Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg Sound On.
Speaker 1: All eyes are on Pennsylvania because this is the seat
Speaker 1: to the majority. Had a stroke. He's never let me
Speaker 1: forget that, and I might miss some words during this
Speaker 1: debate the position I've been in the room when there's
Speaker 1: some difficult conversations happen to Bloomberg Sound on Politics, Policy
Speaker 1: and perspective from DC's top names. Allegations coming from the
Speaker 1: Russians that somehow the Ukrainians are looking are contemplating using
Speaker 1: the so called dirty bombs. Are concerned that this false
Speaker 1: allegation could be used as a free text. Bloomberg Sound
Speaker 1: On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. The path gets
Speaker 1: more difficult for Democrats following the debate in Pennsylvania. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the fastest hour in politics, as John Fetterman goes
Speaker 1: at it with Dr Oz even as he continues to
Speaker 1: recover from a stroke. Was it worth it? We're joined
Speaker 1: by a pro political consultant, longtime debate coach Rhett O'Donnell
Speaker 1: with us first on Sound on the Russian military meantime
Speaker 1: running drills simulating a nuclear strike. The Secretary of State
Speaker 1: speaking exclusively with Bloomberg News about what would be, in
Speaker 1: his words, an incredibly serious mistake. Will have more on
Speaker 1: that conversation with Kurt Volker, former US Special rep for
Speaker 1: Ukraine Negotiations, former US Ambassador to NATO. Our state that
Speaker 1: your panels in place. Bloomberg Politics contributor Jeanie Chanzano here
Speaker 1: in New York. Rick Davis is in Washington. John Fetterman
Speaker 1: went right for it in his opening statement during last
Speaker 1: night's Senate debate with Dr Oz Doctor mement Oz in
Speaker 1: what he called what Fetterman called the elephant in the room.
Speaker 1: I had a stroke. He's never let me forget that,
Speaker 1: and I might miss some words during this debate, two
Speaker 1: words together, but it knocked me down, and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: keep coming back up. Solid opening message. But of course
Speaker 1: he made good on that warning, and he did struggle
Speaker 1: through portions of this debate. Now, of course we knew
Speaker 1: the there would be closed captioning, and to be clear,
Speaker 1: there were two seventy in monitors above the moderators, which
Speaker 1: resulted in some delay. As I'm going to play for
Speaker 1: you here, and this is kind of the best example
Speaker 1: of what he was dealing with last night. Not only
Speaker 1: a delay in answering the question, but at times forming
Speaker 1: the answer. This was a question about fracking and whether
Speaker 1: he was on one side of this issue or the other.
Speaker 1: There is that two thousand eight interview that you said, quote,
Speaker 1: I don't support fracking at all. So how do you
Speaker 1: square the two? Oh, I do support fracking and I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't I support fracking and I stand and I
Speaker 1: do support fracking. So okay, thank you, Mr Federman. There
Speaker 1: we have it. He did say that he supports fracking,
Speaker 1: but that was then mixed up with I don't, and
Speaker 1: people were confused at times in this debate, remembering he's
Speaker 1: going against the TV stars doctor Oz for crying out
Speaker 1: Lout has spent years in front of the camera as
Speaker 1: a well paid television personality. He had his own struggles
Speaker 1: and we're going to go through that as well. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is a tense debate and a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: today are now asking why, now that we see where
Speaker 1: he is in his recovery, why was John Fetterman put
Speaker 1: in such a vulnerable position with two weeks to go
Speaker 1: before the election. Brett O'donnald joins us. Now, I've been
Speaker 1: looking forward to this conversation. Media strategist president of o'donnald
Speaker 1: and Associates. He held seven U S. Senate candidates prepare
Speaker 1: to go on to win victory in assisted in preparing
Speaker 1: Governor Mitt Romney for presidential primary debates in Florida. Was
Speaker 1: director of messaging for the McCain presidential campaign, helped to
Speaker 1: prepare John McCain, and was retained by the Bush Cheney
Speaker 1: camp to assist the president in debate preparation for the
Speaker 1: two thousand four presidential debates. Brett O'Donnell, I can't imagine
Speaker 1: what you were thinking watching this last night. Was it
Speaker 1: worth the exercise? Well, it was painful and as I
Speaker 1: wrote today, it really proves that you know, it's not
Speaker 1: that that amendment. OZ won't let John Fetterman forget about
Speaker 1: his stroke. John Fetterman reminded Pennsylvanians, and they will never
Speaker 1: forget last night. In my opinion, most of the media
Speaker 1: Joe Scarborough said this was painful to watch, regardless of
Speaker 1: your politics, whether you're Republican or Democrat, because you know,
Speaker 1: debates are really important. In my opinion, that's what I
Speaker 1: do for a living. They're important to the political process
Speaker 1: because they demonstrate an essential skill of a candidate. That
Speaker 1: skill is to be able to synthesize complex thought, complex
Speaker 1: thoughts quickly and put them into cogent communication, uh, thoughts
Speaker 1: that are short sixty seconds or so. And Fetterman failed
Speaker 1: that test. Unfortunately. It wasn't you know, if federal Oz
Speaker 1: was good, he was his normal teeth he self. He
Speaker 1: stayed on stage, he stayed on the on the attack,
Speaker 1: but he had his moments. But but Fetterman had great
Speaker 1: problems last night since its synthesizing anything. I mean what
Speaker 1: you played from the fracking response was one of the
Speaker 1: worst moments in the debate. But it also seemed that
Speaker 1: he was frequently lost. I don't think it was the
Speaker 1: timing of the close captioning that did it to him.
