Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound on
Speaker 1: the United States is not looking for escalation. We simply
Speaker 1: provided her information and context so that she can make
Speaker 1: decisions about her traps. Some people are describing this as
Speaker 1: a culmination of her career. Bloomberg Sound On Politics, Policy
Speaker 1: and Perspective from DC's top name. See we just got
Speaker 1: President Trump's endorsement, and we are honored to have it.
Speaker 1: Who knows you know? We're proving conservative fighters shot or
Speaker 1: intimidation and efforts to suppress her block people is illegal.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi is in Taiwan. China is furious. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: fastest hour in politics, says the speakers. Visit prompts Beijing
Speaker 1: to schedule military drills surrounding the island. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: a new level of tension between the two countries and
Speaker 1: whether this is a turning point with Douglas Luke, former
Speaker 1: US Ambassador to NATO and former White House Deputy National
Speaker 1: Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan. Later this hour. Five
Speaker 1: states voting this primary day will be joined by Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Elections reporter Greg row with some important races to watch
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump stumps Missouri by endorsing Eric even though
Speaker 1: two candidates have that name. Analysis from the panel. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Politics contributor Democratic analyst Jeanie Schanzano is here alongside Doug
Speaker 1: High Today, former communications director for the Republican National Committee.
Speaker 1: It's just after five o'clock in the morning now in Taipei,
Speaker 1: or Speaker Pelosi spent the night after touching down in darkness.
Speaker 1: Still caught a good glimpse though, of Pelosi's welcome on
Speaker 1: the tarmac, even though it was nighttime live video streaming
Speaker 1: from the airport on the terminal. It was remarkable to
Speaker 1: see it. And as soon as you landed, Beijing issued
Speaker 1: a series of scathing comments saying the visit severely impacts
Speaker 1: that's a quote, severely impacts the China US Foundation, and
Speaker 1: then announced military drills that well apparently surround the island
Speaker 1: starting on Thursday with live ammunition. Back here in Washington,
Speaker 1: the White House is still playing it cool. Retired Admiral
Speaker 1: John Kirby here speaking for the National Security Council. Here
Speaker 1: he is. This trip was the Speaker's decision. Congress is
Speaker 1: an independent branch of Government, y'all know that when we're
Speaker 1: obviously monitoring her travel as we always do for members
Speaker 1: of Congress, and we've taken all appropriate measures to ensure
Speaker 1: the safety of her travel throughout the region. We get
Speaker 1: the view of former Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute, now
Speaker 1: with the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He
Speaker 1: was Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan and
Speaker 1: the w Bush administration carrying into the Obama years, former
Speaker 1: Director of Operations for US Central Command. Mr Ambassador, welcome
Speaker 1: back to Bloomberg. Thanks, it's good to be with you.
Speaker 1: It's great to have you here. As we consider the
Speaker 1: long term impacts of this visit. Do you think it
Speaker 1: was a good idea for the Speaker of the House
Speaker 1: to visit Taiwan? Well, I have to question the timing.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure exactly what benefit we're getting from the trip,
Speaker 1: and it comes to the comes to a sensitive time,
Speaker 1: just as the three senior Executive Branch officials have regained
Speaker 1: contact with their Chinese counterparts and begun to discuss the
Speaker 1: ramifications of the war in Ukraine. So it sort of
Speaker 1: sets us back. I think from some momentum that's been
Speaker 1: established in the last several weeks momentum in our relationship
Speaker 1: with China. How do you mean that? Yeah, it's not
Speaker 1: clear that the relationship itself will change, But I'm of
Speaker 1: the view that dialogue, even dialogue with your opponents or
Speaker 1: your challengers, is not a bad thing. Does this save
Speaker 1: the chances of a face to face meeting? I don't
Speaker 1: think it faces it, but it sets it back. I
Speaker 1: don't think the Chinese leaders are in a position right
Speaker 1: now to justify a face to face meeting to their public,
Speaker 1: especially as they moved towards the Party Congress UH in
Speaker 1: the falls, so it'd be difficult I think for them
Speaker 1: to justify it domestically. Some argue that that that twentie
Speaker 1: Party Congress reference and this timing now is actually a
Speaker 1: good reason for Nancy Pelosi to go that this is
Speaker 1: this is the United States finally showing up for Taiwan
Speaker 1: and and not taking UH orders in this case from Beijing.
Speaker 1: If she had canceled this trip, what would we be
Speaker 1: saying then? Well, I think the difficulty here is that
Speaker 1: trip was announced wall and advanced and publicized, right, so
Speaker 1: there were any number of options where Speaker Pelosi could
Speaker 1: have made her point in a more subtle way and
Speaker 1: not sort of generated a Chinese reaction um which was
Speaker 1: inevitable given the very public announcement of the trip. So,
Speaker 1: for example, she could have met with Taiwanese counterparts elsewhere,
Speaker 1: or she could have done a stop and go without
Speaker 1: all the prelude. So I think there are any number
Speaker 1: of ways to handle this that would have perhaps lessened
Speaker 1: the downside. The trip was originally set for April, as
Speaker 1: I'm sure you know, nobody was fussing about this. Then,
Speaker 1: of course she got COVID and had to postpone the trip.
