Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: We have seen the most serious escalation of the war
Speaker 1: since the invasion in February. Stop. He needs to be stopped,
Speaker 1: and this is our goal, and this is our aim,
Speaker 1: and this is our attack. We can just flat leave
Speaker 1: and still probably hold his position together in Russia. Floomberg
Speaker 1: sound On, Politics, Policy and perspective from DC's top name.
Speaker 1: It's especially good to be here with the next United
Speaker 1: States Center from Georgia. I'm not running because i want
Speaker 1: to be a Senate. I'm running because I'm sick. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The Allies
Speaker 1: plan a new air defense system for Ukraine as Vladimir
Speaker 1: Putin threatens more missile attacks. Welcome to the fastest hour
Speaker 1: in politics with breaking news on a new effort by
Speaker 1: the US and NATO to close the skies. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about it with Mike Rogers, former Republican Congressman from Michigan
Speaker 1: and chair the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Herschel Walker
Speaker 1: tries to manage to damage sitting for an emotional one
Speaker 1: on one interview just a day after the Republican leadership
Speaker 1: tried to boost his campaign in Georgia. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: the race with political scientists Under Gillespie of Emory University
Speaker 1: Analysis from our panel today. Bloomberg Politics contributor Republican strategist
Speaker 1: Rick Davis is here along with Democratic canalyst Roger Fisk
Speaker 1: of New Day Strategy. Just a day after President Zelenski
Speaker 1: addressed a virtual meeting in the G seven, and after
Speaker 1: the deadly missile strikes on civilians across Ukraine over the weekend,
Speaker 1: the U S and its allies in Europe are up
Speaker 1: with a new plan to help. It's an integrated air
Speaker 1: defense system to protect against Russian cruise missiles weapons from airplanes.
Speaker 1: Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke in Brussels earlier today.
Speaker 1: The meeting in the Ukraine Contact Group as it's called.
Speaker 1: It's a group of fifty countries that meets to assess
Speaker 1: Ukraine's defense to gather again today to support Ukraine's an
Speaker 1: alienable rights to defend himself. Can Our resolve and steadiness
Speaker 1: of purpose has only been strengthened. But this will come
Speaker 1: with some challenges, and we're joined to talk about it
Speaker 1: by Mike Rogers, former Republican Congressman from Michigan chair the
Speaker 1: Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and is steeped in this material.
Speaker 1: Mr Chairman, welcome back to Bloomberg. It is great to
Speaker 1: be here. Thanks for having It's looking like Ukraine is
Speaker 1: about to get something that it's been asking for. I
Speaker 1: don't know if I should call it an iron dome.
Speaker 1: I think it's not such a thing technically, but a
Speaker 1: massive air defense system that would protect against air attack.
Speaker 1: Will it make a difference, Oh, it'll make a huge difference.
Speaker 1: Not only can it target incoming missiles, but some of
Speaker 1: the missiles that have been launched into Ukraine by Russia
Speaker 1: are plane based, and so any time that you can
Speaker 1: make those weapons have to stand off at a further
Speaker 1: distance to fire, it absolutely has an impact in our
Speaker 1: ability to a shoot them down there and stop the onslaught.
Speaker 1: Why don't we do this eight months ago? We should
Speaker 1: have absolutely done a date months ago once. Should you
Speaker 1: were in you know, it's in for a penny, in
Speaker 1: for a pound. Some notion that we can very publicly
Speaker 1: debate about which weapons systems go in or don't go in,
Speaker 1: or that one might be more leethful to Russians than
Speaker 1: that weapon. That's just an absolute losing, Uh, just a
Speaker 1: losing approach to this, and so think about it. You'll
Speaker 1: actually save lives, You'll by trying to draw this thing
Speaker 1: down to a close earlier. So a well weaponized Ukrainian
Speaker 1: army shouldn't be able to just not lose. They need
Speaker 1: to be able to put some hurt on the Russians.
Speaker 1: Now they've done that based on their their absolute tenacity
Speaker 1: to this point, but imagine if they had other weapons
Speaker 1: systems that would help round out their ability not only
Speaker 1: to defend their cities and their civilians, but again put
Speaker 1: the hurt on these Russians that are now just pouring
Speaker 1: over the border. From what we understand from General Millie,
Speaker 1: this will involve of weapons systems, weapons defense systems to
Speaker 1: be clear, from the US, from Germany, maybe even other countries.
Speaker 1: Based on your experience, do you have a sense of
Speaker 1: how long it would take to make all these different
Speaker 1: technologies work together or is this something that we can
Speaker 1: start now. Well, most NATO technology by design and implementation
Speaker 1: works together already, so that's not going to be the issue. Uh.
Speaker 1: If the issue is getting the equipment forward, meaning up
Speaker 1: to Ukraine, getting the Ukrainians trained on it so that
Speaker 1: they can be effective. And one thing I will tell
Speaker 1: you they have very quickly adapted to new technology on
Speaker 1: the battlefield, I mean very impressive. So not that won't
Speaker 1: part won't take long, but there is going to be
Speaker 1: some lag here. Uh. And if the Russians know it's coming,
Speaker 1: the only word you have is do they pour it
Speaker 1: on missile wise up until that point? And that's that's
Speaker 1: to be determined. Yeah, they obviously know it's coming as well.
