Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern.
Speaker 2: On Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Business App.
Speaker 1: Or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: The program today brought to you by the word uninvestable
Speaker 3: after Commerce Secretary Gina Ramanda, who as you know, is
Speaker 3: in China right now, told reporters she's hearing from US
Speaker 3: businesses that China is indeed becoming uninvestiable. As I read
Speaker 3: on the terminal the quote from the secretary, there are
Speaker 3: traditional concerns that they've become accustomer dealing with, and then
Speaker 3: there's a whole new set of concerns, the sum total
Speaker 3: of which is making China feel too risky for them
Speaker 3: to invest. Though these remarks don't sound exactly like what
Speaker 3: she was saying to Chinese officials earlier in the day
Speaker 3: in Beijing, when it sounded like we were getting along,
Speaker 3: Because if.
Speaker 1: Baya had asked me to come here to conveying message
Speaker 1: that we.
Speaker 4: Do now seek to decouple.
Speaker 1: We seek to maintain our.
Speaker 5: Seven hundred billion dollar commercial relationships wape China.
Speaker 3: Does that mean diversifying is over? It was decoupling, then
Speaker 3: it was diverse. Right now we're maintaining. I think I
Speaker 3: missed one in there too. I'm sure Nick Watams remembers it.
Speaker 4: The risking.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Nick Bottoms. I think they heard you say that.
Speaker 3: So is decoupling and de risking the diversifying. Are we
Speaker 3: really replacing that with that we're maintaining because sounds like
Speaker 3: nothing's changing.
Speaker 6: Well, So the big issue that Gino Raimundo and other
Speaker 6: US officials have said is listen, there are all sorts
Speaker 6: of areas where we can do business with China if
Speaker 6: you look at you know, US companies like restaurants. She
Speaker 6: even mentioned beauty care products, lotion, suntand loation, stuff like that.
Speaker 6: There's all sorts of stuff that we can do and
Speaker 6: places where US companies can invest. Where she's saying the
Speaker 6: US does not want want to work with China is
Speaker 6: areas that threaten US national security. So the most sensitive
Speaker 6: technology having to do with microchips, quantum computing AI, they
Speaker 6: don't want US technology basically funding the growth of Chinese
Speaker 6: companies that would then turn around and undermine those US companies.
Speaker 3: So all the stuff China really wants. But there's a
Speaker 3: path forward here somehow and we can compartmentalize all of this.
Speaker 3: Is that the message we're getting when you think about
Speaker 3: all of the various comments from the president on down.
Speaker 6: That is the US message. The problem is that it
Speaker 6: gets to this fundamental difference between how the US and
Speaker 6: China view the relationship. The US says, Okay, there are
Speaker 6: certain places that we're going to ring fence, but then
Speaker 6: we want to get along with you on all this
Speaker 6: other stuff climate change, combating fentanyl crisis, more trade, more growth.
Speaker 6: China says, no, no, no, you can't do that. You
Speaker 6: can't say like, this part's okay, but then you're going
Speaker 6: to turn around and smack us on the wrist with
Speaker 6: a ruler in this other area or do something even
Speaker 6: more severe. If it's got to be the whole package,
Speaker 6: either either you get all of it or you get
Speaker 6: none of it. And that's where we're really seeing Beijing
Speaker 6: and Washington. Butt heeads right now.
Speaker 3: So have any of these trips from blinkn to yellin
Speaker 3: to now Romando actually move a needle on this? Are
Speaker 3: we understanding each other better or we just kind of
Speaker 3: prolonging a really difficult conversation down the road.
Speaker 6: I think what you're seeing here is a desperate attempt
Speaker 6: to make it look like there is actually progress. But
Speaker 6: what often happens in these meetings is both sides are
Speaker 6: essentially reading talking points. And this is something that has
Speaker 6: bedeviled the relationship for so long because so many informal
Speaker 6: contacts have basically been severed. You have these meetings where
Speaker 6: they go over and there's this big expectation of progress,
Speaker 6: and then it's basically like, well, we delivered our message.
Speaker 6: They delivered their message. I mean, Blinken came back and
Speaker 6: said like, well, we tentatively agreed that maybe we'll do
Speaker 6: a fentanyl working group at some point in the future,
Speaker 6: and it was sort of like, eh, okay, nothing really
Speaker 6: happened out of that. And so now Raimondo's there and
Speaker 6: she's delivering the tough message on Intel. Micron Boeing, you know,
Speaker 6: wants to resume sales of Boeing airplanes to China, and
Speaker 6: I mean, we'll see tomorrow. Tomorrow's her last day, which
Speaker 6: is there whether she comes back with any major agreements,
Speaker 6: But so far, the signals appear to me.
Speaker 3: No spending time with Nick Wadams before we bring in
Speaker 3: the ambassador, we're going to talk with Max Bacchus In
Speaker 3: just a moment, we understand that Vladimir Putin's making a
Speaker 3: trip to China. It's an interesting one on the heels
Speaker 3: of this parade of administration officials here from the US
Speaker 3: his first foreign trips. It's a warrant for his arrest
Speaker 3: on alleged war crimes was issued by the International Criminal Court.
Speaker 3: What's the message here from Beijing?
Speaker 6: Well, I mean, it's always tempting to get into the
Speaker 6: timing of these things. Raimondo is in China as we speak,
Speaker 6: and then we get this announcement that Putin is going
Speaker 6: to Beijing. It's hard not to see that as a
Speaker 6: slap in the face. Whether the timing is coincidental or not.
Speaker 6: I mean, there's that's a rabbit hole. Don't need to
Speaker 6: necessarily go down there. The point is that you have
Speaker 6: an accused war criminal, the great greatest adversary that the
Speaker 6: United States has at the moment, going to China, where
Speaker 6: he will be welcomed with open arms. And while the
Speaker 6: US argues that China has not done all it could
Speaker 6: to help Russia prosecute the war in Ukraine, it's certainly
Speaker 6: not turned away from Vladimir Putin, and it sends a
Speaker 6: very strong signal about what China's priorities are. Okay, Raimondo,
Speaker 6: blink and all, John Kerry, you guys want to come,
Speaker 6: we'll talk. We can make nice to some degree at
Speaker 6: least in the messaging, but we are still firmly aligned
Speaker 6: with Vladimir Putin. That sends a very strong signal.
Speaker 3: No doubt, do they get the treatment over there, they're
Speaker 3: rolling out the car for US officials the way you
Speaker 3: will know.
