of send her back, directed toward ilhan omar. it was hosted by the christian science monitor. this runs a little more than an hour. linda: it's a little after 9:00. we're going to start and i'm good to talk a little bit and let the congressman eat quickly. i'm linda feldman from the "christian science monitor" washington bureau chief for our guest is congressman tom emmer of minnesota the chairman of he national republican ampaign committee. this is his first appearance at a monitor breakfast so welcome. now we will give you bennett queue ground. he was born in south bend indiana and grew up in the dina minnesota attended first boston college and the university of alaska fairbanks and played hockey for both. then he got his law degree at william mitchell college in st. paul. 10 years later, he got into politics verses a city councilman and then a state legislator and after not quite reaching the minnesota governor's office, he won a seat in congress. that was in 2014, michele bachmann's old seat in the district. since arriving on the hill, congressman emmer has helped run the congressional hockey challenge for the longtime hockey enthusiast coach has a reputation, i'm told, for talking trash. mr. emmer: i would say being honest. linda: yeah? ok. i will also add that the congressman has seven children, so i have to ask, are they all playing for a team? mr. emmer: there are six boys and one girl and she's the best athlete out of the whole group. and by the way, she's a sports broadcaster. linda: oh my gosh. that's fabulous. mr. emmer is in his third term of congress and the chair of the nrcc and wants to win back the majority, which brings us to the day's breakfast. please, no live blogging or tweeting. in short, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. and there's no embargo when the session ends at 9:00. we will e-mail you pictures from this breakfast as soon as it ends. as you know, if you'd like to ask questions, please send me a signal and i will call on as many of you as time permits. now, congressman emmer, if you would like to make brief opening remarks, the floor is yours. mr. emmer: thank you and thank the "christian science monitor" for inviting me. this is my first time here, but i think most of you might not be surprised to know it's my first time pretty much anywhere. i haven't done much of this. that's not been my goal while i've been in congress. i'm going to quick show you a picture from the congressional hockey league. and you won't be able to see it from where you're at, but at the congressional hockey game, after we scored the first goal, i did something which is called ide the horse down center ice, and i'm very proud of it. most everybody in washington, d.c. who knows me has now seen this photograph because i show them that look, even at 58 years old, i want you to notice the 90-degree knee bend. john catskill's got nothing on e. i've got prepared remarks that i'm going to go through and then i was going to joke with you a little bit. i thought this was all off the record. that's why we have the camera and the mic. but it's whatever you want to talk about. i want to thank you all for having me here. for those i haven't had the pleasure of meeting, i'm tom emmer, the current chair of the congressional republican committee. our mission is to take back this -- this election is going to be a choice between socialism and freedom. the socialist democrats have gone all in on a radical far left agenda that throws out the freedom of choice that has made our country the greatest nation on earth and replaces it with a one-size-fits-all government knows best philosophy. it's my strong belief that voters want nothing to do with this agenda, this socialist agenda. so day in and day out, it's our job at the nrcc to hold the socialist democrats accountable for their dangerous policies and if you've been watching, which i know you folks have, they've been giving us plenty of material. from pushing for socialist takeover of our economic and healthcare systems for dvocating for the street - decriminal liesation raising middle-class taxes, and rampant anti-semitism, the socialist democrats made clear they have no interest in pushing forward policies that help everyday americans. we saw that just this week where they spent their time calling the president a racist and holding votes on impeachment. we recently released a host of polling data showing how the devastatingly unpopular impeachment is. and yet, every week, more and more of the socialist democrats are doing anything and everything to attack the president who, by the way, is presiding over the greatest economy in history. and their so-called squad which i think that's the wrong term. quite frankly, if you want to call them the squad, you should call them the leadership squad since they are the speaker in fact and the rest of their conference you can call them the new red army of socialists. they have been garnering plenty of attention these new leaders and it's not a small subset as i just pointed out that nancy pelosi would make them out to be. their entire 235 member caucus is responsible for the radical socialist policies emerging from their caucus. voters are going to understand exactly what that means when we get to november of 2020. so, with that, whatever you guys want to talk about. thank you again for having me. linda: thanks again for coming. i'll start with a few questions and we'll move around the room. i don't know if you watched the president's rally last night. people were chanting, "send her back" about a member of your state's congressional delegation , and the president didn't tell them to stop. how does the uproar over president trump and racism affect your ability to retake the house? does it help? does it hurt? rep. emmer: i didn't watch the rally last night, but there is no place for that kind of talk. i don't agree with it. linda: ok. the larger uproar of the week over racism, what does that do to your quest to retake the house? rep. emmer: i think that's manufactured. there's not a racist bone in this president's body. what he was trying to say, he said wrong. what he was trying to say is, if you don't appreciate this country, you don't have to be here. that goes for every one of us. it has nothing to do with your race, your gender, your family history. it has to do with respecting and loving the country that has given you the opportunities that you have. as for the other stuff, there is no place for whatever you just brought up. "send her back," i disagree with that completely. linda: and the uproar does what to your -- who does this energize more, democrats or republicans? the whole uproar over race? rep. emmer: i guess i disagree with the premise that you are trying to focus on race. there's an uproar in this country, and it's about one party, which by the way, is no longer my grandfather's democratic party. my grandfather, when i came back from college, after i told you, from the university of alaska, where i lived in a cabin in the woods with no running water and outdoor plumbing, and if none of you have done it, you should try it. that will be an experience you will never forget. by the way, it prepares you well for congress. but we can talk about that later. when i came back, i remember my grandfather, who i love dearly, i couldn't be a catholic and be a republican. he said, because it was the reagan revolution, and i was very excited about the new opportunities and being involved in the political process. he said, you can't be a catholic and be republican. and