Speaker 1: Of course, you know, wouldn't take long to train Ukrainians
Speaker 1: on fly and make twenty nine jets because they already
Speaker 1: know how to fly them. Are we're gonna be talking
Speaker 1: about this eight months from now, Congressman, as the jets
Speaker 1: finally go over there. That could have made a difference
Speaker 1: at the beginning. Oh, they definitely could have made a difference.
Speaker 1: Some I saw these arguments, crazy arguments that both jets
Speaker 1: wouldn't make a difference early on in the conflict and
Speaker 1: have no good under national security. Person who understands military
Speaker 1: doctrine knows that that was true. That was just nonsense.
Speaker 1: Steven said, it wouldn't make a difference. So how do
Speaker 1: you square that? Uh, that's I don't understand it. I
Speaker 1: think there's more politics in that than there is substance,
Speaker 1: and I think that's unfortunate. We know the way that
Speaker 1: they're delivering these other missile systems that they absolutely would
Speaker 1: have made a difference. Uh and uh, you mean getting them.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's inevitable one of the things.
Speaker 1: And I think why you're seeing this pullback in this notion,
Speaker 1: while that might not be effective, that might be effective. Listen,
Speaker 1: we want to give them what they're asking for they
Speaker 1: were asking for mix months ago. Is because the Pentagon
Speaker 1: keeps saying in the White House, keeps saying, well, what
Speaker 1: if they go into show listen that we're right now,
Speaker 1: we're just kind of dribbling and drabbling in and they're
Speaker 1: taking it and making huge games. And the original purpose
Speaker 1: was so you just don't lose. I'd give them everything
Speaker 1: right now. The concern was sending fighter jets could be
Speaker 1: seen as something more of a direct conflict between the
Speaker 1: US or NATO and Russia. Do you feel that way
Speaker 1: about a no fly zone? Is this air defense system
Speaker 1: a better way to keep Americans out of danger? I
Speaker 1: think it is, Listen, we don't want it to escalate
Speaker 1: beyond the borders. Of Ukraine, certainly from a NATO perspective,
Speaker 1: which is also the United States of that. Nobody wants that.
Speaker 1: But what you don't want to do is give this
Speaker 1: false notion to the Russians that they can just keep
Speaker 1: doing this for camp time infinitum, because that they have
Speaker 1: the ability not to have the Ukrainians really punchment in
Speaker 1: the mouth. Now they've been punched in the mouth. They've
Speaker 1: performed poorly. Their missile systems are excuse me, some of
Speaker 1: their technology and their weapons systems are not functioning the
Speaker 1: way we actually believe they would, and so all of
Speaker 1: that is a drag on them. But what you don't
Speaker 1: want to do is say, listen, I'll just call up
Speaker 1: through inter thousand people, I'll flood the zone, and I'll
Speaker 1: be doing this for a long time. And that means
Speaker 1: killing lots of civilians, lots of Ukrainians along the way.
Speaker 1: We need to force this to get to a point
Speaker 1: what Putin needs to sit down and say, Okay, let's
Speaker 1: work this out right now. Neither side as well to
Speaker 1: do that. President Biden says, Vladimir Putin is a rational actor,
Speaker 1: as we heard in the interview last night. Do you
Speaker 1: agree with him? Listen. I think obviously he's got some issues,
Speaker 1: but I do think in this military sense, he's a
Speaker 1: rational actor. He was told something different from by his
Speaker 1: military commanders about the readiness of his forces. He committed him,
Speaker 1: and if you see the decision since then, even though
Speaker 1: their conscripts are not doing well, there's more strategy in
Speaker 1: what he's doing, including, by the way, you know that
Speaker 1: leak that came out that said he has a nuclear torpedo,
Speaker 1: which would mean something that would attack ports, which would
Speaker 1: impact you know, the whole world's economy if you set
Speaker 1: one off. The fact that he said, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not opposed to using tactical nuclear weapon. And by the way,
Speaker 1: he's been saying that for twenty years. He believes tactical
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons are a part of his battlefield arsenal, So
Speaker 1: that's something to factor in, and so in that way,
Speaker 1: I do think he's rational, And I think what what
Speaker 1: the White House was trying to walk back is this
Speaker 1: notion of armageddon you use a tactical nuke. What the
Speaker 1: President was inferring is a strategic missile exchange, which would
Speaker 1: be absolutely catastrophic to the world. I don't think anybody
Speaker 1: believes that's the right answer. And I mean anybody's a
Speaker 1: new effort on Capitol Hill to stop selling or at
Speaker 1: least pause selling arms to Saudi Arabia following the oil
Speaker 1: production cut. Listen to Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking
Speaker 1: about this today. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it,
Speaker 1: asdis need to come to their senses. They have committed
Speaker 1: a humongous blunder very much. It's their own economic and
Speaker 1: security interests as well as ours. Should the US freeze
Speaker 1: out Saudi Arabia. Mr Chairman, as long as they're helping Russia,
Speaker 1: even if indirectly. Listen, I think they need to turn
Speaker 1: back around. But remember how we got here, and this
Speaker 1: is you know, diplomacy has consequences, and we sometimes forget that.