Speaker 6: I thought you were talking about Putin. People will certainly
Speaker 6: get the treatment. Donald Trump got the treatment. I was
Speaker 6: there for that when he visited Beijing, and he, I
Speaker 6: mean the city was shut down for him. He got
Speaker 6: the literal red carpet basically everywhere he went.
Speaker 3: Now, granted, Joe Biden's not going here, but what should
Speaker 3: a cabinet official receive?
Speaker 6: Well, it was interesting, I mean, Raymondo got about what
Speaker 6: you would expect. She got a meeting with the a
Speaker 6: meet and greet with the premiere. She got a more
Speaker 6: substantive meeting with the Vice premier. But interestingly she did
Speaker 6: not get a meeting with President Chijinping. Blincoln did get
Speaker 6: a meeting. Raymondo is slightly lower level, so it's not
Speaker 6: like she's being mistreated or frozen out. Yeah, but you're
Speaker 6: certainly not seeing the sort of fanfare that you will
Speaker 6: see for Vlatimir Putin.
Speaker 3: I always love to spending time with Nick Wadams. Thanks Nick,
Speaker 3: great to have you a pleasure back here, as always
Speaker 3: Bloomberg national security reporter with an eye on Beijing. Let's
Speaker 3: bring in the former ambassador Max bocchus Is with us,
Speaker 3: of course, former US Senator from Montana. Mister ambassador, welcome
Speaker 3: back to Bloomberg. It's great to have you. What's your
Speaker 3: thought on this headline. We'll just start right here with
Speaker 3: Vladimir Putin announcing that he's going to be making a
Speaker 3: trip to China on the heels of all of these
Speaker 3: Biden administration officials. What's that message supposed to be for
Speaker 3: Joe Biden?
Speaker 4: Well, first, thank you, Joe. I think that's a pretty
Speaker 4: big deal. It's China is showing to the world that
Speaker 4: is aligned with another authoritarian government, in this case Russia,
Speaker 4: and I think China intentionally wants to convey that message,
Speaker 4: especially to the developing countries, the South countries, and to
Speaker 4: help guide them into the she orbit in juxtaposition to
Speaker 4: the United States and Western countries who are more aligned
Speaker 4: with NATO, etc. It's a big deal, and I think
Speaker 4: a sidebar has been explained. It's a bit of a
Speaker 4: slap in the face of the US while Vermando is
Speaker 4: still in China. But this is a big moment. China
Speaker 4: and Russia need each other. China exports a lot of
Speaker 4: oil to them. Excuse me, Russia exports a lot of
Speaker 4: oil to China since well export has been shut off
Speaker 4: in Europe. In addition to that of China exports a
Speaker 4: lot of machinery, a lot of infrastructure, a lot of
Speaker 4: goods to Russia which Russia can use in the word
Speaker 4: against Ukraine. This, I think this is a pretty big deal.
Speaker 4: It portends to me it's a long continuing struggle basically
Speaker 4: between the United States and it's our western allies on
Speaker 4: one hand and China and it's written the other.
Speaker 3: Well, so the word today, ambassador from the Commerce Secretary
Speaker 3: who's in China is that she's hearing from American businesses
Speaker 3: that China is becoming uninvestable, that it's becoming too risky
Speaker 3: of an investment. You do wonder if she says we're
Speaker 3: not decoupling. We're maintaining, but it feels like we might
Speaker 3: be decoupling.
Speaker 1: How do you see it?
Speaker 4: Well, I think that what you're implying is accurate. If
Speaker 4: it's not decoupling, some say's deep risking maintaining, it's all words,
Speaker 4: nearly what amounts is the deeds? What are the acts
Speaker 4: and actions? But both sides are negative towards each other.
Speaker 4: For example, the President Biden just announced his executive order
Speaker 4: limiting US companies investors in China. That's a negative action.
Speaker 4: I mean, it's just we keep adding on more sanctions,
Speaker 4: more export controls, et cetera. And it's so the words
Speaker 4: of the talks are they're nice, nice sounding reporters like
Speaker 4: to write about it and so forth. But go accounts
Speaker 4: is the actions, the deeds, and so far they're not
Speaker 4: very positive.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the jargon has been kind of entertaining, I have
Speaker 3: to admit, but uninvestable is really the word that we
Speaker 3: I feel like should be focusing on here, Max Bochus,
Speaker 3: that sounded like an honest moment from the Commerce secretary
Speaker 3: talking to those reporters on the train. How do you
Speaker 3: feel about that?
Speaker 4: Well, I think it's a bit of exaggeration. No, but
Speaker 4: it's true there are really Oh yeah, I think US
Speaker 4: businesses are taking a second look at China. That's they're
Speaker 4: building in more risk into investments into China. But they're
Speaker 4: still looking at China positively, positive, if at all possible,
Speaker 4: because it's such a large market. It's huge. I mean,
Speaker 4: people in America, we tend to forget the scale of
Speaker 4: China is so large. It's incredibly large, much larger than
Speaker 4: the United States population four times out of the US.
Speaker 4: And so I think and a lot of businesses know
Speaker 4: that if they're smart, if they maintain their business relationships
Speaker 4: in China, they could probably work out a deal. Now,
Speaker 4: it's true that it's the climate in China makes it
Speaker 4: more difficult for US, but I would not say uninvestable.
Speaker 4: I would just say it's the risks are greater.
Speaker 3: Well, you understand better than most state craft on the
Speaker 3: international stage. Is that exaggeration a necessary part of whatever
Speaker 3: we call this negotiation?
Speaker 4: Well, I think she said that as a sobering message
Speaker 4: to the Chinese. So they get it. Hey, you Chinese,
Speaker 4: you know you want American investments, you want a world
Speaker 4: investment to grow, and you're taking actions they're causing China
Speaker 4: to be uninvestable, think that that was the main message.
Speaker 4: It's important to remember that some of those actions China's
Speaker 4: taken a reaction to US actions that are adverse to
Speaker 4: China export controls, sanctions, et cetera. And so they're just
Speaker 4: there's a little tit for tat here and so and
Speaker 4: the hawks in China are very much pushing a chija
Speaker 4: in pain to take certain actions to show that we're
Speaker 4: not going to just lay up, lay down and turn
Speaker 4: the other chief the United States. It's happens in life.
Speaker 4: It's it's human nature. Whenever one side criticized it takes
Speaker 4: a negative action or the other, well, the others said, okay,
Speaker 4: we've got to react word to do the same thing too.
