's coming together we're uniting conservatives to be sure. But if you look at the ideological breath if you look at the Reagan coalition you know in 2012 when I ran for Senate I think that was the only candidate in the country who was endorsed by both Rick Santorum and Ron Paul . Now that is about as far a spectrum on the ideological spectrum as you can have. And we had armies we have armies of evangelicals we have armies of conservatives we have armies of Libertarians we have armies of Tea Party folks many of whom don't agree on everything they have issues or they disagree on . But the reason that we have people supporting this campaign is the Obama Clinton agenda. He has a manifest failure. You know there are a lot of Americans who would like to see economic growth come back. They'd like to see their children have a brighter future. They'd like for us to stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids. They'd like for us to protect our constitutional rights. And I've got a record fighting for each of those principles which is why we're seeing such a diverse and strong coalition coming. Last question this week I let you go . You've become the humor candidate and the pop culture candidate much to the surprise of some. Billy Crystal commented you're a big Princess Bride. He commented yesterday about your storming the White House. How do you respond to Billy Crystal. Well I have to say it was phenomenal I was astonished last night when they brought Billy Crystal out on late night television and asked him what he say to me and he said you know Have fun storming the White House that that was that that was really quite nice. You know if you would ask me what would I say to Billy Crystal you know looking at him last night. What what what struck me what I would say to Billy Crystal is moo moo moo marvelous for me is is better to look within the feel good of a mob if you really do. And he would welcome that Senator. Thank you. Welcome back to Iowa and enjoy the rest today. We appreciate Michael Barr .