then he told me he was the only kind, loving, compassionate resident of his community because he was the only democrat. we used to argue or debate, and i would lose regularly, because he knew his stuff and i was young, but we would be debating the size and scope of government versus the right of the individual to self determine, and where is that line? where does it go in the constitutional republic that we live in? and by the way, you can't call them democrats anymore. they announced proudly after the election they are socialist. the socialists are here. this is the new socialist democrat party. that's what has everybody energized. i'm afraid that people want to try and -- they want to create narratives that fit different facts. i'm not willing to accept it. linda: jerry from the buffalo news. >> i'm one of the people at the table asking local questions. i want to ask you about new york 27. congressman chris collins is under indictment and barely won re-election last fall, and recently put $500,000 of his own money into the campaign fund, which kind of signals he may indeed run again. there are also other republicans who have declared that seat. as the head of the nrcc who is charged with bringing the republicans the majority, would you prefer to have a candidate who is not under indictment in the district? rep. emmer: people are human beings. i can't comment. in this country, the beauty is people are presumed innocent, whether it's chris collins, or another member who might have a trial date pending. i'm not going to comment on those. we will see what it looks like in 2020 after those have been resolved. it's like a rushing to judgment on t.j. cox in california, who's got all kinds of things going on with business dealings, past -- dealings, tax delinquencies, etc. i'd expect my counterpart on the other side to say i'm not going to comment until it forces its -- until it works its way through the process. is it standard policy to stay out of the primaries? rep. emmer: standard policy? the nrcc should not be involved in primaries. that is not our job. other people are involved in primaries. in fact, in talking to former chairs and people who have been around this town a lot longer than i have, obviously, i think the last time the nrcc may have had anything to do in the primary was the late 1990's. that's just not something we are going to do, at least not while i'm there. the late 1990's is what i was told. linda: john from newsmax. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the question here for you is this. when she spoke to this same breakfast, speaker pelosi said the democratic party made a conscientious decision to encourage and recruit democratic women to run for office, and of course, today you see a number of women from the democratic caucus. have you made a similar decision to encourage women, and while you say you are not involved in the primaries, help them win nomination to office? i see a physician, who happens to be a woman, who lost a primary in north carolina recently. congressman stefanik and others helped her. what is the policy of the nrcc toward recruiting and encouraging women candidates? rep. emmer: first off, i think this is one of the great unwritten stories from the last election. maybe it goes back to, i don't accept the narrative. first, nobody seems to want to write about the fact that there were a record number of women running as republicans in the last election for the u.s. house of representatives. there were 100 women. the real story from the last election is that nancy pelosi and the dccc and a guy named bloomberg dropped millions of dollars, specifically on our female candidates, whether they were incumbents or they were first-time candidates. go ask karen handel how it felt to have millions dropped on her, i think close to $5 million from bloomberg. go ask mimi walters. the idea that this narrative that has been set up is a false narrative. at the nrcc, since the beginning of the year, again, our job is to recruit candidates, and it's interesting to me, because i've said our party, but our party already does reflect a great cross-section of america. you can go out there, and you guys in the press are going to have a lot harder time than i am going into major urban areas and finding republicans, because they are afraid to talk to you. the left has become so aggressive, and whether you are in a major corporate setting or you are in your neighborhood, you don't feel comfortable to say, "hey, i don't believe in that. i'm a republican." but they will come up to me, because they look at me as one of them, and they will tell me quietly, "i'm the only republican here, and i thank you for what you are doing." it's the same thing with women. after the election, how are you going to recruit women to run as republicans? you know what? this rabid, radical socialist agenda is doing it for us. they don't want this for their kids and the future of the country. since the beginning of the year, the nrcc has interviewed close to 450 candidates. of those candidates who have come through our doors or that we have we have reached out to because somebody said this is a good candidate, 187 of them, i believe as of this week, were women. 106 of them were veterans, i want to stay, close to 90 of them were minority recruits. we have got women that are jumping into races all over the country. you see it in iowa. you see it in georgia. all over the country, so i think that reflects close to 40% of the total recruits so far this year. so i think the great unwritten story is that democrats did a good job targeting -- now here's the other thing. i would tell you based on the most recent race, because we had two great candidates. joan perry was a great candidate. the thing that's interesting to me is, i think we have got to start -- if the nrcc is going to providedupport, and we to anyone, by the way, there are eight people in the primary, and they come to us and say, we need your advice, we need your direction. we will give everybody the same thing. we don't tell them who we are talking to because we want them to run their own race, and they are responsible for that, but we will point them to services and vendors. we will give them information, if it is available, to everybody. one of the things i think we need to do a better job of is we need to help them, and i've been talking to especially women who come in now and sit down , especially this week with the big race last week, we've got to have a better ground game for some of our candidates, women in particular, and i thought they were shown last week. somebody asked me on monday where i thought the race was going, and they were excited about the energy on joan perry's side. i told them i think greg murphy's going to win. they said, how do you know that? i said, well, if you look at the primary where greg murphy was number one and joan perry was number two, there were a little over 13,000, somewhere between 13,000 and 14,000 absentee ballots cast in the primary. joan had to make up seven points to overcome the front-runner in the run-off. as of monday, before the election, i think there were less than 11,000 absentees cast, which told me that they were not doing the job you needed to do on the ground to identify voters and to get them out to vote. it wasn't happening with absentees, because you should have seen the absentee count at least the same turnout as it was in the primary, if not more, if joan perry's operation was going to overcome that. i think the short answer should be what the nrcc