Speaker 1: I just think that he's in recovery as a as
Speaker 1: a stroke patient, and we wish him well on that recuse.
Speaker 1: So would you have let him go out there or
Speaker 1: would you have tried to prepare him in a different way? No,
Speaker 1: I would have never let him go out, taken him
Speaker 1: through prep and he would have been sick that evening
Speaker 1: and unable to appear because the appearance did you know
Speaker 1: you you you basically measure these appearances by what does
Speaker 1: the most harm. And you might have gotten some bad
Speaker 1: stories off of saying he was ill, but you're getting
Speaker 1: you're getting much more negative stories off of the performance
Speaker 1: last night. You know, debates are the most performative aspect
Speaker 1: of a campaign, and your inability to perform in that
Speaker 1: atmosphere can be a killer. I mean, there's there's Debates
Speaker 1: are replete with examples of this. Man Ronald Reagan back
Speaker 1: in the debates, had a problem in his first debate
Speaker 1: against Walter Mondale, but made a big comeback in his
Speaker 1: second debate because he was able to do that. John
Speaker 1: Federman is not able to do this because he's not
Speaker 1: up for the challenges of a U. S. Senate seat.
Speaker 1: And um, you know, I think Pennsylvanians, at least Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: Democrats should have considered their options before they let him
Speaker 1: into the primary. Connor Lamb what have performed much better
Speaker 1: last night? And was the Federman campaign emboldened by the
Speaker 1: watching the herschel Walker campaign go through its debate having
Speaker 1: been you know they were they were told God, don't
Speaker 1: do it. After the scandal came up, the allegations about
Speaker 1: paying for the abortion just canceled the debate. Nobody cares
Speaker 1: about debates anymore, is what they said. Brett Now John
Speaker 1: Feederman's you know watches this happen went pretty well. Herschel
Speaker 1: Walker's back in the game. Did they think they could
Speaker 1: pull off the same thing? Um? I don't know that
Speaker 1: that's a great comparison, because herschel Walker was challenged, at
Speaker 1: least by the press on not being knowledgeable or fit
Speaker 1: for the office, and he proved differently because he's a
Speaker 1: smart person. John Fetterman is a smart person, but he
Speaker 1: is recovering from a major stroke that is very obvious,
Speaker 1: and I think Pennsylvanians would do well to let him
Speaker 1: recover rather than send him to the U. S. Senate.
Speaker 1: I think it does a disservice to both him and
Speaker 1: to the people that he would represent. He he's not
Speaker 1: going to be able to be a competent representative for them.
Speaker 1: That was proven last evening, and so, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't think it's a great comparison. I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: their decision calculus was, because if they did any serious
Speaker 1: debate prep, they would have found out loading him up
Speaker 1: with just a bunch of lines was not going to
Speaker 1: get him. You have to be able to sell those
Speaker 1: lines right. He couldn't even really get the ten mansions
Speaker 1: and that kind of stuff. I do want to bring
Speaker 1: you into a moment in the campaign, in the debate Bread,
Speaker 1: when the issue of abortion came up, because this is
Speaker 1: one that is being actually uh hung around Doctor Oz
Speaker 1: here in the way that he handled this question, it
Speaker 1: was it was a poor choice of words at best.
Speaker 1: Listen to Dr Oz. There should not be involved in
Speaker 1: from the federal government and how states decide their abortion decisions.
Speaker 1: As a physician, I've been in the room when there's
Speaker 1: some difficult conversations happening. I don't want the federal government
Speaker 1: involved with that at all. I want women, doctors, local
Speaker 1: political leaders letting the democracy that's always allowed our nation
Speaker 1: to thrive. It seemed like he was onto something with
Speaker 1: the you know, I've been in the room Bread, that's
Speaker 1: a good place to start. I'm I'm a physician. But
Speaker 1: then to suggest that local political leaders are in the
Speaker 1: room too. Boy, that was that was a viral moment
Speaker 1: for Democrats last night. Yeah, I agree, but I think
Speaker 1: it's being taken out of context. Look, Dr Oz said
Speaker 1: he didn't want the federal government in the room and
Speaker 1: I think what was trying to say is that he
Speaker 1: wanted this, he wanted doctors and women their husbands or
Speaker 1: whatever in the room, and that he wanted this decision,
Speaker 1: the decisions about abortion laws to be made at the
Speaker 1: local and state level. And I think he ended up
Speaker 1: kind of convoluting all three of those things. UM. And
Speaker 1: it's being read as he wants local politicians in the room.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think that's exactly right. I think
Speaker 1: that he was saying he wants these decisions made at
Speaker 1: the state level, which is what the court said, but
Speaker 1: he could have been a little bit more articulate in
Speaker 1: expressing that. So we can knock this around a couple
Speaker 1: of different ways, as we as we are with Brett O'Donnell.