Speaker 1: What if she had just own up in Taiwan then
Speaker 1: and did not have all the weeks of rhetoric as
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, the sort of publicity that came before
Speaker 1: this worst kept secret, even the president saying that the
Speaker 1: military thought it was a bad idea. Would this be
Speaker 1: a completely different scenario. I think so. The less public
Speaker 1: these things until they actually happen, or perhaps even after
Speaker 1: they've happened, the more digestible they are by both sides.
Speaker 1: China will stave stage live AMMO drills starting Thursday, apparently,
Speaker 1: exercises that will surround the island and go through the weekend.
Speaker 1: Uh does this response match the occasion or is this
Speaker 1: completely over the top? Well, I think it's over the top.
Speaker 1: But again, this response is much more in my view,
Speaker 1: about President she addressing his position inside China than it
Speaker 1: is to have some sort of meaningful signal to us.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, they conduct live fire exercises quite frequently. Uh,
Speaker 1: and and and I don't think that's especially threatening if
Speaker 1: there is an element of risk here, though it is.
Speaker 1: We are also operating in the area now not includes
Speaker 1: proximity to the Chinese forces. But any time you get
Speaker 1: too sophisticated, large um military sort of in close proximity,
Speaker 1: there's always the chance of an accident or a miscalculation,
Speaker 1: and of course we want to avoid that at all costs.
Speaker 1: We've actually seen it before, and it wasn't that long ago,
Speaker 1: right when a Chinese fighter plane apparently clipped the wing
Speaker 1: of a Navy reconnaissance plane I think it was a
Speaker 1: P three. The the Chinese fighter went down, the pilot
Speaker 1: was lost, and uh, our our sailors and airmen on
Speaker 1: that on that airplane ended up in custody for some time.
Speaker 1: These little mistakes can go a long way, I think
Speaker 1: can set back progress that should be at least able
Speaker 1: to be discussed between the two leaders. So that's the
Speaker 1: sort of risk here, and what we have to do
Speaker 1: is compare that risk, which we're incurring now against the
Speaker 1: benefit of the trip. And it's not clear to me
Speaker 1: exactly what the benefit is. So, Ambassador, is this a
Speaker 1: turning point in US China relations? Are we were rethinking
Speaker 1: the One China policy? Or is this just another chapter
Speaker 1: in a troubled relationship. No, it's I don't think it's
Speaker 1: a turning point. I mean, I think the President has
Speaker 1: been quite clear. Last week. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan
Speaker 1: was very clear that we stand by our longstanding policy
Speaker 1: One China UH and and and yet we reserve the
Speaker 1: right to continue to support Taiwan's defensive capabilities. So I
Speaker 1: don't think it's a turning point. Ambassador. You were the
Speaker 1: White House Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan
Speaker 1: the George W. Bush administration. You carried on the Obama
Speaker 1: administration in a slightly different role. But talk to us
Speaker 1: about the significance of this announcement last night from the President,
Speaker 1: of the significance of ZA how are you killing knowing
Speaker 1: that the country as well as you do. Do you
Speaker 1: believe the Taliban is in fact harboring terrorists? Is that
Speaker 1: a breach of our withdrawal deal? Yes, in both cases
Speaker 1: it is they are harboring. I think that's quite clear.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have the clearest possible evidence now, having
Speaker 1: found Zawari in downtown Cobble, apparently, at least according to
Speaker 1: two reports, in the house owned by a senior Taliban affiliate. UH.
Speaker 1: And it's it's quite clear to me that someone of
Speaker 1: Zawahi's prominence wouldn't be in Cobbal at all without the
Speaker 1: Taliban officials knowing about it. So they're clearly in breach
Speaker 1: of that uh that provision of the February agreement. Did
Speaker 1: the administration prove the effectiveness of over the horizon mission
Speaker 1: capability or is that being overdone in the conversation today.
Speaker 1: I think, at least in this case, in this specific
Speaker 1: set of circumstances, they did prove the over the horizon capability, which,
Speaker 1: of course, you know a year ago many were doubting
Speaker 1: that we could actually do this. So this is a
Speaker 1: significant step forward both in terms of our intelligence over
Speaker 1: the horizon, finding Zawari and putting him in a place
Speaker 1: and time where we could strike him, but also the
Speaker 1: capability to strike that with precision. So I think this
Speaker 1: is a significant advance. What does it tell you when
Speaker 1: you you knew this guy has been around for a
Speaker 1: long time and he's been running or was running al
Speaker 1: Qaeda for the better part of a decade. The significance
Speaker 1: of the imagery of Zawahiri hanging out on the patio
Speaker 1: or on the balcony. I guess you'd like to go
Speaker 1: out there every day. We've been watching him for weeks.
