One of the things that emerged from that was this comment about your primary against Chuck DeVore. You made a remark that you are a better candidate in part because Sen. Boxer has beaten white men before. He’s responded to that, but I’m wondering if you could elaborate what you meant by that.

There are some things that are very similar between Chuck DeVore and I. We share many conservative values. I have a very different set of experiences than Chuck DeVore has. I’m not from the political world. I’m a business person. I’ve traveled around the world. So I just bring a different set of experiences to Washington than he would. And I talked about all of that, but I also made the comment that Barbara Boxer as a candidate has in many ways taken the women’s vote for granted in all of her bids for election or re-election. And as a woman candidate, she will not be able to do that running against me. I think that’s important to an ability to beat her.
 
 
What are the issues, women’s issues maybe in particular, that you think you can make a good contrast with Senator Boxer on?
 
Well for one, let’s talk about the issues of jobs. You know, I think very frankly Barbara Boxer – and in some cases the Democratic Party – has taken the women’s vote for granted because they have assumed that all women are single-issue voters. Women are not all single-issue voters. Women are the majority of voters in this country. And they care about economic issues just as much as men do. Barbara Boxer does not have anything to say about economic issues. I do. And I think even with women who don’t agree with me on social issues, I can talk very compellingly about why, for example, small business ownership is key to unlocking job creation in this state and in the nation. And women-owned businesses are an incredibly important part of the economy and one of the fastest-growing parts of the economy.
 
What about the economic approach of Democrats in Washington and the Obama administration – what might have you done differently 10 months ago when they all took office.
 
Well, everything. And what I mean by that is, look. Let’s start at the top by saying that I would have made job creation the number one priority. The stimulus package had very little to do with job creation. They said it was to create jobs, but it wasn’t. And all you have to do is look at where the money went. The money went to lots of different places besides job creation. You know one of the examples I use, part of our stimulus money went to spaying and neutering pets in Wichita, Kansas. The stimulus bag was in fact a grab bag of big spending programs.
 
But even if you look at where they concentrated it around job creation, it didn’t work. I wouldn’t have spent the stimulus money. I would have focused on job creation as a number one priority, and the only way you create jobs is, A, to create more credit for small businesses and consumers. And B, make sure that you make it easier for small business owners. Which means relieving the tax burden, relieving the regulatory burden. And none of those things has the Obama administration focused on.
 
Can you clarify your view of the bailout measures that were taken not only early in the Obama administration but also late last year under President Bush. What steps do you think were appropriate in terms of helping the financial sector?

Unfortunately I think the bailout failed. I think that’s a bipartisan assessment. If you go back to the original bailout packages that Paulson and Bush put forward, the purpose of those bailouts, according to Paulson, was A, to release credit, and B, to relieve banks of toxic assets. Neither of those things have happened. The banks still have plenty of toxic assets on their balance sheet, and credit has not been loosened. So the bailout was a failure.
 
Before you decided to enter politics yourself, you’ve been active in a number of campaigns in the GOP. Who do you see now as a leader in the party, or leaders plural?

I think it is leaders, plural. I don’t think that it’s necessary to have a single leader right now, and I think we have a lot of folks who are helping craft our message. But I mean, John Thune for example is someone that I think is making a lot of sense. Sarah Palin clearly is a voice in and for the party. I think Mitch McConnell is doing a really good job right now talking about health care, and why the current bill won’t work. I think John McCain speaks effectively for the party. I think Lamar Alexander is speaking effectively for a step-by-step approach. In other words -- and then there are a whole set of new players who are stepping forward.
 
So if you had to make a call to get somebody to come in and campaign with you, anybody on that list would suffice? Or is there somebody you would put at the top of the list there.
 
I wouldn’t put any one person at the top of the list. But, you know, I welcome the help of and will welcome the help of lots of people as this campaign goes forward. But frankly I think what’s most important right now is that people actually get to know me. There is, as your questions indicate, there’s a lot of misrepresentation about who I am and what my views are. And so I think the most important thing is over the next several months is not for others to be campaigning for me, but for me to be campaigning for myself, getting to know the voters of California and making sure they get to know me.
 
