Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Republican Debate; Ben Carson Press Conference. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired November 11, 2015 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[14:00:03] BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: And here we go. Wolf Blitzer, thank you so much. Great to be with you on this Wednesday. I'm Brooke Baldwin. You're watching CNN.

Policy, not personalities, dominated the fourth Republican debate. You had eight presidential candidates sparring over issues such as Syria and the tax code, trade, the minimum wage, the military, and oh so much more. What emerged here really two kinds of contenders, those truly focused on the Republican primary vote and those thinking longer term to the general election. The distinction, though, was perhaps most clear when the candidates sparred over the issue frontrunner Donald Trump credits himself for highlighting, that being, of course, immigration and his proposed deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. JOHN KASICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We need to control our border, just like people have to control who goes in and out of their house. But if people think that we are going to ship 11 million people who are law-abiding, who are in this country and somehow pick them up at their house and ship them out of Mexico - to Mexico, think about the families. Think about the children. So you know what the answer really is? If they've been law abiding, they pay a penalty, they get to stay. We protect the wall. Anybody else comes over, they go back. But for the 11 million people, come on, folks, we all know you can't pick them up and ship them across - back across the border. It's a silly argument. It's not an adult argument. It makes no sense.

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: All I can say is, you're lucky in Ohio that you struck oil. That's for one thing. Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president. People liked him. I like Ike, right, the expression, "I like Ike." Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country. Moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again beyond the border. They came back. Didn't like it. Moved them way south. They never came back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happened to my question?

KASICH: You're not going to have my back. I'm going to have my back.

(INAUDIBLE) a couple of things here. First of all - UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Governor, you took -

TRUMP: You should let Jeb speak.

KASICH: We have grown - we have grown - we have grown this -

TRUMP: No, it's - listen.

JEB BUSH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Donald, for allowing me to speak at the debate. That's really nice of you. I really appreciate that. What a generous man you are.

Twelve million illegal immigrants, to send them back, 500,000 a month, is just not possible, and it's not embracing American values. And it would tear community as part. And it would send a signal that we're not the kind of country that I know America is. And even having this conversation sends a powerful signal. They're doing high-fives in the Clinton campaign right now when they hear this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Let's talk about that, shall we? I have the president of Republican super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, Mike Shields with us, also CNN national political reporter Maeve Reston and CNN political analyst John Avlon.

So welcome to all of you.

You know, in going through the debate, to me, that was really one of the strongest exchanges obviously on immigration. And, John Avlon, I'm looking at you. I want to ask you about that policy back in the '50s with Eisenhower in a minute.

But first, Mike, this back-and-forth, to me really showcases this divide on immigration between your - say your Trump and your Cruz and mainstream Republican candidates.

MIKE SHIELDS, PRESIDENT, CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND: Yes. First of all, happy Veterans Day.

Look, I think the winner of the debate last night was the RNC and Reince Priebus. After the debate we had in Colorado that everyone knew was poorly run by CNBC, they regathered themselves, they put this debate on last night and what you were hearing and what you just watched was a really, truly substantive debate among really qualified candidates going back and forth on what their plans for immigration were. And you saw that over and over and over again last night. This is the debate I think all Republicans who are looking at the presidential campaign have been wanting all along. They want to see their candidates get into substantive conversations and go back and forth. The moderators don't have to get involved in sort of creating a fight or creating gotcha questions when the candidates are going to go back and forth like the clip you just played right there and there's some real differences in these candidates about how they would approach things. BALDWIN: But, Mike, shouldn't - shouldn't the moderators have followed up with Donald Trump? Again, we have heard this from him over and over and over about deporting millions of people. The question would be how. What does that look like? How do you pull that off? Where was that question?

SHIELDS: Well, yes, look, I mean, you can get even more deep into substance. I think it would - step one was, let's have a substantive debate and have a debate where the moderators are asking questions that are really about the policies. I think, yes, follow-on questions, all the journalists that are covering the campaigns really need to help dig deep into what these candidates stand for, what their policies are going to do, what the impact of those policies are.