Speaker 1: The idea of of seeing this safe house presented to
Speaker 1: the President of the United States. I guess the intelligence
Speaker 1: community made it into a model. Maybe that's something that
Speaker 1: you used to be involved in. But clearly living with
Speaker 1: no fear in the middle of the capital, you know,
Speaker 1: he was an open public view with his family in
Speaker 1: the city of over five million people um controlled by
Speaker 1: the Taliban, So I mean, I think it's quite clear
Speaker 1: that he was comfortable there. Um. I think what's really
Speaker 1: important here, however, is to put the responsibility back on
Speaker 1: the Taliban, who did sign an agreement, an agreement, by
Speaker 1: the way, which we abided by with regard to our
Speaker 1: full withdrawal last year right, and which now they have
Speaker 1: proven they have not abided by the counter terrorism provisions
Speaker 1: of this UH, and they've also not UM, they've not
Speaker 1: abided by their agreement that they would UH support an
Speaker 1: inclusive government not inclusive UM, and that that all Afghans
Speaker 1: would benefit from the same sense of human rights and
Speaker 1: so forth. How do you manage any of that when
Speaker 1: you're gone? I mean we we Withdrew, who do we
Speaker 1: deal with or do we just walk away? Well, I
Speaker 1: don't think we can completely walk away because we still
Speaker 1: have responsibilities there first and foremost a counter terrorism responsibility,
Speaker 1: which is just demonstrated, right, I mean we have that's
Speaker 1: in our own interests. But you know, Afghanistan is now
Speaker 1: a failed state attempted to be ruled by the Taliban.
Speaker 1: But the Taliban are finding that their ability to resist
Speaker 1: the previous Afghan governments to be an insurgency, that that
Speaker 1: is much easier than actually governing. And they've got significant
Speaker 1: problems now trying to run a failed state, a failed
Speaker 1: state that's suffering and poverty, drought, so there's a food
Speaker 1: crisis and they're largely unvaccinated against COVID, so it's it's
Speaker 1: a real crisis where do you think the intelligence came
Speaker 1: from on his whereabouts? Do we have people who are
Speaker 1: are providing information who are on the ground. Was this
Speaker 1: the million dollar bounty working for us? You know, we've
Speaker 1: had multimillion dollar bounties on terrorist leaders across the years.
Speaker 1: Frankly they haven't often paid off. But I suppose, and
Speaker 1: I have no inside knowledge on this, but based on experience,
Speaker 1: I suppose this was a combination of different forms of intelligence.
Speaker 1: I do suspect that there were human intelligence assets, sources,
Speaker 1: if you will, on the ground. I suspect that we
Speaker 1: probably had some element of signals intelligence, so intercepted communications,
Speaker 1: maybe not from Zawahie himself, perhaps family members for still
Speaker 1: its right. And then I think all of that was
Speaker 1: was tied to image intelligence, so either SAD light based
Speaker 1: intelligence or unmanned aerial vehicles. And it's the composite of
Speaker 1: all that info that that draws the conclusion get together,
Speaker 1: that's right, and that's what takes weeks. First of all,
Speaker 1: to arrive at the time and the place that you
Speaker 1: can reliably count on him to be, and then to
Speaker 1: strike with precision, walking us through a dangerous world. Ambassador
Speaker 1: Douglas Looke, we thank you for being with us again
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg. Thanks for the insights today at all. We'll
Speaker 1: assemble the panel next as Nancy Pelosi sleeps. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. Sound on on Bloomberg Radio. Nancy Pelosi today,
Speaker 1: at least Taiwan time today, will meet with the President
Speaker 1: of Taiwan President's side with a joint press briefing to follow,
Speaker 1: remembering that just the news of her landing hours ago
Speaker 1: sent Beijing on a tear announcing missile test military drills
Speaker 1: that will encircle the island starting later on this week.
Speaker 1: The image dree ought to be something, if only for
Speaker 1: the domestic audience. President, she is trying to impress. Let's
Speaker 1: assemble our panel. Jennie Schanzana was with us Bloomberg Politics
Speaker 1: contributor and Democratic analysts, joined today by Doug Highes, Back,
Speaker 1: Republican strategist, former r n C communications director, former deputy
Speaker 1: chief of staff to Erik Canter. Alright, Jennie, she's there.
Speaker 1: Last time we spoke, it was believed that she would
Speaker 1: be there, but she actually touched down. Things went smoothly.
Speaker 1: It was in the in the dark of night, which
Speaker 1: I understand was by design, but we still saw her
Speaker 1: pink suit a warm greeting on the tarmac. Now that
Speaker 1: you've seen it, was this a smart move? You know,
Speaker 1: I love the pink suit. Um, you know that is
Speaker 1: pure Nancy Pelosi. She doesn't go quietly. But you know,
Speaker 1: I think there is a question to be asked, and
Speaker 1: and you know she has a right to go, yes,
Speaker 1: But the question is doesn't make sense for her to go?
Speaker 1: And you know we've all been talking about Tom Friedman's
Speaker 1: editorial in the New York Times Day calling it utterly reckless.
Speaker 1: And you know, the real question in my mind is
Speaker 1: what's the upside? What's the point? You know, when you
Speaker 1: look at this from a long term perspective, does it
Speaker 1: serve the United States interests? Or does it just serve
Speaker 1: her short term domestic interests. So I think there's a
Speaker 1: lot of questions here, and I'm really on the fence.
Speaker 1: I know there's a view that she had to go
Speaker 1: once it was announced. I'm not so sure it's in
Speaker 1: the bench best interest of the United States at this point.