Speaker 1: Knowing that six hundred and thirty nine thousand people in
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania have voted early, does this debate end up making
Speaker 1: a difference one way or the other? Brett, I actually
Speaker 1: think it does. You know. I think that there are
Speaker 1: still a lot of votes uh to be made in Pennsylvania. UH.
Speaker 1: And I think a lot of folks that saw this
Speaker 1: are going to be disheartened if they were thinking about
Speaker 1: voting for Federman. I think it makes a huge difference
Speaker 1: in the middle with independent voters who are going to
Speaker 1: see his positions, because it wasn't just his performance. Dr
Speaker 1: roz Was did a really good job of persecuting the
Speaker 1: k prosecuting the case of of of his liberal positions,
Speaker 1: and Fetterman really didn't respond to that uh in a
Speaker 1: meaningful way, and so um, you know, I think that
Speaker 1: that's going to hurt Uh Fetterman as well, the exposure
Speaker 1: of those positions. So I think the debate did great
Speaker 1: damage and I do think that it could have a
Speaker 1: meaningful difference, you know. I I hearkened back to last
Speaker 1: year when Terry mccauliff in a debate said that he
Speaker 1: didn't want parents in schools telling teachers what to teach,
Speaker 1: and that was a visceral moment in the campaign that
Speaker 1: helped elect Glenn Juncan. And I think that this debate
Speaker 1: will make a difference. Debates do make a difference. I
Speaker 1: tell people, you can't win an election in a debate,
Speaker 1: but you can lose one. I think John Fetterman lost
Speaker 1: it last night. What a way to make a living. Brett,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for sharing your expertise. Brought O'donald
Speaker 1: of O'donnald and associates. He's forgotten more debates than most
Speaker 1: people have ever been involved in, in in a fascinating view
Speaker 1: inside the process. This is a profession, you know. Rick
Speaker 1: Davis has done his share of this as well, and
Speaker 1: he's going to come in next with Jeanie Schanzano our
Speaker 1: signature panel. The night after Fetterman versus OZ, will have
Speaker 1: a few more moments from that debate and talk a
Speaker 1: bit more about what's left here with two weeks, got
Speaker 1: less than two weeks until actual voting takes place, aside
Speaker 1: from the thousands already in the mail signature panels. Up next,
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You sound on with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. A
Speaker 1: long time Democratic strategist talked to Bloomberg after the debate
Speaker 1: last night. Fetterman OZ said John Fetterman should make his
Speaker 1: physician publicly available to answer questions about his recovery, starting
Speaker 1: right now. Remembering that he actually put out a medical report.
Speaker 1: Remember this wasn't exactly the medical records, but a report
Speaker 1: by the doctors saying that he was fit to serve.
Speaker 1: But that came up again last night and whether John
Speaker 1: Fetterman should be more transparent about his recovery. Here's the
Speaker 1: back and forth. Uh, to me, for transparency is about
Speaker 1: showing up. I'm here today to have a debate. I have,
Speaker 1: you know, speech speeches in front of three thousand people
Speaker 1: in Montgomery County, you know, all across Pennsylvania, big big crowds.
Speaker 1: You know, I believe if my doctor believes that I'm
Speaker 1: fit to serve, and and that's what I believe is appropriate.
Speaker 1: And now with two weeks before the election, you know,
Speaker 1: I have run the campaign and I've been very transparent
Speaker 1: about being very open about the fact we're in used captioning.
Speaker 1: And I believe that Again, my doctors, the real doctors
Speaker 1: that I believe, and they all believe that I'm ready
Speaker 1: to be served. Follow up, I didn't hear you say
Speaker 1: you would release your full met call records. Why not
Speaker 1: you have thirty seconds now? Uh? Yeah, Again, my dr
Speaker 1: all believes that I'm fit to be serving, and that's
Speaker 1: what I believe. Is where I'm standing right, it's a
Speaker 1: sum of the panel that Jennie Chanzano is with me
Speaker 1: here at World Headquarters in New York. Rick Davis is
Speaker 1: in Washington or Bloomberg Politics contributors make our signature panel
Speaker 1: on sound on Democrats are wondering exactly what I discussed
Speaker 1: with Brett Genie, whether this ever should have been allowed
Speaker 1: to begin with. Did Jhon Funnerman hurt himself last night
Speaker 1: or or fail to advance his campaign? You know, he's
Speaker 1: not likely to lose people who were committed to him
Speaker 1: from the beginning, and we do have you know, about
Speaker 1: seven hundred thousand early votes in Pennsylvania about of those Democrats.
Speaker 1: Certainly those are gonna stick. They're not changing their minds.