Speaker 1: The very fact that this administration stop supporting the Saudias
Speaker 1: in their proxy fight against Iran and what the Houthi
Speaker 1: rebel rebels was significant to them. The fact that they
Speaker 1: are negotiating with Iran on a nuclear deal that all
Speaker 1: of our arably partners say, what are you doing? Please
Speaker 1: don't do it? Uh, And then the very fact of
Speaker 1: this continued arm length lecturing, finger pointing. Listen, there's a
Speaker 1: time to be really tough diplomatically and I and I'm
Speaker 1: all in on that, and then there's a time to
Speaker 1: be smart diplomatically. We need the Saudiast, and I argue
Speaker 1: we need the Saudia is more than we need the Iranians.
Speaker 1: And it would be a smart thing to do to
Speaker 1: walk all of that back and say, listen, we're going
Speaker 1: to give you some strategic help. You know, the geographic
Speaker 1: region of the Saudi of the Saudiast is really important
Speaker 1: to the United States, better an ally there than an enemy.
Speaker 1: And they've marched down this path to ostracize the Saudiast
Speaker 1: to the point where I think they have nowhere else
Speaker 1: to go. We need to change that thinking also means
Speaker 1: we ought to ramp up our own domestic production. If
Speaker 1: we were energy independent, would you feel the same way.
Speaker 1: I mean, listen, we would get we would have more leverage.
Speaker 1: But again, remember the strategic area and what flows through there.
Speaker 1: It is a significant economic zone through the canals and
Speaker 1: all of that over uh in that region, and having
Speaker 1: either Iran in Sun of the Arabia fighting is bad
Speaker 1: for the world economy and our economy. The very fact
Speaker 1: that they would, you know, continue these proxy fights in
Speaker 1: and around the region is bad for our national security
Speaker 1: and their national security. So we just need to align
Speaker 1: our national security interests. Again, doesn't mean he can't be tough.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean you can't put your finger in the
Speaker 1: chest sometimes, but right now we need to align it
Speaker 1: to what the bigger strategic threats are to the United States,
Speaker 1: and the way they're doing this, you're gonna shove this
Speaker 1: out east right into the loving arms of the Russians
Speaker 1: who have no morals. Former Congressman Mike Rogers, former chair
Speaker 1: of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, appreciate your insights
Speaker 1: today on Bloomberg. Thanks again, come back and talk to
Speaker 1: us soon. Yeah, we'll do. Thanks for having me fascinating
Speaker 1: conversation that you're not going to hear anywhere else, and
Speaker 1: that's what we do here on Bloomberg. I'm Joe, Matthew
Speaker 1: and Washington. Thanks for joining us on the fastest hour
Speaker 1: in politics. It's sound on and a lot more to
Speaker 1: follow here. As Joe Biden weighs in on the idea
Speaker 1: as I mentioned, of Vladimir Putin being the rational actor
Speaker 1: but also one with irrational thoughts. We're gonna get into
Speaker 1: that with the panel next and see if this plan
Speaker 1: for air defense is one that's gonna work. Rick Davis
Speaker 1: will be with us Bloomberg Politics contributor and Republican strategist,
Speaker 1: and Roger Fisk is back the Democratic analysts, strategist and
Speaker 1: principle at New Day Strategy. We'll get their insights straight
Speaker 1: ahead after we check traffic and markets for you. Glad
Speaker 1: you came along on a Wednesday. I'm Joe Matthew. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio. President Biden weighs in on the war
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, his thoughts on Vladimir Putin, and of course
Speaker 1: a lot of other issues and what was one of
Speaker 1: the only sit down interviews that we have seen in
Speaker 1: his presidency, sat down with Jake Tapper at CNN. We're
Speaker 1: gonna go through some of this. That's where the rational
Speaker 1: actor line came from. As we look to the future
Speaker 1: here in this conflicts we welcome our panel. Rick Davis
Speaker 1: is with US Republican strategist and of course Bloomberg Politics contributor,
Speaker 1: now joined today by Roger Fisk, Democratic strategist principle at
Speaker 1: New Day Strategy. Great to have both if you hear
Speaker 1: and Roger, welcome back. It has been far too long.
Speaker 1: Why don't we go back through this moment here as
Speaker 1: we just discussed with Mike Rogers. As Jake Tapper asks
Speaker 1: Joe Biden the question of the night, do you think
Speaker 1: Putin is a rational actor? I think he is a
Speaker 1: rational actor who's miscalculated significantly. He did stop to think
Speaker 1: about that. Roger didn't seem like a rehearsed answer. Was
Speaker 1: it the wrong answer? First off, Joe, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for having me, and I very much enjoy being on
Speaker 1: with Rick. I would of of the entire conversation. I
Speaker 1: think we could safely put that one into the into
Speaker 1: the bucket of of gaffe. I doubt that he intended
Speaker 1: to go out there and say that. I kind of
Speaker 1: I get what he's trying to say, which is to
Speaker 1: say that, um that even even an unstable um international
Speaker 1: vision of one's country can be um pursued by a
Speaker 1: by a quote unquote rational actor. I think in in In.
Speaker 1: In Putin's own mind, he regards himself as rational. UM.