Speaker 1: How you just heard from Jeannie Chanzano, listen to Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: and I'm starting to think that Nancy Pelosi just just
Speaker 1: struck the most bipartisan chord she could have found. Here's
Speaker 1: the minority leader in the Senate earlier today. I think
Speaker 1: it's important that the Speaker did go to Taiwan. I
Speaker 1: don't think the Chinese uh tell members of Congress where
Speaker 1: they can go. He signed a letter with twenty five
Speaker 1: Republican senators supporting the trip, Doug. This is this is
Speaker 1: a brand new day when Nancy Pelosi's stock is rising
Speaker 1: with Republican leadership. Do they mean this or are they
Speaker 1: kind of goading her on? They do? And I'll tell
Speaker 1: you you know, in two thousand ten, Joe, when I
Speaker 1: was at the Republican National Committee, I was part of
Speaker 1: what was called the Fire Pelosi campaign. And right now
Speaker 1: I'm drinking from my red fire Pelosi cup, but I'm
Speaker 1: also raising the cup to her. You know. One of
Speaker 1: the things that Republicans are very mindful of when it
Speaker 1: comes to Nancy Pelosi, once you get away from the
Speaker 1: political jargon and so forth, is that she's Nancy Dallassandro,
Speaker 1: a street fighter from from Baltimore, and she does not
Speaker 1: back down. And Republicans, you know, quite often hate her
Speaker 1: so much because she's so effective, and when it was
Speaker 1: clear that once it was leaked that this may happen,
Speaker 1: it was very clear that she was never going to
Speaker 1: back down. I think it's smart to be there, though
Speaker 1: I guess those are two different questions. Well, they are
Speaker 1: different questions, and and I think we can ask about
Speaker 1: what this strategy behind it was um but clearly she
Speaker 1: was not going to back down. And she's mindful of
Speaker 1: the fact that, you know, while so much of our
Speaker 1: focus is on Ukraine, what happened in Ukraine very easily
Speaker 1: could have or could happen in Taiwan. And she definitely
Speaker 1: wanted to send a message that the United States stands
Speaker 1: with Taiwan. If you think about it the other way,
Speaker 1: g D If Taiwan is off limits to the speaker,
Speaker 1: if that's the new rule here, Speaker of the House
Speaker 1: in the United States not allowed to go to Taipei,
Speaker 1: Don't we have bigger issues to address? Is it not
Speaker 1: time to take another look at the One China policy?
Speaker 1: Or is that just kicking the hornet's nest. We do
Speaker 1: have a bigger issues to address, and I don't think
Speaker 1: the fact is she's not allowed to go. Clearly she
Speaker 1: has a right to go. I think the question is
Speaker 1: about US foreign policy. We need to take a long
Speaker 1: term view the way China does, and you know, we
Speaker 1: need to understand the sensitivity to the issue of Taiwan.
Speaker 1: And is this sort of you know, raising the level
Speaker 1: of humiliation that they feel they suffered in the late
Speaker 1: nineteenth century into the early twentieth century visa VI Taiwan.
Speaker 1: Does it make sense then for her to go at
Speaker 1: this point, and you know you mentioned Ukraine, Well what
Speaker 1: about if China turns around and starts supporting Russia and Ukraine?
Speaker 1: We can't as as Freedman was saying, fight on both fronts.
Speaker 1: So you know, US foreign policy, you know, and she's
Speaker 1: not obviously in charge of it, and she has every
Speaker 1: right to go and grant her that But doesn't make sense,
Speaker 1: I think is a real big question. And I'm not
Speaker 1: so sure it does. And she's not just a congress person,
Speaker 1: she's Speaker of the House, she's third in line to
Speaker 1: the presidency. Doug, you're a communication specialist. This didn't have
Speaker 1: to be quite as intense as it has been. It
Speaker 1: strikes me if we hadn't heard from the President himself
Speaker 1: that the Pentagon didn't want to see this, If the
Speaker 1: the leaking hadn't happened weeks in advance. Could this have
Speaker 1: been contained a little bit more effectively. Yes. Look, certainly,
Speaker 1: one of the challenges in Washington is what we focus
Speaker 1: so much on the partisan issues. There are very real
Speaker 1: differences between the House and Senate and Congress and the administration.
Speaker 1: This is one of these. They have different priorities. The
Speaker 1: fact that we heard that the President speak on this
Speaker 1: was certainly surprising, and that up to the level of
Speaker 1: the US you know, significantly. And you know, one of
Speaker 1: the reasons that Pelosi now is being applauded by some
Speaker 1: Republicans and obviously that will be short term applause, is
Speaker 1: that it became clear to McConnell, to Kevin McCarthy and
Speaker 1: other Republicans that backing down to China would essentially send
Speaker 1: China the message that they can get away with whatever
Speaker 1: they want to. And you know, as we see what's
Speaker 1: going on in Hong Kong just over the past few years,
Speaker 1: China's betting that they can do whatever they want and
Speaker 1: flex whatever muscles they wants. That's why Pelosi made such
Speaker 1: I think an important statement, and when she landed, her
Speaker 1: plane was greeted but with applause, um, and and that
Speaker 1: was certainly a message that was being sent to the
Speaker 1: people of Taiwan. And tell you that joint news conference
Speaker 1: tomorrow is going to be a delicate dance and we'll
Speaker 1: talk more about all of it with Jeanie Schanzano and
Speaker 1: Doug High are sound on panel today the fastest hour
Speaker 1: in politics, as we round the bends and turned to
Speaker 1: primary day next with Greg Darrow. This is Bloomberg. Congressman
Speaker 1: Peter Meyer had only been in the US House for
Speaker 1: a couple of days when the Republican from Michigan voted
Speaker 1: to impeach Donald Trump, who since vowed retribution. We've heard
Speaker 1: this story before, choosing to endorse John Gibbs in today's
Speaker 1: primary to defeat Congressman Meyer first term or Donald Trump
Speaker 1: really does not like Peter Meyer. He doesn't even like
Speaker 1: his name, as we learned at a recent rally. Listen,
Speaker 1: one of the ten impeachers a guy who spells his
Speaker 1: name Emmy I j e Er, but they pronounced it Meyer.