Speaker 4: And that's the part of what's happening.
Speaker 3: At what point does greed kick in? Though, I mean,
Speaker 3: with so much money to be made, mister ambassador, we've
Speaker 3: seen the losses in just in US investments in Chinese
Speaker 3: stocks alone, never mind going beyond the market here, when
Speaker 3: you consider fixed income, when you consider expansion, look at
Speaker 3: what Apple is doing pulling back from you know, all
Speaker 3: of its partnerships in China or trying to moving things
Speaker 3: to India at what point does China say, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: we're losing a lot of money here, guys, we need
Speaker 3: to take another look at this.
Speaker 4: Well, clearly this you put the finger on the problem
Speaker 4: that China's facing. The one hand, it's ideology. President. She
Speaker 4: is much more of a maoist. He's much more of
Speaker 4: a sort of a socialist and wants to control the
Speaker 4: economy and wants them to grow in his way, which
Speaker 4: is more industrialization, more exports, rather than spend time on
Speaker 4: consumer goods. I mean, that's his ideology. On the other hand,
Speaker 4: he knows that if he's going to maintain the Fostian bargain,
Speaker 4: that is, to maintain the support of the people, he's
Speaker 4: got to keep the people happy. The best way to
Speaker 4: keep the people happy is to boost their incomes. And
Speaker 4: he's cotton buying, very much cotton to buying between ideology
Speaker 4: and taking economic actions which will help his country grow,
Speaker 4: at least grow more in line with them with capitalists
Speaker 4: countries like ours.
Speaker 3: See this is why you talk to a four were
Speaker 3: ambassador for an explanation like that, because so much of
Speaker 3: this is cultural. Ambassador, I just wonder what the aim
Speaker 3: is for the administration by which metric should we be
Speaker 3: judging this as we go forward here in the next year.
Speaker 4: Well, I think the administration is in a bit of
Speaker 4: a box because China policy is driven basically by domestic politics.
Speaker 4: Both members both houses, House and Senate, both parties are
Speaker 4: very anti China right now, and so the President of
Speaker 4: Congress I find it difficult to take positive, constructive actions
Speaker 4: towards China. I think today, if any member of the
Speaker 4: US Senate were to stand up and to say something
Speaker 4: gets struck about China, he or she'd have his head
Speaker 4: taken off. It just it's just a toxic in America today,
Speaker 4: So it's hard for president to take positive actions. And
Speaker 4: the same is true in China. The Hawks are very
Speaker 4: strong in China today, very strong. So my judgment is
Speaker 4: that it's basically the status quo. I come up with
Speaker 4: something into the lot. It's a little strange, but I
Speaker 4: think as a construct that will help the relationship, and
Speaker 4: that is this is an arranged marriage. It's not a
Speaker 4: marriage based off we don't love each other US and China,
Speaker 4: but it's arranged by the geopolitical forces economic in the world,
Speaker 4: US largest country, China the second largest country. We're here,
Speaker 4: not going anywhere we're not going anywhere, so we have.
Speaker 3: To find an ambassador. I think we need a therapist.
Speaker 3: We need a marriage therapist, although that was his old job.
Speaker 3: Max Bak is the former ambassador to China. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I always wish we had the hour to do that.
Speaker 3: Many thanks to the ambassador and Nick Watdams. I'm Joe,
Speaker 3: Matthew and Washington the panels up next.
Speaker 4: This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in alf Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: The Commerce Secretary Gina Romando, making her way across China
Speaker 3: and speaking to reporters on the train from earlier today
Speaker 3: the train from Beijing to Shanghai, talked about she's hearing
Speaker 3: a lot from US businesses China uninvestable because it's too risky.
Speaker 3: This after she told officials earlier in Beijing that we
Speaker 3: were here not to decouple, but to maintain. And it's
Speaker 3: a big word. Suit I realize. Let's assemble our panel here.
Speaker 3: Rick Davis is with US Bloomberg Politics contributor Republican strategist,
Speaker 3: along with Matt Bennett, Third Way Executive vice president today
Speaker 3: former Deputy Assistant to the President for Inner Governmental Affairs
Speaker 3: in the Clinton administration. Rick and Matt. Welcome, is great
Speaker 3: to have you. We've talked this up and down Rick
Speaker 3: over the course of several visits. Now it's Gina Romando,
Speaker 3: the Commerce Secretary, and I feel like I might be
Speaker 3: getting more confused with each one.
Speaker 1: What is the message?
Speaker 7: You know, Look, I think the messages tried to initiate
Speaker 7: some kind of engagement. I think, you know, Nick Wadams
Speaker 7: talked about climb a, fentanyl, agriculture, other things that we
Speaker 7: have in common that aren't really in dispute, things that
Speaker 7: we need to find ways of working together on and
Speaker 7: manage the areas that are in dispute, and a laundry
Speaker 7: list of those covered under national security, trade and economics
Speaker 7: and so, you know. The parade of administration officials comes
Speaker 7: after the first two years of the Bid administration, which
Speaker 7: was intensely negative in their public acrimony, both from the
Speaker 7: administration side towards China. And significantly different points of view
Speaker 7: coming from China about how negative they were related to
Speaker 7: its relationship with the US. So look, I mean, you know,
Speaker 7: is this repairing any of the damage. As others have
Speaker 7: pointed out, we're not seeing a lot of progress on
Speaker 7: these issues, but at least we're having a conversation.
Speaker 4: We'll see.
Speaker 7: I think the troubling area is still around national security.
Speaker 7: You don't see the engagement on a military to military
Speaker 7: lefele that we used to have. I doubt if we're
Speaker 7: still getting calls returned from you know, the chief of
Speaker 7: the army in China, like we had a situation earlier
Speaker 7: in the year. But you know, I think that we're
Speaker 7: trying to put it on more constructive grounds rather than
Speaker 7: conflicting grounds.
Speaker 3: Well, Rick just laid out a lot for us, Matt Bennett,
Speaker 3: I'm curious to unpack a couple of these, beginning with
Speaker 3: our business relationship, because we have had this kind of
Speaker 3: evolution of messaging from decoupling to diversifying now maintaining. I
Speaker 3: know there was another one in there, but it seems
Speaker 3: like the real message from Gina Romando is this increasing
Speaker 3: level of risk that she's hearing about from US business
Speaker 3: is Max Bachus just told us he thinks that's an exaggeration.