Speaker 1: But what we're seeing is is the kind of curdling
Speaker 1: of those of that entire conflict and the most dangerous
Speaker 1: thing to someone with the self regard, shall we say,
Speaker 1: of Putin is international embarrassment. When I think that, I
Speaker 1: think what we've seen just in the last forty eight
Speaker 1: hours in terms of the barbarity is going to be
Speaker 1: dialed up intensely. So even if he continues to be
Speaker 1: um pushed back into Russia, um that he will dial
Speaker 1: up the cruelty. Um. So, unfortunately, I have a feeling
Speaker 1: that we have much more still ahead of us than
Speaker 1: behind us. Rick was that President Biden's way of saying
Speaker 1: that we should take him seriously just didn't come out
Speaker 1: the way that maybe he wanted it to. Well, I
Speaker 1: think the conclusion by most of the national security team
Speaker 1: within the Biden administration, including Defense Department, is that that
Speaker 1: that Putin is acting as a rational actor. Some of
Speaker 1: the things he does seem irrational, but that that that know,
Speaker 1: he's acting as a you know, sort of commander in
Speaker 1: chief who's moving his chess pieces around and he's just
Speaker 1: not having much success with the chess and and and
Speaker 1: the reality is we have to act that way because
Speaker 1: if he is irrational and he has nuclear weapons, it
Speaker 1: poses a completely different dilemma. Uh. And so I think
Speaker 1: that that the President was playing out his hand saying
Speaker 1: he's rational, we expect him to act rationally and and
Speaker 1: therefore the use of nuclear weapons, regardless of whether they're
Speaker 1: a you know, water based, seed based weapon or a
Speaker 1: tactical nuke. Uh, it's it's unacceptable, uh to the western world,
Speaker 1: not just to the United States. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: in this case, the president speaks for the civilized world.
Speaker 1: The companion question here, uh was about meeting with Vladimir Putin. Okay,
Speaker 1: so if you think he's a rational character, would you
Speaker 1: not sit down and meet with him? The answer was
Speaker 1: interesting as well. Look, I have no intention I mean
Speaker 1: with him. But for example, if you came to me
Speaker 1: the G twenty and said I want to talk about
Speaker 1: the release of Grinder, I live with him. I mean,
Speaker 1: it would depend. He might have wanted to use her
Speaker 1: first name, Roger, But that's actually a little bit warmer,
Speaker 1: right he he actually might have thought about that question. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I think the president is is absolutely correct because
Speaker 1: what what what Putin would want from that is just
Speaker 1: the image the validation um and a lot of what
Speaker 1: goes into diplomacy before something like that is most of
Speaker 1: your leverage is before that moment, right, So, for example,
Speaker 1: working with North Korea about something verification mechanisms and all
Speaker 1: these other things that could lead into a head of
Speaker 1: state meeting with another head of state. And so I
Speaker 1: think he's absolutely spot on about that, and and more tactically,
Speaker 1: having staffed a president out of G eight and things
Speaker 1: like that or at a G twenty in this context. Nine, Um,
Speaker 1: if it were as if it were as a a
Speaker 1: microscopic situation that was to be discussed a specif of
Speaker 1: an individual, a specific prescription drug, a specific vaccine, then
Speaker 1: you could put it in that in that kind of bucket,
Speaker 1: and and and somewhat decouple it from this larger dynamic.
Speaker 1: But if it is just let's shake hands in front
Speaker 1: of our country's flags kind of stuff, not gonna happen. Rick,
Speaker 1: do you think he should make the point if it,
Speaker 1: if it resulted in a prisoner swap or prisoner release,
Speaker 1: make the point to meet with putin that would be
Speaker 1: that would be quite a story, The images would be historic. Well,
Speaker 1: I think you've got to be careful. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I learned from John McCain who used to say, I'll
Speaker 1: meet with anybody as long as they have my conditions
Speaker 1: for the meeting, and and and it made total set right. Okay,
Speaker 1: a condition space meeting? Is there a ceasefire in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Is there a exchange of prisoners there? I mean, like,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of things that you could condition
Speaker 1: a meeting with Vladimir Putin on that that would actually
Speaker 1: be potentially attractive to Vladimir Putin to do, and then
Speaker 1: create a better environment for that meeting. Um doesn't do
Speaker 1: any good for the president to meet with this guy
Speaker 1: while he's acting like a global thug, and so UH
Speaker 1: it elevates Putin, It does not solve the problem. And
Speaker 1: I think this was the mistake when UH Donald Trump
Speaker 1: met with Kim Jong Il, and UH gave him a
Speaker 1: platform that he could never have gotten from a president
Speaker 1: United States and or anybody else who was a world leader.
Speaker 1: So I think if you can create the right conditions
Speaker 1: for a meeting, then I think a meeting has always
Speaker 1: got to be on the table. But my guess is
Speaker 1: UH Putin probably wouldn't accept whatever conditions would be reasonable
Speaker 1: enough to be publicly accepted to have a meeting like that.