Speaker 1: The hell kind of a spelling is that Meyer? Meiser,
Speaker 1: It's Meser, but it's actually pronounced Meyer. I said, how
Speaker 1: the hell do you pronounce this guy's name, nobody knows
Speaker 1: if he's done nothing in Washington. I said, how do
Speaker 1: you pronounce his name? Is it major Meijer? They said,
Speaker 1: it's Meyer. How the hell do you get Meyer out
Speaker 1: of it? Well, it's Meyer, and I don't know. Maybe
Speaker 1: he helped with the name recognition there. That's back in
Speaker 1: in April at a Save America rally in Washington Township,
Speaker 1: the former President of the United States guessing maybe the
Speaker 1: first time he read it he didn't realize it was Meyer.
Speaker 1: But again, you heard the president. One of ten Republicans
Speaker 1: who voted to impeach, Three of them are facing primaries today.
Speaker 1: And that's where we begin with Bloomberg Elections Reporter Greg Darrow.
Speaker 1: It's a big one, Greg. We actually have what five
Speaker 1: states in play here as far as this race goes. Though,
Speaker 1: Peter Meyer, who's who's gotten a fair amount of media attention.
Speaker 1: How much trouble is he in? He's in trouble? Um
Speaker 1: about that Donald Trump rally, though, it's kind of a
Speaker 1: curious strategy to make fun of a duck surname in
Speaker 1: western Michigan. But that was very odd to hear Trump
Speaker 1: do that. But a war veteran, we'll see we'll see
Speaker 1: what the voters have to say later today. In Michigan's
Speaker 1: third district, which includes the Grand Rapids area that Jerry
Speaker 1: Ford used to represent, UH, Meyer's in a tough spot.
Speaker 1: He has that Trump endorsed challenger John Gibbs, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: and what's uh, He's also getting opposition from the Democratic
Speaker 1: Congressional Campaign COMMNTEE, which has decided to spend money on
Speaker 1: TV ads boosting Gibbs because the Democrats think that after redistricting,
Speaker 1: the district now leans a little bit Democratic and that
Speaker 1: Gibbs would be an easier candidate to defeat than Meyer.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a few instances of that, I realize
Speaker 1: in this conversation. Other than Meyer, as you point out
Speaker 1: in your column on the terminal, UH, You've got Jamie
Speaker 1: Butler in UH and Dan new House, both in Washington State.
Speaker 1: Those are the other two Republicans voted to impeach Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Are they in the same situation? I don't think there
Speaker 1: isn't as perilous a situation as Meyer. Tough races and
Speaker 1: only the voters will only will know from the voters
Speaker 1: later today, and it takes some time to count the
Speaker 1: ballots and Washington State. They have a very drawn out process,
Speaker 1: so it may take some time to know the verdict.
Speaker 1: The other difference is that Washington State uses what's known
Speaker 1: as a top two primary, under which all candidates of
Speaker 1: all parties run on one ballot and the top two
Speaker 1: advance of the general election. So two Republicans could advance
Speaker 1: and that could give a little bit of a boost
Speaker 1: to um Jamie Horrera Butler in the third district and
Speaker 1: Dan new House in the fourth district. So not quite
Speaker 1: the straits that Mr Meyer is in, right, Yeah, Meyer
Speaker 1: has a straight up you know what they call a
Speaker 1: closed Republican primary against John Gibbs. That's a little bit
Speaker 1: different than the Washington races some of the other races
Speaker 1: to watch. It's hard to ignore what's happening in Arizona,
Speaker 1: and you've got Trump effect there as well. In fact,
Speaker 1: it's a Trump Pence proxy in the gubernatorial race here
Speaker 1: with Karen Taylor Robson endorsed by Doocey the the the
Speaker 1: the governor now Doug Doozy, along with Mike Pence carry Lake,
Speaker 1: a former television news anchor endorsed by Donald Trump. This
Speaker 1: is actually a pretty close one. It really is it
Speaker 1: looked like Lake was a you know, a clear front
Speaker 1: runner for most that but it looks like Karen Taylor Robson.
Speaker 1: Robson has really cut into the lead and it's probably
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know if i'd want to call
Speaker 1: or predicted race today should be pretty close, but it
Speaker 1: is one of those one of many races where Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has a cast his lot in with the preferred candidate.
Speaker 1: Not only the governor's race, but you go down about
Speaker 1: the secretary of State's race, which is open because the
Speaker 1: Democratic secretary state is running for governor attorney general's race.