[14:04:57] The American Action Forum is a conservative C3 in Washington, D.C., a think tank, and they talk about there's a massive cost associated with trying to deport that many people. It would cost billions and billions of dollars. And so, yes, there's some really legitimate questions to be asked there. But, first of all, let's just celebrate that we had a really good debate last night with really qualified candidates answering questions about what their policy platforms are.

BALDWIN: John Avlon, to you, though. I mean let's be real about what happened in the 1950s under, you know, President Eisenhower and what Donald Trump is proposing. Can you please give everyone watching a bit of a history lesson on what that effort was back then?

JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure. And I think that's an important reality check. Look, I like Ike. I think he was an underrated president. But this was not one of the high water marks for his presidency or modern American history. It was known, and excuse me for saying it, as Operation Wetback. That's what it was known then. So his calling for Operation Wetback II, I don't think is going to really help the Republican Party connect with the Hispanic community.

The second thing, of course, is the country was half its size and we're talking about one-tenth of the population that is the potential pool. And if you are a Republican who claims to want limited government, you never seen big government like a dragnet that tries to deport 11 million people, folks. That's just a reality. And I think Kasich and Jeb Bush were both responsible about trying to play it out beyond the bumper stickers. It's good to have a parallel, but do your homework and look at the real impact. When we've had just - Japanese interment (ph) under FDR, it was 150,000 people. So, you know, do that multiple and then ask yourself if you're a Republican that says he believe in limited country if that's the country, that's the president you want to see and support.

BALDWIN: Thank you. I just think we needed a little social studies 101.

Maeve, I want to - I want to come to you, but let me just hit pause on this conversation and dip into Ben Carson. He's speaking here, Lynchburg, Virginia, talking about last night's debate. BEN CARSON (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Their facts on the table and

then making a decision. See, the problem is, we frequently make decisions based on one person's ideology or another person's ideology without actually recognizing that we live in a pluralistic society and we need to hear everybody's explanation of what needs to happen. You know, as I've looked at the data and I've talked to people, I'm still very open to having a discussion about it. But it is very clear that every time we raise the minimum wage, we lose jobs. So the question then becomes, how many jobs are we willing to lose in order to increase a wage beyond the level where people will be working? And what is the rationale for that? And we ought to get that out there because a lot of times the people who are saying, let's increase the minimum wage, once they understand what the implications are, they say, you know what, maybe we shouldn't be increasing the minimum wage.

QUESTION: So just to be clear, are you saying you're still open to potentially supporting raising the federally mandated minimum wage?

CARSON: If somebody can come up with a good explanation of why that should be done and how it doesn't hurt the economy and increase unemployment, I think it's very reasonable to hear their argument.

QUESTION: Can you explain your position on immigration?

CARSON: Yes.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) last night. Are you in favor of encouraging people here illegally to have a way to get citizenship, or are you in favor of deporting those people who are here?

CARSON: OK. Very easy question. I'm in favor of enforcing the laws that have and in favor of securing our borders, all of our borders. And this is not a difficult thing to do, as was demonstrated in Yuma County, Arizona, where they stopped 97 percent of illegal immigration simply by putting up a double fence with asphalt road in between so there was quick access, actually putting border guards on the border, which is a novel concept, and prosecuting first-time offenders rather than the catch and release program that we now have. That stopped it. And that's without the addition of some of the unique surveillance equipment that we now have available to us. So I think you can pretty - get pretty close to 100 percent.

Now, the other thing you have to do is you have to decrease the incentives for people to come here. So you have to get rid of all of the things that they would be getting if they can get through the system. Therefore, they say, what is the point?