Speaker 1: They're not changing. They're not allowed to, we don't think.
Speaker 1: But the problem for him is if this is a
Speaker 1: race that's going to be decided in the suburbs and
Speaker 1: by independent undecided voters, this can be a costly miss
Speaker 1: step on the part of the campaign because, as you know,
Speaker 1: compassionate as voters are, they have a right and realistically
Speaker 1: do ask themselves, is this person capable of doing the job. Now,
Speaker 1: let's be clear, stroke survivors have done the job. We've
Speaker 1: talked about Senator Mark Kirk. But I think, and I
Speaker 1: agree with the Democratic strategist that was on Bloomberg last night.
Speaker 1: Release the have put the doctor out to answer questions,
Speaker 1: and I think released the full medical records. I think
Speaker 1: that should have been done initially. I also think they
Speaker 1: made a misstep because it doesn't feel like they were
Speaker 1: particularly transparent from the start about his condition, so they
Speaker 1: should have been clear on that. So voters weren't surprised
Speaker 1: and shocked last night, and unfortunately for them, that's what happened.
Speaker 1: How much of a game changer is this debate? Rick?
Speaker 1: How How bad did John Fetterman potentially hurt himself? You know, look,
Speaker 1: I mean if he loses the election, this debate is
Speaker 1: going to get blamed as the cause. We should remind
Speaker 1: everyone they were inside a point here. Right, This is
Speaker 1: truly the closest Senate raise in the country, inclusive center
Speaker 1: in the in the country. But he's been leading throughout right.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's been very few polls that have showed him, um,
Speaker 1: you know, trailing, and so you know, arguably it's been
Speaker 1: his to lose all summer, and now that we're in
Speaker 1: the fall, and uh, we're starting to see what kind
Speaker 1: of condition he's in, you know that that can influence
Speaker 1: the vote. So no question though that that if if
Speaker 1: Oz does win, um, they're gonna look back on on
Speaker 1: this debate and say that this was one of the
Speaker 1: points where, you know, it was a perfect opportunity for
Speaker 1: Federman to uh make people feel comfortable with this condition
Speaker 1: and he didn't do it. And so regardless of you know,
Speaker 1: how it all plays out, that's that's gonna be one
Speaker 1: of the factors. So you know, in two weeks we're
Speaker 1: gonna be here talking about what we'll be in Washington
Speaker 1: talking about results and watching this thing unfold. Genie. Uh, Democrats,
Speaker 1: Let's say they're not able to flip Pennsylvania doctor Oz
Speaker 1: amendment Oz becomes the Senator, the baton goes from pat
Speaker 1: to me, it stays Republican. It's looking like a kershel
Speaker 1: Walker could win this Senate race. Despite another scandal today
Speaker 1: that we'll talk about later this hour. Another woman has
Speaker 1: come forward. He might actually flip that seat in Georgia.
Speaker 1: Ohio is looking shaky for Tim Ryan. What's the path
Speaker 1: to keeping the Senate? You know, the three big ones
Speaker 1: have been all along Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. And if
Speaker 1: they lose Georgia, if that flips, if they retain Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: because we forget, but it is a Republican seat, so
Speaker 1: it's really Republicans to lose, and you know it is
Speaker 1: Cortes Master has a tough road to hoe in Nevada. Still,
Speaker 1: it is probably going to be all over for Democrats
Speaker 1: at that point. We will have it very narrowly potentially
Speaker 1: or a few seats majority for Republicans. So the stakes
Speaker 1: couldn't have been higher last night. And this is why
Speaker 1: this issue of his health is so important. And you know,
Speaker 1: for Democrats, they've got to be incredibly frustrated because on
Speaker 1: the issues Fetterman does line up with many voters in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: On the issue of abortion alone, already, they've put out
Speaker 1: an ad the Fetterman campaign has against Dr Oz because
Speaker 1: he suggested that local politicians should be warding over women's
Speaker 1: health care and that's not popular in a state like Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: But they had to make the case that he was
Speaker 1: able and healthy to serve and they had to do
Speaker 1: it transparently. And I'm afraid for you know, at least
Speaker 1: for some voters, this may have been a bridge too
Speaker 1: far to ask him to look at what happened last
Speaker 1: night and feel comfortable. I had to ask him about
Speaker 1: football ahead of this weekend. We're ready for this one, Sebastianist.
Speaker 1: Steelers are Eagles, Mr Fetterman, Steelers are Eagles, and why
Speaker 1: oh clearly always for the Steelers. Sorry Steelers, Mr oz
Speaker 1: I'll be at the game rooting for my Eagles. Fly,
Speaker 1: Eagles Fly. He really sang all right, hit the fight song.