Speaker 3: Is this really just about keeping the conversation going, or
Speaker 3: is this administration looking to move the needle.
Speaker 8: Mat Well, I think they would like to move the needle.
Speaker 8: Nobody thinks it's the relationships in a great place right now.
Speaker 8: But I think we have to just acknowledge that it's
Speaker 8: really hard because there are some enormous differences between us.
Speaker 8: I mean, the Chinese have a million people living in
Speaker 8: concentration camps or have disappeared into their prisons. The Wigers
Speaker 8: are being persecuted. They are threatening Taiwan, which produces something
Speaker 8: like eighty seven percent of all the high level chips
Speaker 8: in the world. They are causing all kinds of problems
Speaker 8: for us in all sorts of neighborhoods Africa, South America,
Speaker 8: where they are trying to corner the market on the
Speaker 8: kinds of raw materials that we desperately need to power
Speaker 8: our economy and to take us into a cleaner energy future.
Speaker 8: And they've not been very helpful with the war in
Speaker 8: Ukraine and in cracking down on the Russian so we
Speaker 8: have and that's just to name a few. So the
Speaker 8: disagreements that remain China are enormously serious, and so I
Speaker 8: think Rimando is just reflecting the fact that we've got
Speaker 8: a long way to go if we're going to return
Speaker 8: to some kind of more friendly set of relationships.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's quite a picture you paint. And Rick Matt
Speaker 3: points us to a real source spot there on the map,
Speaker 3: which is called Taiwan. We're talking about withholding ai technology
Speaker 3: and these graphics cards that are made by Nvidia, keeping
Speaker 3: them out of the hands of the Chinese, so they
Speaker 3: are not used to military benefits, so they are not
Speaker 3: getting the same level of technology that we have when
Speaker 3: it comes to artificial intelligence. But those cards, those chips
Speaker 3: are made in Taiwan, Rick, and we know that China
Speaker 3: could form a Block eight around the island any time
Speaker 3: at once. It does make you wonder if this conversation
Speaker 3: is pointing in the right direction or if the Hawks
Speaker 3: are onto something here and we're going to be fighting
Speaker 3: over Taiwan in the near future.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 7: Look, I mean, the Biden administration is as hawkish as
Speaker 7: any Republican administration that I can remember when it comes
Speaker 7: to China, and it's all rooted in in the kind
Speaker 7: of expansionist, uh national security policy they've had as as
Speaker 7: as Max was just talking about, you know, he's got
Speaker 7: a little more engagement focus UH coming to China. But
Speaker 7: everything I've read from this administration, the meetings I've been in, UH,
Speaker 7: the military is out there actively telling people on Wall Street,
Speaker 7: you know that when you invest in China, you're investing
Speaker 7: in the China military industrial complex.
Speaker 4: You know that our UH.
Speaker 7: Trade relationship UH ultimately funnels to the Red Army, and
Speaker 7: and and that the Red Army's ambitions to take over
Speaker 7: Taiwan are about timetable, not if they would try to
Speaker 7: take over Taiwan militarily. So when when when you're sitting
Speaker 7: in Wall Street or in an investment UH committee meeting
Speaker 7: and you're you're looking at the riskless So stated with that,
Speaker 7: it's not surprising that you pick up the phone and
Speaker 7: tell Jine Ramendo on our way to China, Hey, it's uninvestable.
Speaker 7: We can't put money to work there. If those are
Speaker 7: the consequences of our investment.
Speaker 3: There was kind of an irony as well. The technology
Speaker 3: we want to keep from them is actually you know,
Speaker 3: sourced out of Taiwan. But Matt, the idea now that
Speaker 3: Vladimir Putin gets the big invites of Beijing. Is that
Speaker 3: an insult, as was suggested earlier this hour, or just
Speaker 3: a middle finger to the Biden White House.
Speaker 8: I mean, I guess those are, you know, roughly the
Speaker 8: same thing. It was definitely a message to the Biden
Speaker 8: White House, and not a great one. I mean, consider
Speaker 8: that China has enormous influence, with a very substantial percentage
Speaker 8: of all the nations on Earth. I mean, China owns
Speaker 8: the port of Piraeus in Greece. That means they have
Speaker 8: a lot of control over how Greece votes in the EU,
Speaker 8: which operates by unanimous consent. They've got all kinds of
Speaker 8: operations in South America, so you know, what used to
Speaker 8: be an American zone of influence is no longer exclusive
Speaker 8: to us, and they're all over Africa. So I think
Speaker 8: we just have to be very clear that we are
Speaker 8: dealing with a global power, and global powers often do
Speaker 8: things that their counterparts don't like, and this is certainly
Speaker 8: one of them.
Speaker 3: Well, that's true. How should the administration react to this, Rick,
Speaker 3: You've got Gina Romando in the country when Beijing announces that,
Speaker 3: guess what, Vladimir's.
Speaker 4: On the way. Yeah.
Speaker 7: Look, I mean I think that there's no dispute that
Speaker 7: Vladimir Putin and g are bros.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 7: I mean, they hang out together, they celebrate each other's birthdays.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: It's like last big trip that.
Speaker 7: Putin took out of the country before he became a criminal,
Speaker 7: international criminal, was to the Bay you know, Olympics. I mean, like,
Speaker 7: we can't underestimate what's going on between those two leaders
Speaker 7: and the impact that it's having in places all around
Speaker 7: the world, including obviously the conflict in Ukraine. So so
Speaker 7: you know, I mean, if if Vladimir Putin's sitting around
Speaker 7: and he's getting upset that it looks like, you know,
Speaker 7: she's repairing some of its relationship with the United States,
Speaker 7: you know, he's gonna call him up and say, hey,
Speaker 7: I'm coming over there on Thursday. I mean, like, you know,
Speaker 7: he's not even going to like make a request. He's
Speaker 7: just going to tell him I'm showing up because it's
Speaker 7: his public relations. He hasn't shown up at any of
Speaker 7: these international events. He hasn't done anything in a in
Speaker 7: a multilateral situation.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 7: The only conversations he has or visits he's made is
Speaker 7: to BAYLORUS, which is you know, a satellite state of Putin's,
Speaker 7: you know, Russian Empire, and so like, he's probably feeling
Speaker 7: pretty isolated and embarrassed that his one buddy outside of
Speaker 7: you know, Baylor, Russ is China and they're making good
Speaker 7: with the US. So look, I think she should be
Speaker 7: happy that somehow he feels so intense on pushing back
Speaker 7: on her trip that he's got to get out of
Speaker 7: his bunker and go visit Beijing.