Now, that gets rid of the influx, but it doesn't take care of the 11- plus million people who are still here. I propose that we give them a six-month period in which to register. If they don't register within that six-month period, they're criminals and are treated as such. But if they're - if they register in that six month period and they have a pristine record and they wish to be guest workers in this country, they would have to pay a back tax penalty and they have to continue to pay taxes going forward. But they would no longer have to live in the shadows. [14:10:22] Now, that does not give them the right to vote. It does not

make them U.S. citizens. If they want to become U.S. citizens, they have to go through the same thing that anybody else who wants to be a U.S. citizen would have to go through, including leaving the country so that they're legal and apply from the outside. Unless the American people indicate that they want a different course than that.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up. What's the economic harm, in your view, of having these 11 million people here now? Some people say it's a plus economically. It doesn't sound like you think it is.

CARSON: Well, when you look at the farming industry, you know, I've talked to farmers who have, you know, multi-thousand-acre farms, and they say that their business would collapse without these people completely. I've talked to hotel owners, and they say that they would have a very difficult time without them. And that's why I say guest workers who are willing to work in industries where we need them. You know, that's a win-win situation.

I think the other thing that we have to keep in mind, you know, we're compassionate people. And, you know, like in Cameroon right now, there are American companies over there - I've spoken to some of them - who are helping to develop millions of acres, incredibly fertile land, growing, you know, record crops, getting big profits, which is great for them and I think - I like business. You know, that's - you do what works for you. But at the same time, they're building the infrastructure of that nation, creating jobs there and teaching them the ag business so they carry on themselves. And at the same time, creating friends for the United States.

There's really no reason that we can't do the same kind of thing in other parts of the world, including Central and South America, so that people won't feel a necessity to come here. And that's a very good outreach and it's a positive effect for our businesses. And it doesn't require expenditure on behalf of our government.

QUESTION: Dr. Carson, last night the discussion about Dodd-Frank and the financial sector you said basically, I would have policies in the place that wouldn't allow the too big to fail dynamic, but then you also said you didn't want to tear banks down and go in and reshuffle what we have now.

CARSON: Right.

QUESTION: Can you clarify exactly what you want the regulatory structure to look like?

CARSON: Yes.

QUESTION: And how it would affect the banks as they exist now.

CARSON: Well, you know, it's not the government's business to build things up by favoritism, and it's not their job to tear things down. It's really their job to provide an atmosphere that allows entrepreneurial risk taking, innovation, capital investment, but not to facilitate those things for one group versus the other group. So I want to see a hands-off policy by the federal government. Let things rise and fall based on their merits without the government interfering. And that includes subsidies also.

QUESTION: Do you think deregulation - further deregulation would - would end the too big to fail or would (INAUDIBLE) -

CARSON: Well, I'd - well -

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).

CARSON: Well, you know, the amount of regulation, you know, has gone from just creeping into a full gallop now, enveloping virtually everything. And, you know, I talked about the deleterious effect of all those regulations on the poor and the middle class, but also in terms of stifling the powerful economic engine that we have. And that, I believe, is what we have to be looking at.

QUESTION: Dr. Carson, you said last night that after conversations with generals, you thought that the oil fields outside the Anbar province would be and you said fairly easily to take - take back. It would be fairly easy to take them back. What makes you think so and can you talk more about who you've been consulting with (INAUDIBLE)?

CARSON: Yes. Well, you're talking about ISIS and control of that. They only have 30,000 people. And they're spread out not just there but in several other locations. So I don't think that they can defend that area particularly well.

[14:14:58] And the problem has not been so much that we can't effectively fight them. The problem has been that we have our hands tied. We have people micromanaging everything. If you gave our military a mission and didn't tie their hands and micromanage them, they would be much more capable than what we've seen.

QUESTION: So, just a follow-up. You think that it would be fairly easy for the U.S. military to take back those - that region (INAUDIBLE) if they were given (INAUDIBLE)?