Speaker 1: So Arizona is definitely a state to watch. Then I'm
Speaker 1: glad you mentioned both of those because they might not
Speaker 1: get as much attention, not being you know, national, uh
Speaker 1: type races, but they're very important as Donald Trump tries
Speaker 1: to plant seeds with election deniers. Right, if either of
Speaker 1: them won those primaries and won those races, you could
Speaker 1: have election deniers essentially running the election and one of
Speaker 1: the most important battleground states in the country. Yes, and
Speaker 1: those down don't bound down ballot races, excuse me, deserve
Speaker 1: a lot more attention than they're getting. The Secretary of
Speaker 1: States primary for example, Trump is backing Mark Fincherman state
Speaker 1: representative who's advanced Trump's bogus claims of widespread voter fraud.
Speaker 1: He has a candidate in the attorney general's race, and
Speaker 1: the incumbent attorney General, Mark Bernovitch, is a came under
Speaker 1: fire from Trump. He's running for the U. S. Senate,
Speaker 1: and Trump didn't endorse him because he felt that Bernovitch
Speaker 1: didn't agree with his false claims about widespread fraud. So
Speaker 1: he did endorse Blake Masters in that race. As I
Speaker 1: see he's leading by gosh, almost twenty points. Is that
Speaker 1: is that a done deal for Masters and Trump? It
Speaker 1: looks like Blake Matches is going to win the nomination.
Speaker 1: Polling has has shown him with a consistent double digit lead,
Speaker 1: and I think the Trump endorsement will help there as
Speaker 1: will you know at least fifteen million dollars that was
Speaker 1: donated to a pro Master superpack by Peter Thield, the
Speaker 1: technology billionaires backing his protege in that election. I need
Speaker 1: to bounce around too much, but we do have a
Speaker 1: number of states in play, and I have to ask
Speaker 1: you about the erics. I mean, what a bizarre story
Speaker 1: we're talking about here. Eric Brighten's the former governor of Missouri,
Speaker 1: Eric Schmidt, the former attorney general, both running to replace
Speaker 1: Senator Roy Blunt. There has been a great effort, as
Speaker 1: you see in a lot of these races, to get
Speaker 1: the backing of Donald Trump. And so he says last night,
Speaker 1: after advertising it on social media, I endorse Eric with
Speaker 1: no last name, and so they both ran to take
Speaker 1: credit for it. Greg, how does that end? Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: one of the more bizarre endings of a U. S.
Speaker 1: Senate Republican primary I've seen in sometimes Donald Trump's fooling around. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not, you know, he's Donald Trump is someone who
Speaker 1: likes to boost his win loss record in endorsements in primaries,
Speaker 1: and I think, you know, endorsing Eric Gryden's even though
Speaker 1: Gryden's has been running a full throated you know, pro Maga,
Speaker 1: you know, anti Mitch McConnell campaigned very much alliance with
Speaker 1: Trump's views. Um, you know, I don't still be a
Speaker 1: risky endorsement for Trump to take, and he doesn't like
Speaker 1: losing on endorsements. Well, I guess that's one way to
Speaker 1: do it. Just give them one name. Greg, Happy primary day,
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us. As always, will throw this
Speaker 1: to the panel. Next the Battle of the Erics on
Speaker 1: the fastest hour in politics. This is Bloomberg. This is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg sound on on Bloomberg Radio. It's from the KOFEFI playbook.
Speaker 1: I can only assume or was that kofif I never
Speaker 1: quite got it right? From the former president endorsing Eric
Speaker 1: without a last name, even though there are two Eric's
Speaker 1: running in the Republican primary in Missouri, and you're gonna
Speaker 1: recognize at least one of them before we pull the
Speaker 1: panel into this. Eric Brighten's the former governor, and he
Speaker 1: actually he left as governor. He stepped down and was
Speaker 1: facing all kinds of allegations, including domestic abuse, which his challenger,
Speaker 1: Eric Schmidt, has been glad to remind people of. Eric
Speaker 1: Schmidt is the attorney General. But Gryten's and Schmidt seized opportunity.
Speaker 1: They saw the statement, Eric says he endorsed Eric. Well,
Speaker 1: that's me, and of course they both jumped for the ball.
Speaker 1: Here's Eric Graighten's the former governor. In a social media
Speaker 1: post immediately after team we just got President Trump's endorsement
Speaker 1: and we are honored to have it. He was very
Speaker 1: clear that he wants a maggot champion. That's what I am.
Speaker 1: My opponent, Eric Schmidt, He's a rhino. President Trump was
Speaker 1: clear he wants a warrior. I'm a Navy seal, Eric
Speaker 1: Schmidt's career politician. Is it coming back to you? Navy
Speaker 1: seal rhino rhino hunting. Remember the ad Eric Riten's kicked out,
Speaker 1: the ad that was really made for, you know more
Speaker 1: to get people like me talking about it. The name.
Speaker 1: He was walking down the street with a with an
Speaker 1: assault style weapon and comes upon a house where apparently
Speaker 1: rhinos live. Listen, remember this, I'm Eric Brighten's Navy seal
Speaker 1: and today we're going to rhino hunting. That's the rhino
Speaker 1: corruption and is marked by the stripes of Cowardice Wild
Speaker 1: World of Animals. So they blow their way into this house.
Speaker 1: There's smoke Bob's guy's bearing armor and action movie music.