Speaker 1: This is what he was singing, the Eagles fight song
Speaker 1: a lot. Dr oz Rick and Jennie will stay with
Speaker 1: us for the hour, our signature panel as we fight
Speaker 1: our way. I'm Bloomberg. Sound on, I'm Joe Matthew. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. Right around this time yesterday we brought you
Speaker 1: to the White House. Heard from President Biden warning of
Speaker 1: grave consequences. Remember if Vladimir Putin chose to use a
Speaker 1: tactical nuclear weapon, he was asked about it while he
Speaker 1: was getting his booster shot of all things. And today
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State Anthony B. Lincoln echoed Biden's warning
Speaker 1: in a special exclusive interview with Bloomberg News. We've seen
Speaker 1: these um allegations coming from the Russians that somehow the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians are looking are contemplating using a so called dirty bob,
Speaker 1: which is another fabrication and something that is also the
Speaker 1: height of irresponsibility coming from a nuclear power. Would also
Speaker 1: be very consistent with what we have seen by Russia
Speaker 1: first accusing another nation of something before doing it themselves.
Speaker 1: This is something being watched very closely and a great
Speaker 1: concern now as we head for winter in this conflict,
Speaker 1: with both sides trying to move the needle here. Kurt
Speaker 1: Folker joins us, delighted to say, former US Special Representative
Speaker 1: for Ukraine negotiations and former US Ambassador to NATO, Mr Ambassador,
Speaker 1: thanks for coming along. And it's typically not to talk
Speaker 1: about something very good here with regard to Ukraine. Almost
Speaker 1: what nine months into this war? How concerned are you
Speaker 1: about Vladimir Putin making good on these threats? Well, it's
Speaker 1: a risk, and you know, if you put ourselves back
Speaker 1: eight nine months ago, a year ago, we were looking
Speaker 1: at zero risk of any kind of nuclear use. Now
Speaker 1: it's more than zero. I still think it's low. I
Speaker 1: don't think it achieves any military objective for Putin. It
Speaker 1: would just be out of revenge. It would damage his
Speaker 1: own forces, It would mean the territory where he does
Speaker 1: it becomes uninhabitable, so he can't achieve his goal of
Speaker 1: taking territory. And I think the warning that we heard
Speaker 1: from Tony Lincoln just now and previously from the President
Speaker 1: and Jake Sullivan is exactly right, because we can't live
Speaker 1: in a world where any country, whether it's Russia or
Speaker 1: North Korea or anyone else, feels that they can use
Speaker 1: a nuclear weapon and get away with it. They have
Speaker 1: got to be consequences for that, so we don't change
Speaker 1: the whole nature of security in the world. And so
Speaker 1: warning them on that and saying that there would be
Speaker 1: devastating consequences for the Russian military if they use nuclear
Speaker 1: weapon is very important. Russia carried out military exercises simulating
Speaker 1: a retaliation, a retaliatory nuclear strike. UH to give us
Speaker 1: the backdrop here for for some of the rhetoric that
Speaker 1: we're hearing. Does that inform Vladimir Putin's intentions at all?
Speaker 1: Or is this just more playing war in an effort
Speaker 1: to scare people and get folks like us to talk
Speaker 1: about it? Right exactly that what Putin is doing is
Speaker 1: he is trying to get inside the heads of leaders
Speaker 1: in the West to make them feel that this is
Speaker 1: too dangerous and we have to tell the Ukrainians to
Speaker 1: surrender somehow, give up territory, you know, concede to put
Speaker 1: In something, And so he's trying to influence our thinking.
Speaker 1: Whether he would actually go through with it would be
Speaker 1: a very different calculation, and I don't think related to
Speaker 1: any of the stuff we're seeing, and I think it
Speaker 1: would be more a matter of Putin concluding that he
Speaker 1: has no option for staying in power, no choice other
Speaker 1: than defeat or using a nuclear weapon. And I think,
Speaker 1: you know, that's a risk that we may come to,
Speaker 1: but we're not there now. Administration officials apparently have a plan,
Speaker 1: you know, of course, the Pentagon has any number of
Speaker 1: scenarios that they came out. What would be the plan
Speaker 1: if not a tactical nuke ambassador was set off, but
Speaker 1: a dirty bomb, which would be something much easier for
Speaker 1: the Russians to pull off, would would inflict less damage
Speaker 1: on Putin's own people. What does the administration do? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think in either case, there still has to be
Speaker 1: a conventional bonds against Russia's military in some way, just
Speaker 1: to send a signal that we we know you did this,
Speaker 1: and we don't accept that you can do this. Conventional
Speaker 1: being Yeah, Commissioner, we should not be crossing a nuclear
Speaker 1: threshold over this. And indeed, I think that we have
Speaker 1: conventional capabilities that would be very effective against the Russian
Speaker 1: Navy or Russian deployed forces, and the Russians know that.
Speaker 1: UH And a couple of former generals said General Petraeus
Speaker 1: about two weeks ago, also former Sack you or General
Speaker 1: Phil Breedlove, they've talked about using long range HM whenever
Speaker 1: we get close to something in Russia. Can you hear us, Ambassador,
Speaker 1: you like to think we can reconnect. I'm here a
Speaker 1: couple of former generals. I was just saying that they
Speaker 1: essentially said that we could use missiles from a distant
Speaker 1: like tom Hawk missiles take out the Black Sea Fleet
Speaker 1: entirely without risking any personnel. And I think the Russians, no,
Speaker 1: we could do that, especially the military I think is
Speaker 1: more casts even than Putin. And thinking about this, Ambassador Volker,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you, knowing that you resigned famously
Speaker 1: as special Representative following revelations that the former president sought
Speaker 1: to trade UH President Zelenski weapons for an investigation into
Speaker 1: the Biden family. We don't have to relitigate all of that.