Speaker 1: The White House still can't figure out why they haven't
Speaker 1: heard back on this offer for a prisoner swap. We'll
Speaker 1: keep talking with Rick Davis and Roger Fisk are panel
Speaker 1: for today on Bloomberg. Sound on, as we turn to
Speaker 1: the race in Georgia. Ahead, herschel Walker has decided to
Speaker 1: sit down for an interview and begin cleaning up the mess.
Speaker 1: Is that possible or did he just make it worse.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk with political scientists Under Gillespie and our
Speaker 1: panel about it. Ahead, this is Bloomberg. The event was
Speaker 1: supposed to be a reset. You get Rick Scott, Tom Cotton,
Speaker 1: both Republicans from the Senate. Rick Scott, of course part
Speaker 1: of the leadership here to stump with herschel Walker actually
Speaker 1: go to Georgia and get down to business. Is great
Speaker 1: to be back in the state of Georgia. It's it's
Speaker 1: especially good to be here with the next United States
Speaker 1: Center from Georgia. There's no scandal, Tom Cotton, they're getting
Speaker 1: the crowd rolling. Rick Scott spend time talking with them,
Speaker 1: and then of course herschel Walker himself. Now, if you've
Speaker 1: been living under a rock, you might not know about this.
Speaker 1: I don't think I have to give you the background
Speaker 1: on this whole story. As the Senate Canada who opposes
Speaker 1: abortion rights, has been hit with allegations that he paid
Speaker 1: for a girlfriend to have the procedure, urged you to
Speaker 1: have a second one, And now she's telling the Washington
Speaker 1: Post she had to argue for him and begged him
Speaker 1: to pay for it. Interesting backdrop to tell a story
Speaker 1: like this one that herschel Walker has been telling on
Speaker 1: the campaign trail. We actually talked about it here once,
Speaker 1: the whole bull cow story. So I've been telling this
Speaker 1: a little story about this bull light in the field
Speaker 1: with six cows and three of them are pregnant, so
Speaker 1: you know he got something going on. But all he
Speaker 1: cared about it's kept his nose against the fence, looking
Speaker 1: at three other cows that then blowing to him. Just
Speaker 1: that would have would have been enough, I suspect, But
Speaker 1: I mean, we have to finish the story again, herschel Walker.
Speaker 1: So one day he measured that fence up and he said,
Speaker 1: I think I can jump this. So that day came
Speaker 1: where he got back, and he got back and as
Speaker 1: he took off running, he dove over that fence and
Speaker 1: his bed that got cut up on it at bottom.
Speaker 1: But as he made it over on the other side,
Speaker 1: he shook it off and got so excited about it,
Speaker 1: and he ran to the top of that hill. But
Speaker 1: when he got up there he realized they were bulls too.
Speaker 1: So what I'm telling you don't think something is better
Speaker 1: somewhere else. I mean, if you could make up something better,
Speaker 1: I'd play it. Sat down today with ABC News in
Speaker 1: exclusive one on one to reinforce the denial, denial to
Speaker 1: any knowledge of an abortion out there now lie la
Speaker 1: la la. And you know what's sad about it that
Speaker 1: he had well is it a receipt and had a
Speaker 1: check and had all that he hadn't shown anything and
Speaker 1: shown me having a saying something about an abortion. And
Speaker 1: that's that's what's terrible. Let's bringing under Gillespie, Emory University
Speaker 1: political science professor Ander What a time for us to
Speaker 1: speak here. He's got a debate on Friday night. The
Speaker 1: average of polls are real clear. Last I saw, I
Speaker 1: had him down by five against Raphael Warnock. How would
Speaker 1: you describe the state of the Walker campaign? I would
Speaker 1: point out that based on the margin of error UM
Speaker 1: and the confidence intervals of of these polls, that's still
Speaker 1: statistically a tie in most of these instances, and so
Speaker 1: this race is going to be very close. Um, it's
Speaker 1: too close to call. There are two other candidates in
Speaker 1: the race, and according to Georgia law, candidate has to
Speaker 1: get plus one of the vote in order to avoid
Speaker 1: a run off. So one we very likely could be
Speaker 1: looking at a runoff election. UM, and to regardless of
Speaker 1: who wins, we're looking at very narrow margins between Walker
Speaker 1: and Warnock because of the competitive nature of Georgia politics.
Speaker 1: Who cares about this story? Because I keep hearing from
Speaker 1: Republicans that people in Georgia don't care that they're worried
Speaker 1: about inflation, they're worried about crime, that it's people like
Speaker 1: me and the media who are playing this stuff. How
Speaker 1: is this actually resonating in your state. I think most
Speaker 1: voters have already made their minds up about the race,
Speaker 1: and the polling data shows that there are very few
Speaker 1: undecided voters. But it's those undecided voters that could make
Speaker 1: the difference between one of these candidates winning or losing
Speaker 1: the race, and that's why these stories are most important.