Speaker 3: Unbelievable stuff. Remember the friendship without limits, I believe, is
Speaker 3: what they called it when he made the Olympic visit.
Speaker 3: It's like a lifetime ago, but it.
Speaker 1: Really is not.
Speaker 3: Great analysis from Rick Davis and Matt Bennett. We've got
Speaker 3: breaking news from the campaign trail here. I know you've
Speaker 3: been wondering a lot. You've been asking a lot about
Speaker 3: the campaign of Francis Suarez. All right, you haven't been asking,
Speaker 3: but the Miami mayor has suspended his presidential campaign according
Speaker 3: to reports. Remember, he was not able to make it
Speaker 3: on the debate stage. He didn't have a pulling or
Speaker 3: the fundraising to make that happen.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Another one of the Tennessee three is Silence. We're going
Speaker 3: to go there next to Nashville with our panel.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us
Speaker 1: live weekdays at one Eastern.
Speaker 2: On Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 3: History repeats itself in Nashville Recent history as Republican state
Speaker 3: lawmakers vote to silence one of the Tennessee Three again,
Speaker 3: recalling the three Democratic lawmakers who were threatened with expulsion
Speaker 3: over their role in a pro gun control protest inside
Speaker 3: the Tennessee Capitol. Remember this a few months ago two
Speaker 3: of them, including Justin Jones, were expelled, and there he
Speaker 3: was again yesterday, Silence prohibited from speaking or debating over
Speaker 3: bills for the day during a special session called to
Speaker 3: react to a deadly shooting at a Christian elementary school
Speaker 3: there in March. Was after Jones violated new rules that
Speaker 3: were enacted to punish They were designed to punish disruptive
Speaker 3: members and protesters in the chamber once again made a rack.
Speaker 4: Yeah, sounding a.
Speaker 3: Lot like they did earlier in the year the first
Speaker 3: time we did this, and Representative Jones filmed a video
Speaker 3: on his phone after walking outside the chamber the stairs
Speaker 3: were lined with state troopers, so.
Speaker 5: We just left the House chamber. The Democrats walked out
Speaker 5: of the chamber in protest after Cameron Sexton decided to
Speaker 5: abuse his gavel and call for a boat so that
Speaker 5: I could not even speak for the rest of session.
Speaker 5: He said it was because of speaking off topic. And
Speaker 5: so what we're seeing is this misapplication, this abuse rules.
Speaker 5: I'm under leadership Speaker Cameron Sexton.
Speaker 3: Is followed by again a whole walkout by Democrats. Let's
Speaker 3: reassembled a panel for their take on this. Bloomberg Politics
Speaker 3: contributed Rick Davis is with us Matt Bennett as well
Speaker 3: from Third Way. Matt, your thought on this. Back in
Speaker 3: the spring when this happened the first time with the
Speaker 3: so called Tennessee three people including myself said, my goodness,
Speaker 3: they're making stars out of these guys. What exactly is
Speaker 3: the strategy here? I remember bumping into them at the
Speaker 3: White House correspondence dinner and here we go again. What
Speaker 3: does action like this tell you about what's happening inside
Speaker 3: the capitol in Tennessee?
Speaker 8: It tells me that the Testi Republicans apparently are gluttons
Speaker 8: for punishment. I mean, how they could not see that
Speaker 8: what they did the first time was bad for them, idiotic,
Speaker 8: terrible for their state. I mean, both of the representatives
Speaker 8: were quite rightly returned by their voters and by their
Speaker 8: constituents to the legislature immediately detail And now, yes, now
Speaker 8: they've expelled him for making a speech. He was not
Speaker 8: holding a sign, he was not protesting, he was not
Speaker 8: banging on the desk. He was making a speech as
Speaker 8: members of the legislature are supposed to do. But the
Speaker 8: speaker decided that he didn't like what he was saying,
Speaker 8: and so they barred him from the chamber, and you
Speaker 8: heard the reaction. I mean, fundamentally, the problem is that
Speaker 8: Republicans in that state are massively out of touch on
Speaker 8: some very important issues, not least gun violence. I mean,
Speaker 8: there was this horrific shooting of children at a school
Speaker 8: just miles from the capitol, and they have done nothing
Speaker 8: except for propose arming more people in schools, and that
Speaker 8: is not going to go over with the people who
Speaker 8: populate a good percentage of that state. It may not
Speaker 8: be a majority, but it's a lot, and I think
Speaker 8: they're getting this very wrong.
Speaker 3: Rick Jones was criticizing this legislation that would allow more
Speaker 3: law enforcement officers in schools, and he was talking around
Speaker 3: the matter. You might hear in a debate the speaker
Speaker 3: Cameron Sexton, who you heard him mention, warned Jones not
Speaker 3: to stray off topic. Is this a matter of following
Speaker 3: the rules or is this punitive beyond measure?
Speaker 7: Well, I think all of it comes during this special
Speaker 7: session that was called by Governor Bill Lee because of
Speaker 7: the you know, Christian elementary school shooting, and so the
Speaker 7: hope was that they would actually pull together and do
Speaker 7: something that would help the community. But after the last
Speaker 7: go round that Matt accurately described in every way, Uh,
Speaker 7: they pass these rules to sort of get control of
Speaker 7: the floor.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 7: And all they did is find new ways of of
Speaker 7: of elevating the minority in the legislature, Right, I mean, like,
Speaker 7: if you just let them talk and then take a vote,
Speaker 7: you've got the majority, it kind of just passes. But
Speaker 7: if you do these kinds of shenanigans where you say, oh,
Speaker 7: I'm going to silence you, well, you know, part of
Speaker 7: having a legislature is so that you won't be silenced.
Speaker 7: They represent the will of the people and they're there
Speaker 7: for a reason. So I mean it just it just
Speaker 7: goes beyond any rational understanding of how a democracy works
Speaker 7: to have these kinds of rules in place and then
Speaker 7: actually use them, I mean, actually say we're going to
Speaker 7: silence you for the day. And so what else is
Speaker 7: he going to do but walk out because he can't
Speaker 7: speak and he can you know. So, I mean, they're
Speaker 7: they're they're creating this controversy for themselves and the only
Speaker 7: losers here in the community who still aren't getting things
Speaker 7: done that would make their schools safe, you know, that
Speaker 7: would you know, protect the children of the state and
Speaker 7: crack down on you know, these violent criminals who you know,
Speaker 7: take guns and slaughter young kids. So I mean, like,
Speaker 7: I don't know how the scorecard comes out anything other
Speaker 7: than you know, Jones two Legislature zero. I mean, you know,
Speaker 7: it just makes no sense to me.