can do that with all candidates, and perhaps maybe with some of our first-time female candidates, is help them with advice about building that ground game and what you need to do to target your voters and get them out to the polls. i talked to a candidate yesterday who is a former executive at a major retailer in this country, and i said to her, you know from prior experience it is the same thing as retail marketing. you have to identify your customers. you have to contact your customers and target them, and then you have to give them a value proposition which motivates them to go out and buy. in this case, to go out and vote for you. i think that's something we can do at the nrcc for all candidates, not just women. linda: jonathan from new jersey advanced media. >> thank you for coming. new jersey lost four of the five republican seats. today, three of four freshmen have almost banked $1 million. billion -- has5 banked $5 million. how do you recruit people? how do he get people to run in a state where the president has a 30% approval rating? rep. emmer: first off, democrats typically have a much higher burn rate than republicans for whatever reason. you have to look at their campaign. second, if you look at the last campaign, the average winning democrat spent a little over $4 million, while the average winning republicans spent a little over $2 million. we lost the u.s. house of representatives by approximately 106,000 votes out of 115 million cast in the midterm. i like to joke that it costs a lot more to sell a lie than it does the truth. money isn't the ultimate determinant of an election, much like in football. a couple of years back, you had the powerful, and this is for your benefit, "the bostonian," you had the powerful patriots who hadn't lost a game, and they were supposed to lose the super bowl to the giants. there's a reason why they play the game. it's going to come down to not just the money. we do need to keep it close. they are going to out-raise us, that's clear. the revenue will help us a little bit, i believe, because we have the single biggest small dollar donor revenue for donald trump. we are way ahead of the data. these are things that are going to help us a lot, but it's about the candidates, and it's about the message at the end of the day. we are going to have better candidates. i'm not going to name specific ones in new jersey because there are going to be primaries in new jersey, but we are going to get the best candidates out of the primaries. i personally haven't gone through the primaries. they make you a much better candidate. you learn stuff every time. the other thing is, we are going to have the message. if you look, this is not november of 2018. look at pennsylvania 12, the special election we just had, which was a runaway. at first glance, if you are not doing the political science, you go, ok, it was supposed to be that way. it was a heavily republican district. okay, well, he's a newcomer. he didn't cover that district. those districts have recently been redrawn. fred keller outperformed tom moreno by four or five points from just last november, and actually reached numbers that donald trump reached in that district back two years ago. this is not november of 2018. -- we've gotling olling, tom malinowski is already down in new jersey. he pulled probably eight races so far at the nrcc, and i think -- we have polled probably eight races so far at the nrcc, and i think we publish those so you have the stuff and you can see what it is. i think malinowski was down two or three points, and we had just begun. money is going to be important. money is always important, but money isn't the ultimate determining factor. we can't let it get so out of wack that our candidates can't compete. linda: julie davis from "the new york times." >> you said that the chant last night had no place as a message, and you think what the president said what he meant in those tweets wrong, but as you know, he has a pretty large megaphone set the tone for the political course. so i wonder, given that these sorts of ideas where the core of his message in 2016, that he talked about caravans and invasion by asylum-seekers in did drivethat really the conversation about the midterms, whether you think that the committee wants to set the terrain for the midterms is going to actually be able to break through, and if it is not your concern that the president's rhetoric will alienate the kinds of voters you would need to win to win back the house and 2020. rep. emmer: so i don't know if this -- i hope this is not received the wrong way, but how many people at the table have actually been to the border? so, three? here is the issue. there was a caravan. there is a crisis. i don't know why we have had such a hard time getting that story told. why people don't understand how serious this is. this should not be a republican and democratic issue. shouldn't be a wedge issue. everybody should be focused entirely on the president, and again, i'm not here to defend the president. the president will defend himself. my job is to recruit candidates , to keep people in congress, number one, recruit candidates, weber two, and to make sure run the campaigns across this country that we localize. we will be impacted by whatever rhetoric is coming from the presidential race, but i'm going to tell you, the people running on the democrat side who are tripping on each other to get farther and farther left, they are in the process of reelecting the president right now without him even making any effort. that race will take care of itself. people can go in, they can vote for the president if they choose. they can choose not to. that will be on the ballot this time, which it was not last november. in the meantime, our candidates will be out there talking about the realities. i mean, you've got the leader, you've got the speaker in name, nancy pelosi, and the speaker in fact, alexandria ocasio-cortez, who last night comes out and says something about, "nobody cares about losing their private health insurance." completely numb, completely cold to what actual americans on main street believe. and doesn't realize the hundreds of millions of people that she's talking to. that's going to be the distinction. that is our job, to make sure that every day, we define exactly who they are and what they stand for, so that when our candidates are out there, the -- look, the big mistake, i this over 50, white-haired guy, i don't know much. but i know that these young people and new people come in and think, hey, we have got social media. we are going to move people with facebook and we are going to move them with twitter. we have this thing called snapchat. i know what it all is. i've got kids that run it all. i don't use any of it. but i do understand marketing, and i understand it's retail. today more than ever, it's retail. our candidates need to meet people face-to-face. they need to go not just where their support is, but where people disagree with them. you need to walk into university campuses. you need to go into the commons, and don't get combative, but have a conversation. we have young people in this country who are incredibly inquisitive. i've got seven of them. they make up their own minds. they will pay attention to you if you will pay attention to them, but you've got to go to where they are. i believe our ideas are ultimately what is going to win the day. it's not about, and forgive me, this is not directed at all of you, but in this town, there is so much trump derangement syndrome