Speaker 1: I think the vast majority of voters are either really
Speaker 1: strong Democrats are strong Republicans. They've made up their mind
Speaker 1: about who they're going to vote for. There's a small
Speaker 1: sliver of undecided voters, of independent voters who may be
Speaker 1: still trying to gather more information. And this isn't the
Speaker 1: type of information that the Walker campaign would want these
Speaker 1: voters to have, because they may make a decision to
Speaker 1: say that this, compounded with the other baggage that Welcome
Speaker 1: brings to the table, maybe enough to disqualify him from
Speaker 1: holding the seat. So what we're waiting for in the
Speaker 1: general election is to see when how independence break. But
Speaker 1: we're also going to look to see whether or not
Speaker 1: there's actually going to be a drop off, if you will,
Speaker 1: So there may be people who skip the Senate race,
Speaker 1: choose to vote Republican down ticket and all the other races,
Speaker 1: including the gubernatorial race. Um and if that happens, that
Speaker 1: actually bolds well or that would actually probably build better
Speaker 1: for Robe one than it was. Andrew, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your talking with us on Bloomberg Radio under
Speaker 1: Gillespie at Emery University. You want to bring the panel
Speaker 1: in on this quickly, Roger Fisk and Rick Davis Uh Roger,
Speaker 1: I'm guessing for starters you would tell the candidates to
Speaker 1: not be telling that story. But does sitting down for
Speaker 1: an interview in this day and age help well. To
Speaker 1: his credit, the Old Testament does make numerous parallels between
Speaker 1: shadow and women, so maybe that's what he's thinking about.
Speaker 1: But now, I mean, this isn't This is an absolute
Speaker 1: train wreck, and unfortunately for Mr Walker it joins eight
Speaker 1: or ten other data points. Right. It's it's not just
Speaker 1: an anomaly. Um. It seems as if we're living in
Speaker 1: essentially a consequence free environment. UM, for especially folks on
Speaker 1: the Republican side. I don't know what depths of conduct
Speaker 1: um could could we could be lowered too and still
Speaker 1: have people support them. What's really interesting for me to
Speaker 1: add to the list of your very able guest of
Speaker 1: just a moment ago is that Brian Camp has gone
Speaker 1: radio silent on the Walker candidacy. So if all of
Speaker 1: a sudden you have something as tight as your guests
Speaker 1: just described, which I completely agree with, and then you
Speaker 1: have a relatively popular Republican incumbent governor governor who is
Speaker 1: um not seemingly willing to carry any water for his
Speaker 1: own party's Senate nominee, that in and of itself could
Speaker 1: make the difference. In addition to educated independent women who
Speaker 1: are who split from the former president and um resulted
Speaker 1: in not only him losing Georgia, but losing the two
Speaker 1: Senate seats. Rick, we'll have some more time to hear
Speaker 1: your thoughts on this in a couple of minutes. But
Speaker 1: but before we we turn to traffic and markets, would
Speaker 1: you be spending time with herschel Walker preparing for this debate?
Speaker 1: I mean, is that going to be a change maker
Speaker 1: here in this campaign? Well, certainly a lot of people
Speaker 1: are going to be curious, right, I mean, what he's
Speaker 1: done is into a curiosity. But now he and only
Speaker 1: he can extinguish they're gonna have a ratings record on
Speaker 1: this thing. Hold that thought, Rick, I'm Joe Matthew. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg. So long with Joe Matthew
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio, as we spend time with our panel.
Speaker 1: Rick Davis is with us today along with Roger Fisk
Speaker 1: and an eye on this race in Georgia just a
Speaker 1: couple of days before their big debate, Hershall Walker and
Speaker 1: Raphael Warnock Walker as we were just discussing, and we'll
Speaker 1: hear again from the panel on this staff for an
Speaker 1: interview today with ABC News, and it wasn't just the
Speaker 1: denials that were important, it was also the level of emotion. Now,
Speaker 1: remember here, this is this is a football players. He's
Speaker 1: a tough guy, probably doesn't cry a lot on TV,
Speaker 1: but they got there today. I'm not running because i
Speaker 1: want to be a senator. I'm running because I'm sick
Speaker 1: and tired. People have died, people can't. He called her
Speaker 1: to people and Washington doing to people, and then they lie,
Speaker 1: let's bringing Rick Davis and Roger Fiske. Rick. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure this works or not, but somebody I'm assuming told
Speaker 1: him it was okay to go there, that that that
Speaker 1: he might want to do, uh, something more personal, more
Speaker 1: emotional on camera. What do you think? Well, I'm pretty
Speaker 1: confident that the people around him, uh really needed to
Speaker 1: reset this campaign some reason. There are other senators coming
Speaker 1: in from Washington, d ced try to change the narrative.
Speaker 1: He desperately needs to get a narrative change, and so
Speaker 1: I'm sure they walked him out thinking, you know, Brook,
Speaker 1: this year one best jot to set the record straight
Speaker 1: and try to reconnect with the people of Georgia. Um, Look,
Speaker 1: these are hard, long campaigns. They create a lot of emotion.
Speaker 1: It doesn't surprise me that he became emotional because I
Speaker 1: think he sees his life kind of being torn apart,
Speaker 1: and whether it's accurate or not, his his life's in
Speaker 1: the grinder. He's in the crucible, and it's his moment
Speaker 1: and he's got to set it right. So the pressure
Speaker 1: is enormous in those kinds of situations. Rick Scott again
Speaker 1: was there in Georgia to stump with herschel Walker and
Speaker 1: he was asked after that little scrum after he and
Speaker 1: Tom Cotton about Raphael Warnock and about this whole scandal,
Speaker 1: and was with his bothered and he turned right to
Speaker 1: the opo on Warnock, listen to what he said ahead
Speaker 1: of a church, and they kicked people out of the
Speaker 1: church for being just a few dollars behind the writ.