Speaker 3: So you guys are both in the business of making
Speaker 3: candidate stars, helping politicians improve their career trajectory, maybe seek
Speaker 3: higher office. Matt, what happens to Justin Jones as he's
Speaker 3: continually empowered and made a national star by the Republicans
Speaker 3: in this chamber who want him out, Well, there's.
Speaker 8: No question that we would not be spending this much
Speaker 8: time on Justin Jones's speech on the floor if they
Speaker 8: hadn't thrown him out of the chamber. So to your point,
Speaker 8: they've really made him into a star. Whether he can
Speaker 8: turn that into national office or statewide office is unclear.
Speaker 8: Tennessee is very, very red. It has trended as far
Speaker 8: to the right and as quickly as basically any state
Speaker 8: in the country. I mean, remember, not that long ago
Speaker 8: Al Gore was the Senator from Tennessee at least in
Speaker 8: my lifetime, not that long ago. And they used to
Speaker 8: have Democrats at all levels in Tennessee and they really
Speaker 8: don't anymore. So whether there's a place for him to
Speaker 8: go or not, it's not clear. But he has become
Speaker 8: a national leader of this movement, and I think that
Speaker 8: has really given him a voice that he wouldn't have
Speaker 8: otherwise had. So it was you know, I agree, the
Speaker 8: score is two to nothing, and both of them were
Speaker 8: own goals on the part of the Tennessee Republicans.
Speaker 3: Just a minute left, Rick, is it higher office for
Speaker 3: someone like Justin Jones in a situation like this, or
Speaker 3: does he go into media or is it something totally different?
Speaker 7: Oh, you know, sky's a limit for a town young
Speaker 7: man like him. But I certainly would put on my
Speaker 7: calendar once a month, speak up, get kicked out, and
Speaker 7: be on radio again.
Speaker 4: I mean it's like clockwork. I would do it literally
Speaker 4: once every three weeks.
Speaker 7: If I were his advisor.
Speaker 3: They seem to be ready to take the bait. That
Speaker 3: business what we saw again in Nashville. Rick Davis and
Speaker 3: Matt Bennett, many thanks, of course. With some final thoughts.
Speaker 1: Next is.
Speaker 3: The music wars get underway again. Rick Davis is no
Speaker 3: stranger to this. What do you do when a famous
Speaker 3: musician calls and says, stop playing my songs at your rally.
Speaker 3: I think the answer is nothing, but we'll talk to
Speaker 3: Rick about that in Matt as well. Straight ahead, I'm
Speaker 3: Joe Matthew in Washington. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to The Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in alf, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business app.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: It's a story that comes up every four years. Maybe
Speaker 3: it's every two actually, at the rate we're going here,
Speaker 3: But certainly with each election cycle we talk about music,
Speaker 3: popular music, and it's never quite the same when it
Speaker 3: ends up, at least for the most part in the
Speaker 3: campaign rallies. And that's the case here. Rick Davis knows
Speaker 3: a little bit about this, having run the McCain campaign.
Speaker 3: Think Barracuda. Donald Trump knows a bit about this, Think
Speaker 3: the Rolling Stones. When an artist says cease and desist,
Speaker 3: this time it's Vivek Ramaswami's term. Remembering, of course the
Speaker 3: Eminem rap at the Iowas State Fair. We brought this
Speaker 3: to you when it happened. They're still screaming about it.
Speaker 3: By God, And now Eminem is out with the cease
Speaker 3: and desist. He doesn't want him using his music at
Speaker 3: the campaign side. And I don't know, Rick Davis, maybe
Speaker 3: you could have told him this was coming. But the
Speaker 3: point is this always ends the same way, right. There's
Speaker 3: nothing that the musician can really do, and so vivike
Speaker 3: Ramaswami will just keep wrapping Eminem.
Speaker 4: Oh, I don't know about that.
Speaker 7: I mean, song may change, but the times are the same.
Speaker 7: And that is we got sued by Jackson Brown, one
Speaker 7: of my favorites for using running on empty in a
Speaker 7: campaign add and he used the Landham Act to go
Speaker 7: after us and was successful.
Speaker 3: So we had to apologize, we had to pay him.
Speaker 3: I mean, it was not a healthy thing for you know.
Speaker 4: Music in America.
Speaker 7: But the bottom line is you're right. Everybody gets sued.
Speaker 3: I guess that's the way, Matt Bennett. Your advice for
Speaker 3: vivike Ramaswami. He made a lot of fans on the stage.
Speaker 8: Listen. I'll stipulate that he's a better rapper than Joe Biden,
Speaker 8: but he is not a better rapper than Slim Shady,
Speaker 8: and he should let the real Slim Shady do his thing.
Speaker 8: One thing I'll say, though, is Democrats have an advantage
Speaker 8: here because we tend not to get sued by rappers
Speaker 8: and rock artists. We don't tend to use country music
Speaker 8: because those people will sue us. So you've got to
Speaker 8: go where you think you're gonna be successful.
Speaker 3: I guess there's some truth to all of that. Matt
Speaker 3: and Rick, thank you analysis. You can only get here
Speaker 3: on sound on the fastest show in politics. I'm Joe
Speaker 3: Matthew in Washington with a lot more to folog you
Speaker 3: hear the news on drugs being negotiated by Medicare, we'll
Speaker 3: have that next.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the
Speaker 1: program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the
Speaker 1: tune in alf Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our
Speaker 1: flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: The headline says it all Jay and j Bristol blockbusters
Speaker 3: targeted for Medicare price cuts. This this dropped before the
Speaker 3: bell and it's something that we wanted to talk about
Speaker 3: with Riley, who's our healthcare reporter here in the bure.
Speaker 3: Riley Griffin, it's great to see you, Thanks for joining.
Speaker 3: We've got ten drugs here targeted by Medicare. They will
Speaker 3: be allowed to negotiate the prices for these drugs. You
Speaker 3: saw this coming, as did Wall Street. Is this the
Speaker 3: first before I get into the details, the first batch
Speaker 3: or will there be more?