As somebody who is fighting a battle with cancer I’m interested in what your reaction is to this uproar over the panel findings on mammograms, whether that should be covered – what’s your reaction to that?
 
I am horrified by that, and I have been very public about this. First of all, the panel did not include an oncologist or a radiologist. So there was no one on that government task force who was actually a specialist on cancer. Secondly, the panel was specifically asked not just to look at the science, but to look at the cost. They were making determinations based on their view of how much it cost to save someone’s life. And third, breast cancer has become one of the most curable cancers there is precisely because there has been so much emphasis on prevention, self-exams, and mammograms included.  
 
In my own personal case, had I followed their recommendations, which are for a woman over 50 to have a mammogram every two years and not to practice self-exams, I might very well not be here and not be alive to campaign. Because I found my own lump two weeks after a clear mammogram, and had I not gotten a new mammogram for two years then I very well might not be here. So I think these recommendations are a little taste of what’s to come under rationed, government-run health care. And I think it will cost women their lives, and I have been out there saying to every woman who will listen – get a mammogram every year, go through your self exams. It can save your life – it saved mine.
 
To what extent to do you expect to self-fund your campaign, and how much are you going to be seeking to raise for this effort?
 
I think this will be a campaign that is financed by the voters and by interested participants. I am not a self-funder.
 
The NRSC said they’re not going to be spending money on some of these primaries. Does that hurt you, as somebody who worked with them or certainly was in touch with them as you thought about a run?

I never expected the NRSC to do anything other than what they usually do, so no it doesn’t hurt. I think this is going to be an expensive race because of the money Barbara Boxer will bring to this campaign. She will bring union funding. She will bring funding from environmentalist groups on the extreme. So we’re going to have to raise a lot of money. I think we can and will do that, both in California and across the nation.
 
There’s certainly a lot of discussion about the internal battles that some see within the party, and you have one of the tough primaries and Senate races next year. What’s the challenge of running in a blue state like California, one of the bluest, but having to navigate one of these primaries as well?
 
Well, time will tell how tough a primary it is. But I think, frankly, the challenge is the same whether we’re talking about the primary or the general. I am a fiscally conservative person who shares the values of Republican primary voters, and we also will talk to Californians of all political varieties about what it actually takes to create jobs, which is their number one concern, and what it actually takes to get federal spending under control, which is their second concern. The reality is, in California, people of all kinds are concerned about their jobs and runaway federal spending. And so that’s what we’re going to talk about. It’s what I talked about day one in this campaign, and it’s what I’ll talk about on the last day of the campaign.
 
To what extent to the particular challenges in California affect your race, even though it’s for a federal office.
 
I actually think that the situation in California has focused people’s attention in California on the importance of job creation and curtailing government spending. California is a test case of what not to do. California is a state that has had ever-increasing size of government, and ever-higher taxes. And the results have been ever-poorer services delivered by government and more jobs leaving the state than are coming to the state. In other words, people can see right in the state of California what happens if you tax and spend. The result isn’t good for the economy it’s not good for the middle class. It’s not good for job creation. It’s not even good for the quality of service that government provides. And if we’re not careful the nation will go the same way.
 
Barbara Boxer is a leader in this climate change issue. I know you’ve been endorsed by Senator Inhofe, who’s seen as on the other end of the spectrum. What role is that issue going to play in California, and what does his endorsement mean.
 
You know, Californians care about protecting their environment. So do I. but they also care about that in the context of a healthy economy. And so if you ask Californians about global warming, they say, yeah, I care. But I care about my job. If you ask the Califorians in the San Joaquin Valley whether they think saving a little fish called the smelt is more important than saving 42,000 jobs, they’re going to say 42,000 jobs matter more than a smelt. I agree with them. And Barbara Boxer is totally out of touch with them.