it's amazing. , people can't seem to focus on anything but the president, which is why he challenged her narrative, right? ok, so he tweets out something where -- i believe, i haven't talked to him about it directly, but thirdhand been told this was the discussion -- i believe what he was trying to say is, you know, it is like my colleague from minnesota. i had somebody say to me recently, you know, when ilhan t alks, she lets people believe she hates america. i don't know if that is true, but if somebody said that to me back at home, how about a little gratitude with that attitude, how about recognizing that this country has afforded you the same opportunities that it's afforded every other american who is willing to play by the rules and work hard and can achieve their highest potential, i think that's what this is really going to be about. and again, i feel for the other side because that's -- my grandfather's democratic party is dying. i don't know if there are enough people over there that are going to be able to stand up and take it back, but right now it's the socialist party in america. line, havingtom the president on the ballot in 2020, is that good for candidates in swing districts, or does it hurt them? rep. emmer: it's good from the standpoint that people can vote for the president. they can make that choice for the election. we heard a lot of people who wanted to vote against the president, and all they had was to vote against our guys. this time, they get a choice. i think they are voting for the president. sad as that might be to some people in this town, because he doesn't necessarily fit this town's experience, in greater america, i think you are going to see an overwhelming trump victory. linda: sam brody from "daily beast." >> thank you. last election cycle, there was some level of discussion between your committee and the dccc about an agreement to not to use hacked materials for political purposes in the elections. can you say anything about whether similar discussions have happened for this election cycle? rep. emmer: no, they are not serious. the dccc is not serious about any of this stuff. it is all political hackery, so no. here's the one rule we have at the nrcc, sam. we will never compromise their -- compromise our integrity, and we will always be honest. we will be brutally honest, but we will always be honest. >> is there any concern coming into this election cycle where the possibility of election hacking is very real? there were attempts in the last cycle. republicans have been targeted. both parties have been targeted. are you concerned it could happen again, and could there be an agreement between both parties to at least try to mitigate those damages? rep. emmer: linda: -- rep. emmer: again, the dccc is not serious about what they've been putting out. look at what they've been putting out. look at what the response has been. we should all be serious about cybersecurity in our elections. we are very serious about it. in fact, to the entire conference the morning before last, i rolled out a new cybersecurity program that we are offering to every dues-paying member of the nrcc because we do take it seriously. but i'm not going to get into the playing political games with a bunch of, you know, gotcha back and forth. that doesn't do anybody any good. linda: david wasserman from cook political report. >> thank you. i wanted to ask you about a few districts in particular. in new york 22 and minnesota 2, you have former colleagues who are considering running again, but arguably, part of the reason they lost was due to their negatives. would you encourage them to run again? and in texas, you've got six republican colleagues who came within five points of losing last time and were caught napping and didn't raise that much money and were run great campaign cycles last time. can you describe the peptalk you have given them, if any? rep. emmer: [laughter] well, they've got john cornyn on the ballot this time, which is going to help a lot of them. that is a variable that they didn't have last time. also, i think the beto effect has dissipated. the air has finally cleared. i think the emperor has no clothes. we now see the real beto, or albert or robert, whatever the name is. robert francis. that's great, and by the way, hats off to him. what a great marketing thing, but it's kind of like the pet rock. it was big big for a little while, and then it just disappeared. i think that happened in texas. we are always concerned, so i don't want to sound like we are overly confident because we are not. we take nothing for granted. we have sat down with every texas member and built up plans with them to the extent that they are willing to work with us, and they have been. in fact, i think for the first time ever, we have four of them in our patriot program, which has been completely revamped thanks to the executive director. i think that's his title, john billings, who has been around , and john cap go -- and john k., our member from syracuse. their approach when they started the pager program unlike what used to be an unlike what the dccc's frontline program as is. these are not our most vulnerable members. when you see someone on our list, they are our most well-prepared members. everyone has a plan. by the way, we had a couple who came to us after and said, we want to be in that thing. great. there is another round of patriots that will be coming out. new york 22, it's not my job. claudia penning and jason lewis are both friends of mine. i think they did an excellent job when they were in congress. i have not, nor will the nrcc endorse anyone, so wherever that came from, new york 22, we are not supporting claudia or anyone else in that race. that's a wide-open race. we want the best candidate that can possibly come out of that race. the same thing in minnesota, and i think our friend jason lewis, i kind of disagree with you, but you the expert, so you probably have numbers i don't. i don't think it was a high negatives as you describe it. i think it that was the phenomenon that we saw last election where, especially in the seats that held the large suburban vote, you had a challenge. you saw republican candidates running too close to the executive, and you saw republicans running against the executive both losing. at the end of the day, you as a candidate and a representative, you have to have your own brand and you have to be working in , your district like it's the only business that you have and that your family's livelihood depends on it. you need to be at everything, everywhere, everyday. it's a 24-hour day, seven day a week job, so when the winds are blowing against you, you built a solid enough foundation. i used to talk about it like a tree. the tree has to be sturdy at the base, and the ground has to be really solid. you are responsible for making sure that happens because then when the storm comes, you might lose a few branches, but the tree is going to remain standing. in this case, it didn't happen. we lost a couple of good members, and now those seats are open. i would suggest neither of those incumbents represent their district the way the district would actually exist, and because of that, they are both at risk. when we do identify the candidate for the general election, i expect we are going to pick up one or both of those seats. linda: david lightman from mcclatchey, to your right. >> you have 31 districts that the president carried in 2016 that are now represented by democrats. we talked about the radical democratic agenda, but you just said everyone has to promote their own brand. what is a republican running against a joe cunningham or lucy mcbath going to do? how do they reconcile this? because the anecdotal evidence from our reporters is the cbaths of thend m world are being very careful not to have ties to the democratic party that you know. how do you reconcile this? rep. emmer: i don't have to. that's exactly why we exist. let's go back and we targeted 55 districts. 