Speaker 1: That guy Eric Righten's who again said, you know, Eric Schmidt,
Speaker 1: he's no warrior. This is the Attorney General and so
Speaker 1: did to to keep up with well the Griten's Eric
Speaker 1: Schmidt puts up an ad of him holding a blowtorch
Speaker 1: and lighting it on camera. Listen, I'm Eric Schmidt, and
Speaker 1: I think Joe Biden is a total disaster. That's why
Speaker 1: I'm taking my blowtorch to a socialist agenda. It's just
Speaker 1: massive flamey standing in a very manly looking workshop, and
Speaker 1: I start thinking, boy, I really should have gone into
Speaker 1: the political ad business because it's too fun. Ask Doug
Speaker 1: High as we reassemble our panel. Doug High as with
Speaker 1: us former comms director at r N c UH Republican strategist,
Speaker 1: and Jeannie Schanzano Bloomberg Politics contributor, Democratic analyst. What's going
Speaker 1: on here, dougus? Is Donald Trump playing a plactical a
Speaker 1: practical joke? Is this cofefy Part two? Oh? Absolutely, Look,
Speaker 1: he likes getting attention, and what better way to do
Speaker 1: it than to have a weird endorsement that gets people talking.
Speaker 1: But I've actually I was actually in Missouri the week
Speaker 1: before last in Kansas City and Lake of the Ozarks,
Speaker 1: and it's interesting, especially in Lake of the Ozarks that
Speaker 1: is still Trump country. You still see a lot of
Speaker 1: Trump flags, some frags flags about a guy named Brandon
Speaker 1: as well, and talking to voters there, it seemed very
Speaker 1: clear from what we also see in the polling that
Speaker 1: this was really a race between Eric Schmidt and Vicky
Speaker 1: Hartchler with Eric Wrighton's fading. And you know this, this
Speaker 1: may becomes too little, too late, even if it is
Speaker 1: a real endorsement or not um for Grighten's. But what
Speaker 1: I heard so often from voters in um in Lake
Speaker 1: of the Ozarks was that they just weren't Brighton fans
Speaker 1: because of all the personal baggage that he has gets
Speaker 1: into some kind of nasty stuff. I remember one lady
Speaker 1: told me when I asked about right, and she said,
Speaker 1: he's a real sick. Oh. So that's language you don't
Speaker 1: always hear every day. Tells you a lot about this.
Speaker 1: And indeed, I'm glad you mentioned Vicky Hartzler here. Uh,
Speaker 1: if this is what it's come to with a Trump endorsement,
Speaker 1: we're actually not sure which candidate he's chosen A genie.
Speaker 1: How do he engage the impact? Yeah, and it's nice
Speaker 1: to hear what Doug is talking about that the people
Speaker 1: are on the side of the Republican Party, who's definitely
Speaker 1: afraid that if they get an endorsement, or if Eric
Speaker 1: Rayton's does win this primary seems unlikely at this point,
Speaker 1: but he could that they will be spending a lot
Speaker 1: of time with this seat and trying to get this seat,
Speaker 1: hold the seat that they should be able to hold,
Speaker 1: and look out elsewhere. So this is a real problem
Speaker 1: for them. But I think that my favorite part of
Speaker 1: this story is the fact that when the idea of
Speaker 1: this dual endorsement of Eric, which he puts in all caps,
Speaker 1: came up, President Trump Report Lee Alex Eisenstadt has a
Speaker 1: great piece on this, reportedly asked if it was spelled
Speaker 1: the same, which is a good question, because you can
Speaker 1: spell Eric with a K, you can spell it c H.
Speaker 1: He said, it's not going to work unless the names
Speaker 1: are spelled the same, and good thing for Trump, they're
Speaker 1: spelled the same, and so he was able to proceed
Speaker 1: with this, and they were very happy about that. It's
Speaker 1: apparently he also called both of these candidates. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's just playing with them. Yeah. Absolutely, Again, this is
Speaker 1: all about Trump being Trump, getting attention, having fun, you know,
Speaker 1: getting in on the joke himself and and so forth.
Speaker 1: It's not anything serious about this race or other races.
Speaker 1: But one thing I should add, and sort of the
Speaker 1: genie's point is, you know, Republicans in Washington are very
Speaker 1: mindful that this looks that it could be a good
Speaker 1: year for Republicans, but they've got challenging can candidates out
Speaker 1: there who could cost them seats. And in Missouri, you know,
Speaker 1: the feeling at the Republican Senatorial Committee is if it's
Speaker 1: Vicky Hartzler, the race is over. If it's Eric Schmidt,
Speaker 1: the race is over. If it's Eric Rayton's it's a
Speaker 1: real race about that. Uh boy, I need to get
Speaker 1: both of your takes on the three Republicans who voted
Speaker 1: for impeachment. As we discussed with Greg Darrow, this is
Speaker 1: not looking good for Peter Meyer in Michigan. By the way,
Speaker 1: remember that you heard Donald Trump. You couldn't believe that's
Speaker 1: how you pronounced his name. I don't know if you
Speaker 1: heard Greg mentioned, but that that is if you're not
Speaker 1: from that part of the country. The Meyer superstore chain
Speaker 1: is his family. Everyone knows how to pronounced that name.
Speaker 1: But I digress. You've got two others in Washington State here,
Speaker 1: as Greg wrote about Dan new House, Jamie Herrera, Butler, uh, Jeanie.