Speaker 9: Indeed, this is the first batch. So we saw ten
Speaker 9: drugs today, We're going to see another fifteen drugs named
Speaker 9: in February of next year. These ten drugs will see
Speaker 9: their prices slashed for Medicare, which has sixty five million
Speaker 9: beneficiaries seniors in the outset of twenty twenty six, and
Speaker 9: the batch of drugs that gets tagged next year will
Speaker 9: be twenty twenty seven, So it's a rolling sweep. But
Speaker 9: you know, arguably this is one of the government's biggest
Speaker 9: ever efforts to tackle drug costs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is one of the promises by Joe Biden.
Speaker 4: I guess you could say agree with.
Speaker 1: Them or not.
Speaker 3: He's making good on that promise. These are not unknown drugs.
Speaker 3: These are some of the most widely prescribed drugs. Which
Speaker 3: ones stand out to you the most? When I see Lily,
Speaker 3: which has been at a fifty two week high, I
Speaker 3: think every day in recent memory, people start thinking diabetes,
Speaker 3: weight loss drugs. Those are in the mix.
Speaker 9: Yes, Lily is certainly an investor of favorite this past year.
Speaker 9: And all together, the ten drugs named today account for
Speaker 9: fifty one billion, or twenty percent of the Medicare part
Speaker 9: d's annual prescription drug costs. Some notable ones I want
Speaker 9: to call out Bristol Myers Adfiser's blood thinner Eloquist accounts
Speaker 9: for sixteen billion annual in Medicare costs. A Lily's diabetes
Speaker 9: drug as you mentioned, Jardians accounts for seven point one billion,
Speaker 9: and Jay and Jay's zerelto another blood thinner for you
Speaker 9: six billion in annual Medicare graps. So a smattering of
Speaker 9: diabetes heart automune drugs from Merk astrozenka Amjen Abby. You've
Speaker 9: heard these pharmatickers.
Speaker 3: Yes, they're all on the table, and they were chosen
Speaker 3: because they are the most widely prescribed or was there
Speaker 3: more involved in more criterion.
Speaker 9: So everybody who's been looking. They were chosen out of
Speaker 9: a bucket of fifty drugs, and as we just mentioned,
Speaker 9: there's going to be another fifteen up to bat of
Speaker 9: these were surprises, some are broadly expected, and for these companies,
Speaker 9: I wouldn't say these are the growth drivers for the future.
Speaker 9: These are some of the bigger earners, but not the
Speaker 9: biggest now. And as you're seeing the Wall Street reaction,
Speaker 9: not flustered. This is something we've been expecting for quite
Speaker 9: some time, and pharma has lawsuits to fight the US
Speaker 9: government on this.
Speaker 3: The first cuts will take effect in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3: In this case, does that matter who the president is
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty six or this is happening one.
Speaker 1: Way or the other.
Speaker 9: You know, that's a great question. I think the bigger
Speaker 9: question would be how does the lawsuit? How does the
Speaker 9: litigation play out? Every one of these companies is going
Speaker 9: to be suing.
Speaker 4: The US delay implementation potentially we'll see.
Speaker 9: Potentially, potentially a lot is still in the cards, and
Speaker 9: the US has believes it has a really strong case
Speaker 9: against these companies.
Speaker 3: The big argument is that this will stifle innovation. That's
Speaker 3: what the pharma companies would tell you, that the trade
Speaker 3: associations would tell you. But if these are not big
Speaker 3: drivers of growth, is that true?
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's pharma's line forever and always. I think it's
Speaker 9: a real question. Another thing we're hearing from analysts today
Speaker 9: actually is that some pharmaceutical companies may actually already be
Speaker 9: raising drug prices. This is counterintuitive sure to mitigate those effects.
Speaker 9: So you have to wonder, what are the so double
Speaker 9: the price now that cut it in half later exactly exactly,
Speaker 9: So we're looking for that. But across the board, analysts
Speaker 9: are saying that the toll this will take on industry
Speaker 9: is just about five percent of annual earning before.
Speaker 3: We talk to Dona Shalala. Put this in perspective for us.
Speaker 3: You come in to talk to us about a lot
Speaker 3: of important developments in this sphere in the world that
Speaker 3: you cover. How significant is this for big farmer? Because
Speaker 3: it seems like a pretty darn big deal for consumers too.
Speaker 9: I will say that every two every four years, both
Speaker 9: Democrats and Republicans come to the table before an election
Speaker 9: and say we want to tackle drug prices, we want
Speaker 9: to come after the pharmaceutical industry. This is really the
Speaker 9: biggest play that we've seen to date.
Speaker 3: There you have it from Riley Griffin. Great have you been.
Speaker 4: Thank you always.
Speaker 3: Riley Bloomberg, healthcare reporter with us here on Bloomberg Sound On,
Speaker 3: and we do want to add the voice of Donna Shalala,
Speaker 3: who spent time, of course as the Secretary of Health
Speaker 3: and Human Services, also former congresswoman from Florida's twenty seventh districts.
Speaker 3: Madam Secretary, welcome back to Bloomberg. It's wonderful to have
Speaker 3: you here. I'd love your perspective on this as well.
Speaker 3: When drug companies say, hey, you're stifling innovation, the Biden
Speaker 3: administration says, we're making good and a long held promise.
Speaker 3: How important is this development.
Speaker 10: It's very significant, and I think it's important to point
Speaker 10: out that this is not an executive decision by the
Speaker 10: President of the United States. He is fulfilling the obligations
Speaker 10: that were put on him with his support by Congress.
Speaker 10: This was passed by both the Senate and the House
Speaker 10: of Representatives when the Democrats controlled the House, so it's
Speaker 10: a major piece of legislation. It is also wildly popular,
Speaker 10: and I think it's important to take a look at
Speaker 10: the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation's poll which shows that seventy
Speaker 10: seven percent of Republicans support the federal government negotiating on
Speaker 10: behalf of Medicare recipients. What the Congress stripped out was
Speaker 10: allowing private insurance companies to jump into this price on negotiation.
Speaker 10: But my guess is that they'll take a very hard
Speaker 10: look at what the pharmaceuticals agree to. How important is
Speaker 10: it for the pharmaceutical companies, Well, they were expecting it,
Speaker 10: and they already give discounts. The question is how the
Speaker 10: negotiations will take place given the discounts that are already
Speaker 10: given in the system. It's a complicated system, but it
Speaker 10: certainly is going to drive down the prices. Is it
Speaker 10: going to affect research? I don't think so, because if
Speaker 10: you look at the legislation they allow for that. We've
Speaker 10: always asked the pharmaceutical companies how much are you spending
Speaker 10: on research? Not on your marketing, but how much are
Speaker 10: you spending on your research, so we can protect that piece.