31 of the districts are districts that donald trump won in 2016. 20 plus districts are districts that hillary clinton won with in the last election. she won in the last election that a republican has held recently. eric paulsen's seat in minnesota and, what is the third one i'm thinking of? it will come to me, but there are a whole bunch of them. all the seats are in play. people say, how are you going to win back the majority? history said we were going to lose 32 seats. we actually lost 40. history is not with us now. if you look back, republicans won by 12. in the first reagan reelect , republicans won by 16. actually 19 now because michigan has an opening. we have got to win back 19 seats , assuming we win the remaining two specials, which i will tell you we are going to win. i know some like to think the more competitive of the two we stand to lose. we will win north carolina 9, so we have got to win 19 seats. history says the best you have reelect. is 16 in a how do you do that? out of the top 31 and the top 13, donald trump won two years ago by six points or more. those are republican seats, seats that we never should have lost. we never should have lost the 13, so i believe you start with the 13. now you've got to find 10 more out of the remaining 18 and the hillary seats. so think if somebody does the math, they can correct me, i think that's 36% of what remains that we have to find in order to succeed. i believe you've got to budget because we are going to have some surprises. i don't know what's going to happen in some of these seats. i was asked earlier by jerry. i don't know how that's going to play. that is why you got to look to 20. build in a buffer, be around 23, 24, 25. now to your question, joe cunningham ran as a moderate republican. i don't see people writing and talking about that. he ran as a moderate republican, and you see he is being careful, which he is. he is trying to keep his head down, but where is joe cunningham on socialized medicine? where is joe cunningham on the border? where is joe cunningham being held accountable for the party that he represents? and by the way, he is not perfect on votes, and we are building those up, and we make sure people in his district know that. joe cunningham is not going to get to walk through the next election, at least if the nrc nrccs going to be -- the is going to be involved, being able to claim one thing and do another. it is the same thing with lucy mcfadden. i don't know why the story doesn't get written that lucy mcbath does not live in georgia, she was in tennessee. linda: no, her husband lives in tennessee. rep. emmer: right. said -- mye colleague and somebody else said they file joint tax returns. look, somebody's got to start doing the investigative reporting. we sent a gift basket to her home in dc that was accepted on a friday morning, 10:45. i realize she came back six hours later and said that wasn't me, that was my mother-in-law. she didn't say i didn't live there. she said that was my mother-in-law, and besides i because have been there i was at al sharpton's group talking to them. really? doesn't that cause anyone with curiosity to go, why would you say it like that? what is it about this arrangement that doesn't make sense, and why shouldn't voters in georgia sixth district be made well aware of? it maybe they want to vote for her, but why aren't we exposing it and making people make that choice? we will. linda: cameron joseph from vice news. >> one quick one and then another one. first you talk a lot about socialism, and how democrats are socialists. and i see your definition of socialism. rep. emmer: [laughter] venezuela. it is a complete government takeover. literally it is theft. socialism is theft. you name your issue. it's restriction of free speech. it's restriction of the right to choose your own health care options. it's restriction of your education options. take your pick. socialism of the government is going to make those decisions, not you. >> so it is broader than the economic question. the second -- rep. emmer: you apparently are not satisfied with that. i'll say this to you. they use the term. they have offered green new deal. that's socialism. that destroys the free market economy. they have offered socialized medicine. that destroys health care which -- destroys health care, which has already been messed up by the affordable care act. i can give you examples, but i take it that you would rather have me try to give you a definition that you could feed back to me. i think people know what socialism is. people know, and they don't like it. look at the polling that we have done. it's almost 60% in the handful of districts that we have targeted, primarily suburban district. they have an unfavorable view of socialism. let's talk about a little bit more. if you have voters 35 years old and younger, 50% of those voters based on my understanding, when you just give them the term socialist, they have a favorable view of the term socialism. but now you've got to educate them as to what it is. you do this. health care. take those same voters -- and by the way, i was happy when i heard this because i thought we had 100% favorable view of the term socialism. it was only half. now the half that we need to educate, you do this. do you like health care for all? yes, i do. i love it. it is a human right. great. we are going to do that. here's how we are going to do it. first we have to get rid of all employer-sponsored health insurance. are you okay with that? absolutely, i am. as long as everybody gets health care. good. once we get rid of that, we also have to get rid of all private options, so no more employer sponsored health insurance, no more private option, but everybody gets health care. are you good with that? these voters will tell you, absolutely. it is a human right. and the last thing i have to tell you is once we get rid of all those, there's only going to be one choice, and the government is going to offer that. now we start to get them back because they are okay when it's your choice that is being eliminated. they are ok when it is somebody else. but when they lose their choice , their freedom of choice, those are the two most important words when we talk about this agenda, freedom and choice. you are supposed to have choice. people want to be able to make their own choices. when government eliminates those choices, you lose your freedom. that's what it's about. >> you mentioned suburban districts. candidates in those districts will recommend that the president does hit some of his more heated, incendiary rhetoric on race, that they break with him, say what they believe, and create some space when needed. or do you think they should stick with the president at all times? rep. emmer: i'm not going to tell them what they should do. look, i don't work for the president. i work for the people of minnesota. i'm going to do what's best for the people that i represent, and i think all of my colleagues are the same way. linda: marissa schultz from "the new york post." >> thanks for doing this. to piggyback off the socialism