Speaker 1: This is probably not going to be a clean sweep
Speaker 1: for Trump, but looks like he picks off another He
Speaker 1: may pick off another and I think what we're starting
Speaker 1: to see is that you can win even if you
Speaker 1: didn't support the big lie. And didn't and I voted
Speaker 1: to impeach or voted to impeach Trump, but you're probably
Speaker 1: going to have to do it the way we've seen,
Speaker 1: you know, the governor of Georgia do it um you know,
Speaker 1: which is that you've got to and and the governor
Speaker 1: of Virginia, quite frankly, is that you've got to not
Speaker 1: take him on. You've got to sort of go around
Speaker 1: him if you will. And some of these candidates have
Speaker 1: done that and some of them have not. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think Peter Mayer is fascinating because there's an add
Speaker 1: out in Michigan where he is saying that with the
Speaker 1: Triple C and you know, pushing Gibbs, he is now
Speaker 1: pushing that back on Nancy Pelosi. So while she's talking
Speaker 1: about democracy in Taiwan, he is saying that this is,
Speaker 1: you know, the height of sort of hypocrisy, and she's
Speaker 1: pushing this guy who believes in the big Lie. So
Speaker 1: this has been a continuing sort of controversy as we've
Speaker 1: talked about on the Democratic side, should they be pushing
Speaker 1: these big lie candidates. Good thing. This isn't confusing for anyone.
Speaker 1: We've seen a couple of different results here at David
Speaker 1: Valladio in California kept his job, Tom Rice in South
Speaker 1: Carolina not so much. How how does this cut or
Speaker 1: or we just you know, back to going district by
Speaker 1: disc trick different feelings about Trump and their own incumbent. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean that's that's exactly where it stands now. Part
Speaker 1: of this also is happening, you know, in in the
Speaker 1: atmosphere of redistricting, where members are also running in slightly
Speaker 1: different districts than than they used to, which which presents
Speaker 1: its own challenge. We often see member versus member primaries,
Speaker 1: which has played itself out to where their campaigning to
Speaker 1: be who can be the most Trump like? And what
Speaker 1: we see is that, you know, Donald Trump is still
Speaker 1: the alpha dog to the party. It's a diminished alpha
Speaker 1: dog that was a smaller alpha dog. His endorsement gets
Speaker 1: you the vote, for sure, That's not what gets you
Speaker 1: the other third unless voters feel that basically you're not
Speaker 1: representing them by opposing not all things Donald Trump, but
Speaker 1: one big thing Donald Trump. Well, we'll be talking a
Speaker 1: lot more about results of course, at this time tomorrow.
Speaker 1: The other incumbent on incumbent is a Democratic race we're
Speaker 1: watching in Michigan, Andy Levin Hayley Stevens, who have both
Speaker 1: been on this program multiple times. One of them will
Speaker 1: not continue on in the eleventh aggresitional district newly redrawn
Speaker 1: at suburban Detroit. You might have heard mentioned, were seen
Speaker 1: the headline on the terminal that Nancy Pelosi tomorrow is
Speaker 1: going to t SMC The Washington Post is you will
Speaker 1: meet with the chair of Taiwan Semiconductor to talk about,
Speaker 1: you know, the chip acts of fifty two billion dollars.
Speaker 1: Take a little bit of credit for that. T s
Speaker 1: MC stands to benefit as they open a chip plant
Speaker 1: and expand potentially those plans uh into Arizona. Of course,
Speaker 1: voting on this primary day, Genie, is this getting to
Speaker 1: be a little bit too big of a visible trip
Speaker 1: here or is this the type of itinerary you were expecting.
Speaker 1: She's going to have a joint news conference with the
Speaker 1: President of Taiwan in the morning. I think it's very
Speaker 1: much in keeping with Nancy Pelosi. You know, Doug described
Speaker 1: her as a street fighter. She certainly is. She was
Speaker 1: never gonna go do this quietly. Um, you know it's
Speaker 1: it's and it's going to be a very very sort
Speaker 1: of fraud fort you know, ninety six hours as China
Speaker 1: has to respond to us, and we've seen some of
Speaker 1: that already. But the bolder she gets, the more bold
Speaker 1: potentially their responses. Although I don't think they'll go over
Speaker 1: a line. Doug. We have less than a minute. But
Speaker 1: are you worried about her safety in departing? Do we
Speaker 1: have to worry about Chinese fighter jets fooling around or
Speaker 1: anything like that? No, I'm not. They know that that
Speaker 1: would be the ultimate kind of escalation, which you know
Speaker 1: China doesn't want to do either. Um, they want to
Speaker 1: see how much they can get away with. But you know,
Speaker 1: Genie talks about a line. This would be the biggest
Speaker 1: and brightest line that there could be no interceptions. Doug Hide,
Speaker 1: it's great to have you, Genie. Chancey. No our panel
Speaker 1: for today. They'll be back with us tomorrow. Here on
Speaker 1: the fastest hour in politics? Where does it go? If
Speaker 1: you showed up late? Subscribe to the podcast Bloomberg Sound
Speaker 1: on Objeck Traffic and Markets keep you FEDS straight through
Speaker 1: daybreak Asia and I'll meet you back here tomorrow with
Speaker 1: a lot more to talk about on Pelosi's trip to Taiwan.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.