The Ricochet Podcast - CPAC #14: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough

Episode Date: February 28, 2015

National Review’s Charles C.W. Cooke talks to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough about the scene at CPAC and his views on the 2016 race. Source

It's Charles Cook here for National Review. I'm here with Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's Morning Joe. There's a role reversal. This is a big role reversal. You're asking me questions and I'm wearing a scarf. Well, I was going to say I should have gone up and got my scarf when I saw you. I probably disappointed you. Yes. So, first impressions of this CPAC, Joe? I'm surprised by how big the audience is. I've been to these things for the past 20 years. The audience seems to be bigger. I can't believe the number of press

that are here to cover it. And this is actually a CPAC that matters because you've got candidates that aren't segregated into establishment candidates versus movement candidates that have no shot of winning. We actually have some people like Scott Walker who may fill that center, Rand Paul, going to be very interesting. So it's a pretty exciting, vital place. Yeah, I think one of the things I've been particularly interested in is everyone has been treated as a rock star. Now, it may be an exception this afternoon

because there's apparently a little backlash against Jeb Bush, who is seen very much as a candidate who's being foisted. Right. But I don't know if you've seen any of the speeches. Is there anyone who's impressed you? Well, you know, I saw, yesterday I saw Scott Walker's on TV, and I think Scott, from everything I've seen, has done best by four. And that can be confirmed by the fact that if you ask Jeb people off the record

who's done the best so far, they say Scott Walker by a long shot. And why is that? Well, I don't know. I think a lot of these guys get up there, or women get up there, and they try to play national politician to fill the stage and they're just not ready yet. It's a very tough process and this is their first opportunity to try to fit into that role. And I think Scott's a lot closer than most governors in states like Wisconsin. I was watching him yesterday and I flashed forward in my mind to 2016 and I could see him he was calm

he had his sleeves rolled up he didn't try to play the the Ted Cruz sort of hero he was he was almost a return to normalcy candidate well you know he also didn't try to play Ronald Reagan right wear the blue suit the white shirt the, the red tie, sit behind the podium and shake his head like we've seen so many conservative candidates try to do in the past. But I think he did very well. He's a down to earth guy. And let's face it, the guy's won in Wisconsin three times. But he has weaknesses.

His foreign policy knowledge seems to be limited. He said something silly, I think, with the ISIS comparison. Oh, there's no doubt about it. We had Ed Morrissey on this morning of Hot Air, who said the same thing. He had a great speech. A lot of people say it was overshadowed by what he said about ISIS. He's been making those kind of mistakes. He's been going up in the polls. He's had a jab. So it ahead of Chab. So it's still preseason.

I don't think it matters so much right now. I think right now it's still Scott Walker versus the mainstream media, and that's actually something that helps him out. I think you start getting into New Hampshire, Iowa, New Hampshire, those people don't take BS. You get up close and personal. They'll be able to figure out whether he knows what he's doing or not. I suspect domestically he's going to be great. The question that anybody would have with any governor is,

are they ready on foreign policy issues? You know, we always talk about how governors are the best presidents. Yeah. Well, yeah, except for the fact that they don't really know anything, for the most part, about foreign policy. And a lot of governors live in a bubble, whether it's a bubble in Trenton or whether it's a bubble in Austin or whether it's a bubble in Sacramento. Ronald Reagan happened to be a guy who could get out of that bubble, but he had to run for president in 68 and 76. I mean, I was telling you this morning about all the mistakes Ronald Reagan made along the way when he said trees were the largest emitters of carbon pollution, and so people would go behind him and put signs on trees before his speeches,

stop me before I kill again. It's tough, man. It's tough. And I think Scott Walker, I think Scott Walker man. It's tough. And I think Scott Walker, I think Scott Walker is going to be challenged. It's hard winning these things the first time around. So this is a brutal process in some ways. As you say, there's a bunch of candidates. They're going to make mistakes.

They're going to eventually duke it out. It's much kinder at this moment because they're all here to talk about conservatism. And you compare it with the Democratic Party, which, for the moment at least, has one candidate. Right. And a candidate who's largely hiding. Right. How much does that hurt them? How useful is this process? Or is this process, in fact, damaging for conservatives?

Yeah, this is great for conservatives. That's good. So in 1994, a guy who had represented my district for 16 years retired. No Republican had been elected since 1873 in the first district of Florida. And he had an heir apparent. And there was only one Democrat running. There were 11 Republicans who said, oh, my God, this might be our only chance. And we absolutely killed each other. And by the time the primary was over in early September, everybody was sure that I'd been chopped to bits. We did three debates and it was obvious which guy had been in 20 debates and been scratching and clawing

and fighting and kicking and doing everything that needed to be done. And you can tell which guy had been sitting on the sidelines. I was up on all the issues. I'd made all of my mistakes a year earlier. And by the time everybody was really paying attention, I was going 90 miles an hour and he was just starting up his engine. I wouldn't be so concerned if I were a Democrat with Hillary Clinton being in this position, but for the fact that she had a book tour, which she just botched terribly.

It shows just how closed off the Clintons are. I mean, they live a really, really insulated life. They live a life that makes, like, Kanye's life look, look, you know, makes Kanye look like a pauper. Think about it. They've been floating around in the ether with kings and queens for decades now, and with royalty and with billionaires. When Hillary Clinton said that they weren't really rich,

you know, here's a couple worth over $100 million, but they weren't really rich, there's a reason why. Because they hang out with billionaires. And they hang out with people who they think't really rich, there's a reason why. Because they hang out with billionaires. Right. And they hang out with people who they think are really rich. Very disconnected. That's why she needs a primary. Yeah.

Going into it, though, do you think it's 50-50? Do you think Republicans have an advantage structurally? You are a betting man at this early stage. It depends on who we pick. You think that's the big variable? Yeah, listen. Everybody talks about the permanent Democratic lock on the Electoral College. If we elect a candidate that holds Romney's states, that's a pretty low bar. I love Mitt Romney, but that's a pretty low bar.

We've got to win Florida. We've got to win Ohio. We've got to win Ohio. We've got to win Virginia. And we've got to pick up four more electoral votes somewhere. Right. That's just not a stretch at all. Okay. And so I feel really good about it, but it depends.

Are we going to have a candidate that's going to go out there that's going to be ready for prime time? Are we going to have a candidate who understands how free markets actually help 18-year-old Latino voters in South Central L.A. as much as they help 65-year-old hedge fund brokers or managers in Greenwich, Connecticut? We haven't had that in a really long time. And if we get somebody like a Reagan or a Thatcher who can make that connection, it's not that hard of a connection to make. Then we can start winning again. You're ruling yourself out. Ruling myself out for what? 2016.

What did I say? I was ruling myself out. Did anybody hear me say I was ruling myself out? Just checking. Jack is telling me I need to run in 2016 for Senator of Connecticut. What for Connecticut? Yeah, Senator of Connecticut. I can do that. Yeah, Senator in Connecticut. Absolutely. I won't be able to vote by then, but 2018.

You can run in the backlash against the Elizabeth Warren presidency that I'll be. In 20, yes. And you'll be there. Will you be able to vote then? By then, yeah. Well, then okay. Then I'm announcing right now I'm going to run in 2020 because I'm going to have your vote. Deal, Joe. It's a pleasure.

All right. And by the way, I'm very excited about your book coming out. Thank you very much. And because I'm going to have your vote. Deal, Joe. It's a pleasure. All right. And by the way, I'm very excited about your book coming out. Thank you very much. And we can't wait to have you on the show. Yeah, looking forward to it. Wear your scarf. I will wear my scarf. Okay. Thank you. Ricochet.

Join the conversation.