question, you have mentioned it a lot this morning. it is very clear the message you are trying to portray democrats going forward. in the past, nrcc and republicans have spent a lot of money using speaker pelosi in their advertising. is it fair to say that this go around in 2020, aoc and ilhan omar will be the target of your advertising against immigrants? rep. emmer: look, this is really -- for me, you can use this stuff for fundraising, but it's just the way you asked the question, that we are trying to portray them -- i mean marissa, , we are not trying to portray them as anything. we are trying to make it clear to the american voter what they say they are and what they are doing. they are the ones who came in and said, we are socialists. now there's a group, there's a group that wants to say, well, that's just a few voices in our conference, and they are oversized. and i believe there are those on the outside of the democratic caucus, the socialist democratic caucus, that want to help them with that narrative by trying to label four people as the squad. it's a red army. this is not a squad. this is an army of socialists. you have well over 100 members who are signed on to socialize health care. you have well over 70 members that are signed on to the green new deal. and the list goes on and on. plus, as i would say to you, you could try to play the difficult political game where they stand for that, but i don't agree with it. look, you voted that you were not going to vote for nancy pelosi as speaker. you did. you said you weren't going to do all these things that now you are doing, and you refused to stand up and speak out against anti-semitism. you refused to stand up and speak out about the government takeover of private enterprise. you own it. >> well, just to piggyback off of what you are saying, a specific example in staten island, new york, he's an example of someone who ran away from nancy pelosi in the last cycle. this cycle, would be it be fair to say that pictures of him and aoc during freshman orientation could appear in advertising that you may run down the road in 2020? rep. emmer: max rose, he is making sure he is a one term congressman based on his behavior, solely based on his own behavior. if you want to run pictures of him with other people, there is a certain level of professionalism, there is a certain level of dignity, that i believe a member of congress should exhibit. are we overly critical someone -- overly critical because someone has a human moment? no. repeatedly act like less than a mature professional, the public needs to know. if you need to go onto a public hey, and type things like, leader mcconnell, we didn't pass hr1 for shits and giggles, or if you think you can use words like 'er, and that is what they public is going to respond to -- what the public is going to respond to, we will make sure that is the class that is you are exhibiting. if that's your undisciplined behavior, how are you governing? and by the wake y, -- and by the way, that is where it is related. you have done nothing since the session began, nothing. you came here with big, high hopes that we are socialists, we're here to change the country, and you have accomplished nothing. you passed hr1, this supposed transparency bill, but what does it actually do? it uses taxpayer dollars to fund their campaign, and by the way , you might want to poll that and see how a place in different -- how it plays in different districts because more than 70% of the people are very upset when they find out that is what that bill did. linda: when you talk about dignity, what about the strategy of using, calling democrats deranged? we all got this string of e-mails describing members as deranged. is that really, that trump style language, is that the way to go? rep. emmer: well, you are calling it trump stuff. what we are trying to do at the rcc -- that's an organization, by the way. that's not a member. that's an organization whose job clear to the american public this is who we have in the office. and by the way, as we transition into the election year we will continue to define who they are very clearly, and we will start to advance what i would call the value proposition, the american voter. this is why it makes more sense to vote for a republican candidate for house than your existing democrat candidate. the other problem we have is getting some of the stories written, and so we are going to be aggressive. we are going to back off on that. it's a lot like when i used to coach. you know, before you go out in the ring, you tell these kids because they are all ready to go, you tell them, look, let's go through one more time. number one guy is on the puck. number two supports that guy. number three is up high to make sure you keep them from getting out of the zone. when this game is over, you go through all the other stuff, you look at these kids and tell them flat out, just make sure of one thing. regardless of the outcome of the game, you know you left nothing out on the field. our group will leave nothing out on the field. linda: phil carruthers from france 24 television. >> thank you very much. two quick things. first of all, you said you don't like a false directive, but you also said there is rampant anti-semitism in the democratic party. that is patently untrue. are you going to stick with those kinds of statements throughout the election that can be proved to be false? rep. emmer: you just misstated what i said. >> you said there is rampant anti-semitism in the democrat party. rep. emmer: you misstated what i said. i will say it again. if you are not willing to stand up and refute anti-semitism, you own it. i didn't say the word you used. that's your word. >> you said rampant anti-semitism. rep. emmer: well, rampant anti-semitism based on the behavior of a handful of people, absolutely. >> i will ask you this. the president obviously is guilty of lying thousands of times, as has been proven. do you agree with that? -- do you agree with that, first of all? rep. emmer: i'm not going to get into that discussion. >> those lies, if they work well with the electorate, are you going to encourage members to repeat those lies if they can help them win an election, or would you tell candidates that they should not lie on the campaign trail? rep. emmer: if you have a productive question -- i don't understand the combativeness of your attitude. >> are the things you would encourage your members to say, even if they are completely untrue? rep. emmer: our members, again, i will say what i told you already. we will not compromise our integrity, and we will always be honest. you may not appreciate us, and i understand that because we are going to be brutally honest. the things that some people choose not to send out, we are going to make sure people know about it. and that might make people -- i apologize -- it might make people like you uncomfortable, or you might want to make this a wedge, but that's not what we are doing. we are trying to make sure we do our job on behalf of what our mission is, which is to win back the majority. people have to have a clear and distinct choice. i don't know what you do, but perhaps you could start pointing out these people who ran as pro-life candidates, protecting the second amendment, the people who ran because we are not going to vote for pelosi, these people who ran as moderate republicans have behaved as anything but moderate republicans. but i guess it is not a lie if they are doing it. linda: all right, at the end of "washingtonindsay, journal." >> is