CARSON: I - I do. I do believe that. And the added advantage is, you know, we've been calling for a coalition because the fact of the matter is, you know, getting that area under control is much more beneficial, you know, to the countries of the Arabian Peninsula and throughout that region than it is to anybody else. And many of them probably would get involved, but they're not just going to form and do things by themselves. They need leadership. If we provide the leadership for them, that provides the nightis (ph). It will grow and be able to take care of itself. But that's - that's the kind of foreign policy we have to have. We can't have a, we'll sit in the back and manage everything kind of policy. That doesn't work. We can see that.

QUESTION: On that foreign policy thread, some questions have been raised about your suggestion last night that China is involved with Syria. Can you clarify that?

CARSON: Well, China has been trying to extend its influence not only throughout the Middle East but throughout Africa, and in several locations, and their interest extends into that region as well. You know, I would have to refer you to some other people to get you the actual data, but they've shown it to me.

QUESTION: And you also expressed support for the 50 special operations - special ops troops. Is 50 enough? Do you think that can really get the job done?

CARSON: Whether it's enough or not, my point is that, if we have operations going on over there, they need to be guided. And the special ops people are there to guide those operations rather than have them being done randomly or by people who really don't have a complete view of what's going on in the area.

QUESTION: Dr. Carson, you are here at (INAUDIBLE) University, at their medical school. You're going to be meeting with students here, I believe, after this. What's your message directly for these medical students who are hopefully going to be entering your profession?

CARSON: Well, my message is that, you know, there are few careers that are more rewarding than medicine. Even with all the regulations and stuff that has made it a little bit miserable, because you get to intervene in the most important thing a person has, their life, and give them longevity and give them quality. And, you know, I've had the opportunity to do that hundreds and even thousands of times, and I wouldn't trade one of those lives for a billion dollars.

Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: As a (INAUDIBLE) scientist (ph), could you share some of your ideas on funding (INAUDIBLE)?

CARSON: Yes. Well, you know, the National Institute of Health is a very important part of what we do as a nation. And when you look at the death rate and you look at the age of - the life expectancy at the last turn of the century, not this one recently but the one before that, versus now, you see we've gone from around 50 to around 80. That's because of medical advances. That's because of things that we've been able to learn and been able to apply in a rigorous and objective manner. And it says volumes about the benefit of rational thought processing, taking true evidence and using that to make decisions.

That kind of thing needs to continue to be encouraged. Of course we have to look at the areas of the NIH that are effective and the areas that perhaps are not as effective. We have to apply the same kind of standards as we would to any government agency or sub-agency in terms of cost to benefit ratio. But, in general, I would be very much in favor of maintaining and even increasing appropriations for that kind of wide ranging benefit to society.

[14:20:01] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Two more questions, please.

QUESTION: I talked to a student this afternoon who heard your speech this morning and he said that he's a fan of yours and he loves your work. But he didn't feel that you knew enough about the issues. What do you say to that?

CARSON: Any particular issue? Because in a general speech, you generally don't have time to go through the whole litany of issues and some people don't recognize that. So if there's a specific issue, I can certainly -

QUESTION: Flat (ph) tax (INAUDIBLE) said that there would be a (INAUDIBLE).

CARSON: Oh, well, of course. But it wasn't an exhaustive discussion on the flat tax. You know, you have to talk about, what is the purpose of taxation? The purpose of taxation is to be able to have the funding that's necessary to run the government. That was the original purpose. It's morphed into controlling people's behavior. That was not the original purpose, and that's not what I would want. And that's why the system that I've described does not include the things that control people's behavior.

It also, you know, obviously, I didn't talk about the cut that's need to be made because the size of government is much too large. You know, we have 4.1 million federal employees. That's ridiculous. So we need to trim that down.

I would do it very compassionately by attrition. Thousands of government employees retire each year. Don't replace them. You can shift people around from place to place, but don't replace those. And, you know, you look at all those agencies, 645 agencies and sub agencies, 2 to 3 percent cut in each one across the board. Now some people say, oh, you can't do that! Every penny is vitally important and the whole system will collapse. That's a bunch of garbage.

You know the fact of the matter is, there is fat in everything in the government and probably a lot more than 2 to 3 percent. Being very reasonable at that rate. And some people say, well, remember a couple of years ago with the sequester and how they tried to do just the small cut and we had to close White House tours and close national parks and all these kinds of benefits for veterans and stuff like that? Well, that's because they were intentionally trying to target the things that people would feel the most so they could make the silly argument that you can't cut anything. That's a matter of putting the right people in government who have the right motives to really help it work efficiently and help it work for the American people and not people who have a political agenda.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Final question.

QUESTION: Dr. Carson, you - on your flat tax proposal, you said that you think that's the fairest way to just take proportionately from everyone. That - are you concerned at all or have you looked in much detail at how that would dovetail with the state and local tax codes which vary widely and, in many instances, end up being (ph) aggressive (ph), particularly those that lean more heavily on sales taxes, looking at a larger percentage of even working class, above poverty level but still working class, when they pay taxes on groceries and clothing and just the things like that. Have you sat down to look at how that - that might affect certain locals where - CARSON: Yes.

QUESTION: A flat tax at the federal level still will end up being an overall aggressive (INAUDIBLE).

CARSON: I have looked at that and have concluded that the reason that we have 50 states is because they have some degree of autonomy. The federal government should not try to control them. And if they have onerous tax policies, everybody should leave the state and move to a different state. That's the way it's designed to work.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, everyone.

CARSON: All right.

BALDWIN: There you go, retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson answering a number of questions from press this day after this fourth Republican presidential debate. Mike Shields, Maeve Reston, John Avlon with me.

Maeve, leaving the best for last, let me - let me go to you. You know, we heard him doubling down on some of the themes we heard last night. You know, not only saying he thought the minimum wage should stay, but he thinks it's actually too high. We heard him talking about that and how he said that was actually attributing to the high unemployment among African-Americans, which is certainly made some news on both sides of the equation today. But also, as we were discussing, immigration.

MAEVE RESTON, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: Yes.

BALDWIN: Obviously he sees it differently than let's say his other fellow frontrunner Donald Trump. How is he sounding today to you?

RESTON: Well, it's so interesting. You know, there were a number of questions about Dr. Carson's answers last night. For example, on how he would tackle ISIS, as well as breaking up the big banks. There was a little bit of confusion about that. But I do think, coming back to your original point, that this immigration debate is the most fascinating way to look at sort of the policy differences between all these candidates.

You heard there Dr. Carson talking about the need for a guest worker program. He's really placed an emphasis on that, talked a lot about how he's talked to businesses about that. And then you have Donald Trump, who's much more saying, you know, we need to deport all of these people. And then Jeb Bush trying to come in and saying, wait a minute, I'm the pragmatic voice. All of that is going to be really critical as voters start to make up their minds getting closer to the primaries here.

[14:25:17] We remember in 2012, for example, when Mitt Romney talked about self-deportation. We know from polls that that sank his numbers among Hispanics much later on. And so I think that that immigration clip in that debate that we heard last night will be played again and again as this process moves forward. BALDWIN: And as Jeb Bush said, Hillary Clinton camp high-fiving over

some of what Donald Trump said last night, right?

RESTON: And - right. And -

BALDWIN: Go ahead.

RESTON: And they were actually high-fiving apparently.

BALDWIN: There you go. Maeve Reston, Mike Shields, John Avlon, thank you all so much. I really appreciate all of you here at the top of the hour, as we also listened to Dr. Carson.

Coming up, after last night's debate, Donald Trump offering some praise for his rivals. Our correspondent Jeff Zeleny caught up with him this morning in New Hampshire. We will play some of that for you.

Also ahead, witnesses say it was horrific. A plane crash in Akron, Ohio, leaves nine people dead and an apartment building absolutely destroyed. What happened?

And later, a tragic story out of Alabama. A one-year-old beaten to death by an eight-year-old little boy while police say her mom was out at a nightclub. That young boy now charged with murder.

You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)