Speaker 10: And I think it's important to point out that Americans
Speaker 10: pay for that research, both through the NIH, but more importantly,
Speaker 10: when the pharmaceutical companies sell these drugs abroad, they don't
Speaker 10: include the price of the development of that drug. It's
Speaker 10: Americans they cast back to Americans. So this is a
Speaker 10: very good thing. It will be done, I think, with
Speaker 10: great sensitivity to making sure that a very important industry
Speaker 10: in our country, these multinational pharmaceuticals and the small startups
Speaker 10: also are able to survive.
Speaker 3: That was amazing, Secretary, you just asked yourself two of
Speaker 3: the questions that I was looking to ask you. So
Speaker 3: we're making progress here. It sounds to me like you
Speaker 3: think the big pharma argument is bunk. Is that fair
Speaker 3: to say?
Speaker 10: Well, I don't take it as bunk. I never have
Speaker 10: because I come out of the great research universities in
Speaker 10: this country. All I can say to them, is I
Speaker 10: believe the government is going to be careful. More importantly,
Speaker 10: they are huge supporters of the NIH. They get much
Speaker 10: of their licensing. Their pipeline is very dependent on the
Speaker 10: National Institutes of Health. So we're paying on one end
Speaker 10: and we're going to get some money out for consumers
Speaker 10: on the other end. So I'm very respectful of the
Speaker 10: role that pharmaceuticals play in this country. But it's about
Speaker 10: time that Americans got the benefits of their huge investments
Speaker 10: in the National Institutes of Health, but more importantly, that
Speaker 10: they pay fair prices given what the kind of discounts
Speaker 10: that the pharmaceuticals are giving to the industrialized world. And
Speaker 10: Republicans understand this, by the way, that's why it's wildly popular.
Speaker 3: Well, I do think it's interesting that this is obviously
Speaker 3: something closely associated with Democrats. You know this firsthand. But
Speaker 3: Donald Trump was frequently talking about wanting to be able
Speaker 3: to buy drugs from Canada and sell them back to
Speaker 3: consumers here in the US. So there does seem to
Speaker 3: be some bipartisan nature when it comes to lowering the
Speaker 3: price of drugs. It plays well on the campaign trail
Speaker 3: never happened. We heard him talk about.
Speaker 4: It a lot.
Speaker 10: Yeah, he talked about a lot. Why would the pharmaceutical
Speaker 10: companies give extra drugs to Canada so that they could
Speaker 10: transport them back to Florida. It makes no sense. They
Speaker 10: sell to Canada based on the number of Canadians. And
Speaker 10: I always thought that was funck And I kept saying
Speaker 10: to everybody in Florida when the governor, Governor Desantras was
Speaker 10: trying to do it, this is not going to happen.
Speaker 3: We'll ask you about Governor DeSantis because he's got his
Speaker 3: hands full this week. He's come off the campaign trail
Speaker 3: as a return to your state of Florida here with
Speaker 3: a massive storm approaching. He did hold a news conference
Speaker 3: earlier today to give you a sense of the tone
Speaker 3: and the seriousness. If you're not following this, if you're
Speaker 3: not in Florida, here is the governor no longer campaigning
Speaker 3: for president this week. He spoke to reporters earlier. He
Speaker 3: is telling people that there's still time to prepare and
Speaker 3: to get out of the storm's path. Donna, I wonder
Speaker 3: your thoughts about his decision to come off the campaign
Speaker 3: trail and to focus on the storm at home. How
Speaker 3: is he doing well.
Speaker 10: He absolutely has to do that. Florida governors and the
Speaker 10: governors along the East Coast simply must do that. This
Speaker 10: is far more important than any political campaign. Florida has
Speaker 10: always had a bipartisan preparation. I have to say whether
Speaker 10: whoever was governor, we watched them closely, but they've always
Speaker 10: had an infrastructure in Florida. Floridians take hurricanes very seriously
Speaker 10: and we get advanced notice. It's not like an earthquake.
Speaker 10: We get really advanced notice on hurricanes. And we listened
Speaker 10: to our governors, no matter whether we like their politics
Speaker 10: at all, and listen to our emergency management people.
Speaker 3: He was in Jacksonville just the other night as well.
Speaker 3: He was booed at a vigil following a mass shooting
Speaker 3: that took place there over the weekend. Tell me your
Speaker 3: thoughts on the way that was handled. Did he deserve that?
Speaker 10: No, No elected official who's doing the right thing and
Speaker 10: paying their respects should be booed. It happens all the
Speaker 10: time with Democrats and Republicans. Actually, the public doesn't much
Speaker 10: like politicians when they show up for some of these events.
Speaker 10: My own view is, and I've said that the students
Speaker 10: at every university I've run is that you've got to
Speaker 10: be respectful. You just had Rick Davis. We had John
Speaker 10: McCain the weekend before the presidential election, and I got
Speaker 10: thousands of students to show up for the event at
Speaker 10: midnight on a Sunday night, and they couldn't have been
Speaker 10: more polite. I told them by texts that they should
Speaker 10: come out and meet a great man, but take off
Speaker 10: their Obama buttons. And many of those students I've seen
Speaker 10: since who said that they were so happy that I
Speaker 10: told them to come out and listen to John McCain.
Speaker 10: I believe no matter, and I don't like Rona Sadiston's
Speaker 10: politics at all, but I do believe we ought to
Speaker 10: be respectful.
Speaker 3: Sure, and those in the crowd want his respect as well.
Speaker 3: Can the Black community in Florida count on this governor.
Speaker 10: No, He's done everything he could to offend not only
Speaker 10: the black community, but the gay community, all of us
Speaker 10: by picking on the most vulnerable in our communities. But
Speaker 10: it doesn't mean that I think publicly we should show disrespect.
Speaker 10: I'm just old school on that.
Speaker 3: Donna, thanks for coming in to talk to us today
Speaker 3: about any number of topics. Donna Shalela the interim president
Speaker 3: at the New School, former congresswoman from Florida is twenty seventh,
Speaker 3: and of course, former Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Speaker 3: Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast. Make sure
Speaker 3: to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and
Speaker 3: anywhere else you get your podcasts. And you can find
Speaker 3: us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm
Speaker 3: Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com.