there a hazard that the d strategyanti-squa and language in some of your own emails could be seen as toxic or racist by voters and that it could backfire and alienate voters? i am thinking of a district like an educated voter .opulation, affluent they flipped from republican to democrat. how does this anti-socialist, anti-squad strategy play in a suburban swing district like that, that has like had a flip that large? rep. emmer: again, lindsay, i think it was her own membership that has attacked that candidate on racial grounds. >> aoc's chief of staff as well. rep. emmer: that is probably the bigger story. our job -- antisocialism, whatever, our job is to make sure that we define what socialism is so people know what the choice is. i don't agree with socialism. i believe in the free markets. i believe our party believes in self-determination, that the rights belong to the individual, and the individual to the extent that it doesn't harm someone else's ability to reach their potential. the individual should have the opportunity to reach his or her full potential based on their own hard work and their ability. i think that's a pretty easy message to sell, and all we're doing is making sure people understand that's the distinction. >> i think there is a concern that this could backfire because that is strong language, you know? there's also going to be a lot more trump rallies where these chants may come up again between now and november. i'm wondering if there's any way that you feel that you could counter any kind of possible backfire, or that you have any way to address it, any concerns about that? rep. emmer: you recruit the best candidates that are available. you make sure that, once the field has been established for the general election, that you provide your general election candidate with the advice and support that they need, and we help them hopefully to localize their races and make sure it is their personal brand that it is -- what i said earlier, that's what we'll do. linda: the reporter from bloomberg at the end of the table. >> on the issue of health care, you talked a lot about socialized medicine. i am curious if you believe the texas lawsuit against the aca could hurt your candidates, if you have a plan to neutralize given how the aca played in 2018? and really quickly, i'm sorry i missed this, but do you consider the "send her back" chant last night to be racist? rep. emmer: i already commented. i didn't think that was acceptable. when it comes to affordable care act, that is one of the reasons i'm in this position because i complained early on that in july of 2017, when our attempt to address the -- it's not even problems with the affordable care act, with the collapsed affordable care act -- i mean, nobody wants to go back and remember that we were down to 2/3, of the it was counties in this country didn't have a choice or were soon to not have a choice when it came to healthcare insurance. that's what we were talking about, the options. that's what we were dealing with , and skyrocketing premiums. you know, i don't -- on my side of this table, i got calls, one that i will never forget. he called me up and left me a voicemail that was heart-wrenching because he was on the other end of the phone saying, you know what? i spent my whole life working for myself, playing by the rules, doing everything i'm supposed to do, and then you people, and he's talking about all politicians, he said you people, you put me in a situation where this year, because i can't afford it, you are making me choose between paying my mortgage and feeding my kids or healthcare insurance. he said, and guess what? i'm going to pay the mortgage and feed my kids. i'm going without health insurance. that's what we were dealing with. i think the republicans did a very poor job of being prepared for the election last fall, when this -- i mean, there was a basis for it, but it was a false narrative that any republican would have eliminated coverage for preexisting conditions. we weren't ready for that. we should have had a communications plan from the date of the election and worked it all the way back to august of 2017 so the public would have been educated that what we were trying to do is restore the state's rights to craft the programs, allow the products that best fit their population, their demographic, in their state. minnesota, before the affordable care act, had 94% to 96% of our citizens covered under some form of health insurance. and by the way, the other 4% to 6%, there was a program available to them, but you just can't force people to take programs. not everyone is going to join that. we also had a pool for people with preexisting conditions, a high risk pool. nobody ever talks about it, but at home, what would happen is, say you have five health insurers, if one of them denied you because, say, i had cancer 10 years ago, and i've recovered, but i applied to blue cross blue shield, they denied me because they didn't want to underwrite that risk. in minnesota, the next company out of the ones that do business in minnesota had to write a policy for me. and by the way, after six months i was 100% covered for everything. i don't know who came up with the six-month waiting period period. i believe if we would have done what we had set out to do, which is maintain the essential benefit package that was required in the aca, maintain that so that every state has to make sure that this minimum level of coverage for access exists, then return it to the state and let the state then say, you know what? we can do that, but we can do it better because i know minnesota would have done it better. minnesota would have said, look, we already had all this stuff. let's take this essential benefit package, let's build off of it. let's improve our preexisting condition, high risk pool. you know, we can find other sources of revenue to support it because this is a small group, and let the healthy population drive down costs, right? if we would have done that, if we would have continued, we wouldn't be in this situation we're in today, but republicans on a campaign level, we never had an answer. we never explained to the american people that there was no republican that would ever advocate for eliminating coverage for preexisting conditions. i just think we did a very poor job of it. and that's, by the way, where i think we need to head, but you've got this new majority where, again, their answer is socialized medicine, something that has failed everywhere it's been tried. why don't you try the socialized medicine in canada? i played hockey with canadians in college. i see my buddy shane at a reunion 10 years ago. shane is a firefighter outside of vancouver, british columbia. i said, are you still playing? he goes, yeah, but i haven't been able to play for the last five months. i said, why? i have a torn meniscus. well, it is arthroscopic surgery, man. he goes yeah, but you know, here, we have to get on a waiting list. if i wanted to go across the border, i would have to pay a whole bunch of money, but i could get it done in 24 hours. i don't have that kind of money. i've got to be here. i tell you what, if you are going to be diagnosed with cancer, get diagnosed with cancer in the united states of america, not canada. you've got better chances. >> was the texas lawsuit a mistake, though? was the texas lawsuit a mistake against aca, that's pending in court? rep. emmer: i don't know that. i haven't gone back and looked through it. which one are you talking about? there is a handful