Speaker 1: But there's there's a real conversation happening now in the
Speaker 1: US about continuing funding the war effort here. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you heard about Progressive Democrats, thirty of them, sending this letter,
Speaker 1: which was then rescinded. Strangely, you've heard Kevin McCarthy say
Speaker 1: no blank check. If he becomes the Republican leader in
Speaker 1: the House, how difficult will it be for the administration
Speaker 1: to continue writing these checks? If that's the case? Right? Well,
Speaker 1: I think actually despite those things that you just mentioned,
Speaker 1: the letter and McCarthy's statements, um, and they're different, by
Speaker 1: the way. I think McCarthy's statements were at accountability as
Speaker 1: a way of keeping the right on board what the
Speaker 1: progressives were doing. We're basically big calling on the administration
Speaker 1: to cut a deal with Putin over the heads of
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians. They say, that's not what it said, but
Speaker 1: that was the practical effect of the letter, and they
Speaker 1: did withdraw it. But as far as the next year
Speaker 1: and a half two years goes, I think the administration
Speaker 1: has a lot of running room. There is strong bipartisan
Speaker 1: support in both chambers, the House and the Senate. Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats to continue supporting Ukraine and pushing back on Russia.
Speaker 1: If you think about the military part of this, you
Speaker 1: know the sixteen seventeen billion that we've spent on Ukraine's
Speaker 1: military assistance. This money goes from the U. S. Treasury
Speaker 1: to the Pentagon, the Pentagon to US defense industry. Its
Speaker 1: strengthens our supply chains in the US, and then that
Speaker 1: weaponry goes to the Pentagon again, and then we either
Speaker 1: give them old equipment or in some cases new equipment.
Speaker 1: But there's no lack of accountability on this. So I
Speaker 1: think we have ambassad to thank you as always for
Speaker 1: being with us. Kurt Folk, or former US Ambassador to
Speaker 1: NATO here on Bloomberg sound On, will reassemble the panel.
Speaker 1: Next you're listening to Bloomberg you sound on with Joe
Speaker 1: Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. We haven't even talked about Iran.
Speaker 1: Yet another wrinkle on the Russia story today. The White
Speaker 1: House is concerned about it that Russia using of course,
Speaker 1: attack drones made by Iran and Ukraine now advising Iran
Speaker 1: on tactics to crack down on protesters. Can you imagine
Speaker 1: the advice from Vladimir Putin I'm Joe Matthew at World
Speaker 1: Headquarters in New York. Thanks for joining us on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: sound On. Jeanie Schanzano is here. Rick Davis too, Genie's
Speaker 1: in New York. Ricks and Washington are signature panel here
Speaker 1: on the Fastest Hour in Politics. Talked about this for
Speaker 1: a big yesterday, hearing straight from Anthony Blincoln today in
Speaker 1: our Washington offices. He was there at the DC Bureau
Speaker 1: talking with Bloomberg about this, this threat of the potential
Speaker 1: use of a dirty bo that could be another false flag.
Speaker 1: This is what Russia specializes in the pretext right. Here's
Speaker 1: how Blincoln put it. The reason this particular allegation gives
Speaker 1: us some concerns because Russia has a track record projecting,
Speaker 1: which is to say, accusing others of doing something that
Speaker 1: they themselves have done or thinking about doing. But there again,
Speaker 1: we communicated very clearly and very directly to the Russians
Speaker 1: about trying to use this false allegation as a pretext
Speaker 1: for any kind of escalation on Russia's behalf. Rick Davis,
Speaker 1: the White House going out of its way on this
Speaker 1: when they had John Kirby joining the Press secretary today
Speaker 1: in the briefing room. You know things are getting serious
Speaker 1: when the retired admiral shows up. How are you reading
Speaker 1: into this chorus that seems to be growing louder. We've
Speaker 1: heard of the you know, other pretexts like this, We've
Speaker 1: seen Russia projecting like this. White House seems to think
Speaker 1: it's pretty real. It's time. Well, they've used this kind
Speaker 1: of intelligence and and and trying to get ahead of
Speaker 1: these events like the invasion itself as a deterrent, right,
Speaker 1: trying to bring old criticism to the door of the
Speaker 1: Kremlin so that they don't make mistakes by doing something
Speaker 1: really horrific like exploding a dirty bomb in in in
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian territory. So I have no doubt the first
Speaker 1: order of events is to ensure that nothing like this happens.