Speaker 1: Here's a guy that abused his wife. He didn't he
Speaker 1: didn't stand up for anything. He's he's voted for abortion
Speaker 1: up until the moment of birth, Rafael Warnock has. These
Speaker 1: are pretty heavy accusations, Roger. I don't know if any
Speaker 1: of them are true or not. I don't know if
Speaker 1: this will will be U will be aired out in
Speaker 1: the campaign, but you expect a lot more where that
Speaker 1: came from sure about a reverend. I mean, you can
Speaker 1: just feel the kind of projectile vomiting of like, let's
Speaker 1: just send everything possible out of there. Uh um. And
Speaker 1: you know, Rick Scott Have, the person who I believe
Speaker 1: it is paid one of the largest medicaid fraud finds
Speaker 1: in history, is not necessarily not really someone to be
Speaker 1: the traffic cop of morality and a lot of these things.
Speaker 1: And you could tell in his voice is so hurried
Speaker 1: and he's just trying to kind of machine gun this
Speaker 1: stuff out. Um. And that's certainly no way to get
Speaker 1: it to actually um to to stick at all. And
Speaker 1: they're they're panicking. Um. It's far back as when I
Speaker 1: first started to even just read news, let alone politics.
Speaker 1: I always thought there was a fundamental kind of shall
Speaker 1: we say insincerity to be polite about the moral majority
Speaker 1: voting kind of movement. I always thought there was just
Speaker 1: a core kind of fraudulence to it. And and lo
Speaker 1: and behold, especially in the last five or six years,
Speaker 1: we we see that it's it's all circumstantial, it's all transactional. Um.
Speaker 1: There's an absolute vacuum of principle there, and it's all
Speaker 1: about um getting the majority in the U. S. Senate
Speaker 1: so that they can you know, move forward an agenda
Speaker 1: that marginalizes women and increases tax cuts for the for
Speaker 1: the wealthy. And you can see the panic as they
Speaker 1: see that slipping away because they debate on Friday. I know.
Speaker 1: And and what's the reverence job on Friday? The reverence job.
Speaker 1: It's odd. It's a very very odd situation in the
Speaker 1: last few years when it's become the Democrats to fault posture,
Speaker 1: to be the adult in the room that that used
Speaker 1: to be the province of our our friends across. But
Speaker 1: you just let him do this to himself? Or does
Speaker 1: the does does Warnock have to go on the warnoc
Speaker 1: has to go in there and be a stable, sober
Speaker 1: steward of civic and public life and dependable somewhere between
Speaker 1: the forty yard lines of the American kind of ideological spectrum.
Speaker 1: And uh and and and then just you know, when
Speaker 1: the other guys digging, you know, just don't take away
Speaker 1: his shovel, Okay? Is that the move here, Rick? Or
Speaker 1: does Warnock need to go on the attack? Uh? You know,
Speaker 1: I think Rogers got something to this notion that you've
Speaker 1: got a guy like Rick Scott coming down there to
Speaker 1: campaign for herschel Walker. I wouldn't. I wouldn't attack Rick Scott,
Speaker 1: but like I would definitely if I were Raphael Warrant,
Speaker 1: use the opportunity to say, hey, look these guys get
Speaker 1: in power. Their agenda is take away your social security,
Speaker 1: take away your welfare checks, take away your medicaid, make
Speaker 1: you pay higher prices for drugs. And I mean, like,
Speaker 1: this is his agenda, and I would I would stick
Speaker 1: that right on herschel Walker and say you just campaigned
Speaker 1: with him, You tell me you disagree with everything that
Speaker 1: he's for. And I think he has to go on
Speaker 1: the attack because the reality is it is a dead
Speaker 1: heat and there's nothing guaranteed in this election, and we've
Speaker 1: seen Georgia, you know, uh, be pretty rocky when it
Speaker 1: comes to outcome. So I think sitting on at one
Speaker 1: point lead is a disaster. Fisk and Davis with us
Speaker 1: here for a couple of more moments our panel today.
Speaker 1: I've got to talk about what's going on in Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: because while this fire is burning for publicans in Georgia,
Speaker 1: there's a real mess for some Democrats in l A.
Speaker 1: This is sound from inside the l A City council chamber,
Speaker 1: where three city councilors, including Council President Nouri Martinez, were
Speaker 1: caught on tape making crude and racist remarks about, among
Speaker 1: other things, the black son of another council member named
Speaker 1: Mike Boner speak they chance as one of the three
Speaker 1: council members, not the council president, walked out onto the panel. Here.
Speaker 1: President Biden has called for all three to resign. Now,
Speaker 1: if you're not familiar with the story, the l A
Speaker 1: Times was out with this leaked tape of Nouri Martinez
Speaker 1: again as the council president, who is now taking a
Speaker 1: leave of absence, talking with these two other counselors, the
Speaker 1: black and brown on the floor, and then there's the
Speaker 1: white guy with the little black hid with risky hate.
Speaker 1: It's I mean you have no Yeah, there are doing
Speaker 1: the kids bouncing off the wall on the floating it over.