of different ones. >> the one that says because of the individual mandate, penalty was essentially nullified and struck down. rep. emmer: so i'm not going to jump in the middle of what the texas attorney general has done and start grading their performance. linda: we're running out of time. let's squeeze in a couple more. melissa holberg from nbc over here. >> you talk about what you want your candidates to be running against. you talk about what maybe you should have done better in 2018. is there a specific policy agenda that you want your members running on in 2020? rep. emmer: it is interesting. i think the three major issues are going to be the economy, healthcare, and national security. i think those will be your three major issues. each candidate, we will build it out for them, but each candidate is going to have to figure out what works in their districts. we will help them when we get there. we can give them advice. here is the way i do it, melissa. not everybody has to do it my way. you identify what are the most important issues to your -- to the voters that you're trying to reach, right? now, you have to -- it's much like when i used to try cases. i would get a new case in the office. first question i would have to ask myself is, what are the questions that a jury is going to have to answer to resolve this dispute? six questions, eight questions, whatever it is. once i know what the questions are, then i ask myself, when is the trial going to happen? 12 months? 16 months? once i know the answers to those two questions, now i build a case back from the date that i expect the trial to occur, back to where i am. what do i need? how do i do it? it is the same thing in politics, and our candidates will have to identify what are those questions, and then they will have to build their case back to where they are, and it is going to be their ground game as i talked about earlier. retail politics, identifying your voters, reaching them and then motivating them to get out to vote. >> are you at all concerned that the republican minority in the house are now putting forward some of these plans that people will be running on without an actual plan in place? rep. emmer: it is really interesting. we do have proposals in place. we had proposals in place when we were -- when we lost our majority back in november. we didn't need to act on them. i think if we're given the opportunity, we will act on them because i believe donald trump will be re-elected. we will have that opportunity. that will be the key. i mean, it's one thing -- and i have told donors this. you've got two parties that have their problems. i think my grandfather's democrat party, as i have said several times, is in the death throes. it is done. they are going to be the socialist party of america. question for the republicans is this, can you actually govern? and i'm talking about the house now. so the issue is going to be, one, you have to win the election. but then two, if you're going to sustain this thing, you are going to have to govern. and i would go back to the democrats that took the majority and called themselves socialists. they've done nothing, and they didn't run on anything. if you go back, they didn't run on anything. they ran against us, and they did a darn good job of it, and we didn't do a very good job responding. they had great candidates. they had a great message, these people are terrible, and then they had people that were motivated to go out and vote who didn't have the white house. guess what? now they are going to have to answer for what they haven't done. we do have a whole list of things that we can put out when it comes to healthcare, which i have talked about a little here today. those will be fleshed out more. i think at this point, i have to defer to our leader kevin mccarthy. that's his job to develop that with liz cheney and then give us the details that they want us to use, but we're actively involved in it. linda: i have a long list of people who still want to ask questions, but i promised that we would be out of here. we are a little after 9:00, but can we squeeze in one more short question? rep. emmer: uh-huh. linda: lisa hagan from u.s. news. >> mueller will speak for the first time and the members will be on a long recess. do you recommend that incumbents and republican challengers talk about it at all, if they are in a town hall or campaigning, or how do you suggest they navigate talking about mueller when democrats keep trying to bring attention to the report? rep. emmer: i think it is a huge mistake by the democrats. i think $20 million for two years to find literally no collusion and no obstruction, even though that wasn't even the issue they were looking for, and if you read the report, there's no legal term for obstruction in statute. i think it is a big mistake. it is just like the democrats who consistently want to argue about this impeachment thing. if you haven't done it, i would suggest that some of you get out to the middle of the country and find out what middle america thinks, because they are fed up. they're sick and tired of this discussion. the only people that find it interesting are the people here. people out in middle america, it is like, will you guys get over it? you lost the election, so you should stop talking about it. by the way, the ones that won it, he won the election. it is done. the report's out. move on. you know, if you want to change things, then do it in the november 20 election, but stop wasting america's time and get something done. that's the attitude i hear every day when i'm out on the streets. so average people are sick and tired of this discussion. they want to talk about the things that are important to them, and you go into the suburbs now, the economy is the important thing to them. if the economy continues to run the way it's running, we're in a great position, and so is the president. linda: all right, well that brings to us the end of our hour. thank you so much for joining us, and i hope you'll come up in -- come again. rep. emmer: i appreciate it. great, thank you. can i also ask you about -- [inaudible] [indiscernible] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] announcer: c-span's road to the white house coverage continues this morning with minnesota senator and democratic presidential candidate amy klobuchar. she's being interviewed at a "washington post" live event at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. also today, the casket of the late retired justice john paul stevens arrives at the supreme court, where it will lie in repose most of the day. justice stevens died july 16. watch live on c-span2. ♪ >> benjamin ginsberg, author of what washington gets wrong can , you tell us your story that

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Georgia , United Kingdom , North Carolina , Alexandria , Al Iskandariyah , Egypt , Texas , Iran , Alaska , Washington , Vancouver , British Columbia , Canada , Minnesota , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , California , Togo , Syracuse , Tennessee , New Jersey , Iowa , Fairbanks , Pennsylvania , Venezuela , America , British , American , Eric Paulsen , Phil Carruthers , Cameron Joseph , Linda Feldman , Robert Francis , Julie Davis , Al Sharpton , Nancy Pelosi , Liz Cheney , Fred Keller , Benjamin Ginsberg , Greg Murphy , Joan Perry , Joe Cunningham , Lisa Hagan , Mimi Walters , Tom Malinowski , David Wasserman , Marissa Schultz , Chris Collins , Karen Handel , David Lightman , Sam Brody , Hillary Clinton , John Cornyn ,