Speaker 1: And so this kind of rhetoric is designed to deter
Speaker 1: Putin from pulling the trigger on something like that. But
Speaker 1: I think they've also led down, as Ambassador Volker said,
Speaker 1: a pretty hard line on the fact that there will
Speaker 1: be very extreme results if anything like this happens. So, um,
Speaker 1: we'll see if Vladimir Putin takes any of this stuff seriously, uh,
Speaker 1: and or whether he just is going to prosecute this
Speaker 1: war on his own term. I don't know how you
Speaker 1: avoid an escalation with the US or with NATO at
Speaker 1: that point, Jennie, having heard what Ambassador Vulker said, Okay,
Speaker 1: a conventional strike on on the Russian military, if that
Speaker 1: in fact is connected to the US, I don't know
Speaker 1: who would do that. I'm assuming he meant the US.
Speaker 1: That would be our plan unless we had the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: do it for us. It's the start of a new war,
Speaker 1: isn't it. You know, as the President has talked about before,
Speaker 1: that would be potentially the start of World War three
Speaker 1: in the United States with this proxy war. Has you know,
Speaker 1: tried as the rest of the West and NATO to
Speaker 1: avoid that, But if they indeed engage in this kind
Speaker 1: of dirty bomb tactic, I'm not sure how you avoid it.
Speaker 1: To the ambassador's point, and let's not forget that Russia,
Speaker 1: and we know this from the British Defense Ministry that
Speaker 1: they are running low right now on artillery and ammunition.
Speaker 1: Putin is cornered and time is running out because of
Speaker 1: the winter approaching, and a cornered Putin is a dangerous Putin,
Speaker 1: and that's why we keep hearing Ukraine say that they're
Speaker 1: performing secret work at this you know, Europe's largest nuclear plant,
Speaker 1: and it may be in preparation for the use of
Speaker 1: this dirty bomb. So it is a very scary time.
Speaker 1: And that is why, of course, you know, as you
Speaker 1: hear from the progressive left and from the conservative right,
Speaker 1: the idea of the United States may not be funding
Speaker 1: support for Ukraine anymore, becomes even more dangerous for the West.
Speaker 1: How different rick would be the use of a dirty
Speaker 1: bomb versus a tactical nuke? And would our would our
Speaker 1: response be measures depending on what was used? You know,
Speaker 1: it's just circumstantial, is there all points out? You know,
Speaker 1: using a using a nuclear reactor and and and and
Speaker 1: exploding that is basically a dirty bomb, right, so um,
Speaker 1: you know they've been threatening to do that for quite
Speaker 1: some time already, and and so that that would have
Speaker 1: an impact obviously on the surrounding area. Dirty bomb doesn't
Speaker 1: have probably the casually rate unless they they do a
Speaker 1: tactical and tactical nuke over the air somewhere to sort
Speaker 1: of demonstrate their resolve. But all these things are if
Speaker 1: if if they are, you want to just avoid that
Speaker 1: by saying, look, you got a black sea fleet, it
Speaker 1: disappears the day after you play with nuclear weapons, right,
Speaker 1: and that is a problemise we can keep. But that's
Speaker 1: also a new front in a new war, isn't it.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the same process in the black Sea
Speaker 1: fleet has been engaged in this war. And and somebody
Speaker 1: sank one already. They're they're there number one musk of
Speaker 1: a you know ship. The rest of them could all
Speaker 1: sink on the same day, right, And so uh, there
Speaker 1: is enormous military capacity surrounding the country of Ukraine within
Speaker 1: the NATO alliance, and the overwhelming force it could be
Speaker 1: brought to bear on any one target is beyond comprehension.
Speaker 1: And I think that's basically what what Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: is threatening Vladimir Putin with that. Woy Rick certainly put that, Well,
Speaker 1: we talked about this, like we know what we're talking
Speaker 1: about here, and we talked to a lot of smart people, Genie,
Speaker 1: a lot of military analysts, people do great experience. But
Speaker 1: to the point, to Rick's point, you couldn't possibly comprehend
Speaker 1: what we could do to them. But that's also the
Speaker 1: scary part of this story, that that would unleash to
Speaker 1: your point, world War three potentially, that's right, and you know,
Speaker 1: the people we hear from that are experts in this area.
Speaker 1: To your point, one thing that they keep imploring the
Speaker 1: administration and NATO to do is to work frankly with
Speaker 1: people who have still some potential sway over Putin, and
Speaker 1: that is primarily China and India at this point, as
Speaker 1: you just mentioned, what's going on in iran Um and
Speaker 1: so that's what makes what happened over the weekend with
Speaker 1: jij and Ping that much more important as he becomes
Speaker 1: leader for you know, the future, the rest of his
Speaker 1: life in China, because we are at a certain stage
Speaker 1: dependent on their ability to sway Russia, to sway Putin
Speaker 1: and to hold this off. Those are the two leaders
Speaker 1: the two countries, and jij and Ping and Moody that
Speaker 1: could potentially do that and avoid this kind of disaster.
Speaker 1: And yet it's hard to say at this point whether
Speaker 1: we you know, we we we'd have any ability to
Speaker 1: reach them, or that the president would. Certainly India and
Speaker 1: Moody should should be reachable, but we haven't seen evidence
Speaker 1: of that. Living next door to another nuclear power in Pakistan,
Speaker 1: uh In our remaining moments with Rick and Jennie. We're
Speaker 1: going to get back on the campaign trail, if I
Speaker 1: can call it that for a moment here listen to
Speaker 1: herschel Walker. Of course, in as we've described, one of
Speaker 1: the other Senate races that's too close to call and
Speaker 1: will help to decide the balance of power in the
Speaker 1: United States Senate and in Washington. He's been really kind
Speaker 1: of forward on the campaign trail since the debate. He's
Speaker 1: handing out badges to people in the crowd. He's kind
Speaker 1: of embracing some of the accusations that have been made
Speaker 1: against him. My god, he went so far as to
Speaker 1: compare himself to Ricky Bobby today. Listen, and I also
Speaker 1: want to nodled my wife Julie, because she's in this
Speaker 1: fight with me, and it is a fight, but they
Speaker 1: don't know where to fight. I'm Ricky Bobby. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Somebody explained that to me later I saw that movie.
Speaker 1: I'm still not sure I get the line. But but
Speaker 1: hold on, we've got a new scandal on our hands here. Um.
Speaker 1: Another woman has come forward. Jane Doe is represented by
Speaker 1: Gloria Alread. Now. I don't know if this changes anything, Genie,
Speaker 1: If this is a story that you know. Obviously he
Speaker 1: survived a lot of allegations here of of paying for
Speaker 1: former partners abortion. Now we have another woman who has
Speaker 1: come forward. Listened to Jane Doe today. I was certain
Speaker 1: that I was pregnant as a result of my relationship
Speaker 1: with herschel and because I was not intimate with anyone
Speaker 1: else at the time. He then drove me to the
Speaker 1: clinic the following day and waited for hours in the
Speaker 1: parking lot until I came out. He then drove me
Speaker 1: to get medications and supplies as prescribed, and then drove
Speaker 1: in the Holliday. Pretty tough to hear this, As Gloria
Speaker 1: Alread holds up a photograph of herschel Walker in bed
Speaker 1: Rick Davis, does it matter, you know, Look, it's another
Speaker 1: bad week for herschel Walker on the campaign trail. Um
Speaker 1: whether or not that impacts his base people who really
Speaker 1: don't care about him, but one a Republican in the Senate,
Speaker 1: so the Senate can be Republican majority. Uh, it's not
Speaker 1: going to affect them. But in order to get there,
Speaker 1: he's probably got a few, you know, tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of voters who are going to have to say, you know,
Speaker 1: what I gotta come to grips with this, and those
Speaker 1: swing voters are going to be thinking about abortion going
Speaker 1: into the election, and that's a bad thing for him.
Speaker 1: We haven't seen this move the nearly yet, really, Genie,
Speaker 1: especially after the debate their their neck and neck. Does
Speaker 1: this change anything? Yeah, and let's not forget early voting.
Speaker 1: About one million voters already cast their ballots in Georgia,
Speaker 1: so these late drops of information have lesson of an
Speaker 1: impact than they used to do before we had so
Speaker 1: much early voting in the United States. Um. I did
Speaker 1: have to look up the rickey Bobby referenced Joe Matthew
Speaker 1: because my movie Trivia escaped me Talladega Nights. I don't
Speaker 1: know if I've seen it. I don't know what's seen that.
Speaker 1: What that was. I highly encourage you to watch that. Okay,
Speaker 1: I I was baffled by that, But now I'm sort
Speaker 1: of we're getting to the good content. We're getting to
Speaker 1: the good content, I guess. But the reality is is
Speaker 1: this is another example, if it's proven to be true,
Speaker 1: of hypocrisy and the part of herschel Walker because he
Speaker 1: has taken a stance at least prior to the debate
Speaker 1: that women in Georgia and around the country shouldn't have
Speaker 1: an option and they shouldn't have there, not even in
Speaker 1: the case for exceptions for rape or incest. He changed
Speaker 1: that over the debate, and yet we've got another story
Speaker 1: of what's not good for the American women is okay
Speaker 1: for herschel Walker when it pleases him, And so if
Speaker 1: it's proven to be true, it's that hypocrisy. But to
Speaker 1: Rick's point, it's hard to know whether it matters or
Speaker 1: not at this point. Yeah, when we're going to find
Speaker 1: out real soon. The election is less than two weeks off,
Speaker 1: whether you're looking at the Federman Oz race or the
Speaker 1: Walker Warnock race. I had to think about that for
Speaker 1: a second. It's going to be right down to the
Speaker 1: wire and we may not know the day after who
Speaker 1: won these races, which is something we're all trying to
Speaker 1: get around in our heads here as we head for
Speaker 1: the election night. Genny, thank you, great to have you
Speaker 1: at World Headquarters in New York. Rick Davis in Washington,
Speaker 1: will meet you back here tomorrow. On the fastest hour
Speaker 1: in politics. Where does it go? This is Bloomberg, bloom