Speaker 1: There's nothing able to go to control him. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: was translation little monkey she said at the end. There again,
Speaker 1: that white guy is Counselor Mike Bonnen, who is a gay,
Speaker 1: white man who adopted this black child, and he made
Speaker 1: a remarkable and emotional address to the council. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of people who are now asking for forgiveness,
Speaker 1: and and asking for forgiveness is a good first step,
Speaker 1: but well it's the second step because first first you
Speaker 1: must resign and then asked her for getting This speech
Speaker 1: lasted over ten minutes, it was emotional. You can hear
Speaker 1: how involved the people were there. Uh to think that
Speaker 1: this has gone all the way to the White House.
Speaker 1: Roger President Biden, according to Karine, Jean Pierre, thinks all
Speaker 1: should resign. You agree, I do think they should resign. Um.
Speaker 1: I would hesitate about getting the White House involved only
Speaker 1: because they're probably asked to intervene in fifteen or twenty
Speaker 1: of these things a month in some form or another.
Speaker 1: And you can think back early in the Obama administration
Speaker 1: about Professor Gates at Harvard and the police officer and
Speaker 1: Cambridge Mass and then they ended up doing this kind
Speaker 1: of clumsy beer or somethingthings. You get into these kind
Speaker 1: of um microscopic, kind of singular situations, and they they're
Speaker 1: gonna have to turn around. The White House is going
Speaker 1: to have to decline to get involved in twenty or
Speaker 1: thirty or fifty or a hundred other situations like that.
Speaker 1: So tactically I would have recommended that they not get
Speaker 1: involved and let this play out based on the rules
Speaker 1: and the code of conduct of the Los Angeles City Council.
Speaker 1: But for my money, UM, based on who these folks
Speaker 1: are and the tinder box that Los Angeles is and
Speaker 1: the responsibility that they have, they should really take a
Speaker 1: hard look at themselves and step down. It's a pretty
Speaker 1: major scandal for the city, Rick, but it's actually made
Speaker 1: international news. Should the White House even be weighing in
Speaker 1: on this, Yeah, I wouldn't. I wouldn't suggest the White
Speaker 1: House get involved in something like this. I mean, you
Speaker 1: could be cute and say, well, Gavin Newsom wants to
Speaker 1: be president, let him handle it, But that's just just me. Um.
Speaker 1: It's just one of these very nasty, sad uh situations
Speaker 1: where you know, unfortunately in politics, especially local politics, sometimes
Speaker 1: really bad people say really bad things, and the community
Speaker 1: there is going to fix the problem, you can be
Speaker 1: sure of that, uh and uh and and they'll get
Speaker 1: their ounce of flesh out of these people. But to
Speaker 1: to to make this more than it really is. I know,
Speaker 1: this is the social media world we live in now,
Speaker 1: and you know, everything is everything local is international. But
Speaker 1: in this case, I think these are best handled by
Speaker 1: the community that's affected directly by them attempt to do this.
Speaker 1: I've got one more for both of you, and it
Speaker 1: brings us to Pennsylvania, where a very importan and senate
Speaker 1: races underway. And John Feederman, the Democratic Lieutenant governor, of course,
Speaker 1: had a stroke and we've talked on this program about
Speaker 1: the back and forth about his health with Dr Oz
Speaker 1: But he sat for an interview. Uh this was with
Speaker 1: NBC News, and he had to use a closed caption
Speaker 1: to to fully understand the questions he was being asked.
Speaker 1: In his words, here that auditory processing where I'll hear
Speaker 1: someone speaking, but sometimes will be it will be precise
Speaker 1: and what exactly that they're saying. I use captioning. He
Speaker 1: did have to slow down a couple of times correct himself.
Speaker 1: He's clearly not fully recovered here. We only have about
Speaker 1: a minute left. Rogers, Is this a liability or something that,
Speaker 1: in the words of Senator Bob Casey, he could use
Speaker 1: to his benefit in what is now a world that's
Speaker 1: much more sympathetic to people with disability. Ultimately, people ask himself,
Speaker 1: is this person who they say they are? And they
Speaker 1: can they can look at his time as mayor of Braddock.
Speaker 1: They can look at his time as a lieutenant governor
Speaker 1: and know that this is not a condition that he's
Speaker 1: had all this time, right, And so I think they
Speaker 1: can factor that into him encountering a particular stumble in
Speaker 1: his health. And you the reflective surface of that is
Speaker 1: the his his opponent, you know who. It's not coming
Speaker 1: off as genuine or authentic. So in a sense, I
Speaker 1: think it can cut relatively well for him. Do you
Speaker 1: agree with that, Rick, You've been down this road before
Speaker 1: with the candidate's health. Was at the right time for
Speaker 1: that conversation? Yeah, you know, I've read the reporting on it,
Speaker 1: and then I was really disturbed by it. Right, Wow,
Speaker 1: can the guy actually campaign? Can he do a debate?
Speaker 1: Can he can he do the functions of the office.
Speaker 1: And then I watched the interview, I thought, are he's
Speaker 1: doing fine? Rick Davis, Roger Fisk, what a great talk,
Speaker 1: great panel. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg