You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listening on demand wherever you get your podcast.
It's not every day we sit down with a presidential candidate, and I'm glad to say that Asa Hutchinson is back with us, of course, the former governor of Arkansas and Republican presidential candidate. Just what almost exactly a week I guess it is off the debate stage in Milwaukee. Thank you for coming back in. It's good to see you, sir.
Well, it's good to be here, and you're right, what incredible experience in Milwaukee on the debate stage. I've got very pleased with how we got there, but also the message that we had. I think we showcased that I'm ready to be president of the United States.
I want to ask you more about that, but I'd love your input on the conversation. We were just having. You know what it's like to run a state, and to run a state that's dealing with a natural disaster. We remember the flooding in Arkansas in twenty nineteen, for instance. I realize that's probably still pretty near in your thought,
in your memory. We're watching Rhonda Santis, one of your rivals on the campaign trail, deal with this now in Florida, and apparently it's going to become Brian Kemp's problem now rolling into Georgia. The job of a governor in a time like this, this really defines urgency in that position, doesn't it.
Well, it does, and there's nothing more important than first of all, a governor has to be there during times of crisis. Secondly, you have to communicate effectively. People are looking to you for leadership, for guidance, they trust you. And then thirdly it's a response capability, which is really managing and how you've been prepared for that all along. And so this is what governors do. I had to do it as governor during a five hundred year record flood.
Governor DeSantis is going through it. Of course, they have the hurricanes down there on an annual base.
That's so they're very ready for this, very prepared. It's an opportunity. Though I supposed to show leadership. Did he do the right thing by coming off the campaign trail? Oh, of course he did.
Absolutely. There was any question about that. You have to be there. And again you contrast that, if I might with President Biden, who's delayed in going to Hawaii. I mean the being there taking the natural disasters very seriously. This is when people are hurting, and he did the right thing by going back to Florida.
You thought that Joe Biden should have gone earlier to Hawaii. How would you have handled that if you had been president.
Well, first of all, your comments to the nation immediately afterwards would be very important, sympathetic and showing that you're on top of it and not a more casual no comment type. And then secondly, you've got to be there very quickly, you know. And I don't want to be overly critical, but it just illustrates that, whether you're the president or whether you're a governor, during times of crisis, you have to be there. You have to help comfort and guide the recovery.
There's something about and mayors for that matter. As somebody who covers politics, governors and mayors have just a different reality than for instance, members of Congress, the House, or the Senate, because you have to deal with reality and you have to deal with everyone. Do you wish you had more of an opportunity to tell that story. You're not the only governor on the stage here. That makes you different from those who have never been an executive.
Oh.
Absolutely.
I think governors are in are set apart. They know how to lead, they're held accountable, and I would like to have told more of what we've done in Arkansas, particularly in contrast to Governor DeSantis, who talked about how they managed through the pandemic. I was waiting for the opportunity to talk about how we did it in Arkansas. And I think there will be another occasion at the Reagan Library because I think those questions will come up again.
But know my record of cutting taxes, creating a surplus, creating jobs in Arkansas, and balancing a budget, they're very relevant to be president of the United States. The way I guided through the pandemic, and making sure our businesses had an opportunity to survive, not sheltering in place as many of the other states did, and keeping our schools open after those first couple of months for in classroom instructions.
These are things that set my leadership apart. I look forward to the opportunity to talk about those more.
Do you expect to be on the debate stage at the Library.
Oh absolutely. You know, I've surprised everybody every step of the way. Nobody thought I'd be on the first debate stage, and we made it thanks to a lot of support from voters out there that wanted to make sure I was there. And now a lot of people don't think I'll be on the second debate stage.
I will be there.
I will be there because we have a growing level of support. My message continues to be important.
Interesting when we talk about the message what you just said about being governor, there are questions about whether that's resonating with Republicans today in a way that it might have ten or twenty years ago. That it's about red meat, it's about conspiracies, it's about Trump. You saw Vivik Ramaswami come flying off the stage because of some of the more outlandish things he said. This is someone with no
electoral experience. Do you worry that you're talking to a different crowd now than you were earlier in your career.
Well, if you want pure entertainment, there's others besides me to support. And you know, I suppose it started to a certain extent with Donald Trump that came out of the entertainment world straight into the presidency the United States, and now the impression is that anybody can do that. And you know, you even think about Ronald Reagan. He was an actor, but he was also a governor first and then he became president. George W. Bush, you know, was then became president.
And so.
I think they still have a high regard for governors. I think that does make a difference. But it's more than that. It's more than being a governor. They want to see somebody that will fight in Washington, somebody that will be aggressive in making sure that we tackle the administrative state, reduced regulatory burdens. And so that's on me to make sure I showcased my record, but also what I will do.
There's another governor on that stage who is known for going after Donald Trump, and that's Chris CHRISTI. Is there room for both of you? Well, I think so.
Whenever you look at eight candidates on that stage and only two of us had a non Trump message, Yes, I probably was even more clear when I said I would not support somebody who was convicted of a fellow.
And at one point you were the only candidate to not raise a hand Chris Christy had a little confusion there. I think we know what he meant. But what does that tell us about that stage when only two of you would respond.
That way, Well, it tells you there's a fear factor as to offending Donald Trump. And if you're running against him, don't worry about it, get over it. That's what we're doing is and that why you're running it exactly. And so I'm surprised by that. But you know, in reference to Chris Christy, you know, in some ways we're in the same lane. We all bring something different and we bring it in different ways. So it's what kind of
leader do you want for our country? And I'll present my case, we'll see what the voter how they respond to.
We're spending time with former Governor Asa Hutchinson, of course Republican presidential candidate. I'd like to ask you about the fourteenth Amendment, because you've been talking about this and I'm compelled by this idea that the president, in your former president, in your eyes, may be unfit for office because of the legal challenges that he's facing now four times indicted. If it comes to it, will you sue invoking the fourteenth amendments to get him out of this race.
No, I don't expect that to happen. There will be plenty of others that will raise that issue. So I don't need to and I would not want to.
But let me.
Describe it this way.
It's a constitutional requirement for eligibility. For example, right now, you have to be thirty five to run for president of the United States. A secretary of state will not put somebody on the ballot who's thirty four or thirty three. They make that determination. This is a constitutional requirement. They have to review as well and make a determination whether
they violate the fourteenth Amendment. I suspect that there will be one or more secretaries of States that will make a determination that he is ineligible because of the fourteenth Amendment, which says if you're a federal official, he can't commit acts of insurrection or you're disqualified from being on the ballot. And if a secretary of State says no, he is eligible, then you can expect somebody to sue saying they were wrong in making that determination they're ineligible and take it
to court. And so the bottom line is this would be the Democrats dream scenario that we nominate somebody at the convention that will later be determined by the course to be ineligible to hold office.
Are you talking to your fellow candidates about this? Might there be I don't want to say class action, but a cooperation in moving this issue forward. I don't think it's necessary.
This is going to play out with the various secretary of States and different citizens that want to raise this issue in court. So you know, I made my case. I think it's important for the public Republican voters to understand this risk and it should be a factor in determine who's going to be our nominee. That's why I raised in the debate. I was the only one that
talked about this. And you know, you talk about he can't win in November, he can't bring in independence, but also you've got this issue of actually being disqualified under the fourteenth Amendment as another risk factor.
Lastly, when it talks when we talk about winning over independence, is the issue the economy that we'll get that done? Or is it something else we talk about so much around here, But when we go back to it's the economy, stupid? Is that actually what we'll decide this race?
Well, the economy is the number one issue it is, and independence voters trust Republicans to handle the economy more so than Democrats, and so that's why it's going to be a key political issue. But also when you ask about bringing in independence, is more than just the economy. It's also who's going to listen, who's going to care, who's going to take us in a rational way into the future and lead our country. And so those are some intangible qualities that independence will look at as well.
And they don't want a strident extremist is that leads or somebody who's going to create chaos every day. They want someone that will stand for their values and represent the home, but also set an example for young people and kind of leadership we need in our country.
Well, you know, we like to talk policy around here, and you're always welcome at the table. It's great to have you back, Governor. We'll be looking for you at the Reagan Library next month. We'll see you there. Thank you, Governor. Asa Hutchinson. Of course, Republican presidential candidate in a conversation you won't hear anywhere else. Today.
You're listening to the Bloomberg sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Pretty wild headlines coming from Ukraine. If you're looking at the terminal, you know what I'm talking about. Russia hit by drone wave as Kiev battles biggest blitz in months, Ukraine getting two hundred and fifty million more in arms from stock that of course from the US. And then a wild card here today, according to the White House, Russia and North Korea working on an arms deal, something they describe as actively advancing. We have a lot to
talk about with Kurt Volker. I'm delighted to say that he's with us now, the former US Special Representative for Ukraine, former US Ambassador to NATO. Mister ambassador, welcome back to Bloomberg. I'd like to dip into all of these with you, but immediately, the situation in Ukraine involving the counter offensive. The narrative most recently has been that it's falling short of goals. Now we're seeing Ukraine reach deeper into Russia with what's described as the biggest drone wave that we
have seen in months. How do you see the counter offensive? How would you describe the stage that it's at now?
Right? Well, first go if I think it's important to understand what Ukrainians are trying to do because a lot of people expected Ukraine to break through these defensive lines and take a lot of terror very quickly, and so they were very disappointed as you go through July and
August and they didn't get that far. But what Ukrainians were trying to do was to take out Russian logistical supply lines, the way that the Russians provide fuel and ammunition and food and transportation for their forces that are deployed. These are very long supply lines and they've done a very good job at that. They've also been trying to protect their people as they try to clear minefields, and
that's a painstaking and slow process. They're not willing to throw people up as cannon fodder the way the Russians do. They're being much more methodical, so they're doing that. And then the third thing is they are making the Russian people and the Russian military aware that this is a real war. It's not this special military operation and denocification that Putin likes to tell the Russian people it's about.
It is really a conflict with their neighboring country. And they're sending drones to airfield, They're sending drone to Moscow. They knocked out one of Russia's naval ships at the port of Novo Usirsk. They hid an oil tanker as well, disabling that vessel. So they're showing the Russians that they are not going away, and that is piling on to the political turmoil or churn that's going on inside Russia anyway.
Were you concerned about the counter offensive where we had reports that US intelligence was growing skeptical that this would be a success, that it was in fact falling short of goals, And that has already begun to impact the debate over funding here in Washington. This is a capital that was already in the throes of debate, and Republicans don't want to back a loser here. It seems to be as simple as that. How do you see it?
Well, you know, I just wrote a piece today. It's at dot org and it's basically saying that. Remember, we declared independence July fourth of seventeen seventy six, and in the winter of seventeen seventy seven seventy eight, George Washington was in Valley Forge with a ragtag army, cold weather, and the British occupied Philadelphia and New York. So we can't look at the Ukrainians there eighteen months after this
conflict started and just write them off. They are determined, they are have an ironclad will, They have outside helped the way that we did, and the Russians actually have very long supply lines in a very difficult time here. So I think it is way too early to write off the Ukrainians here.
Whenever we see Kiev move into Russia, though, it's answered by overwhelming strikes, cruise missiles into apartment buildings. We saw two people killed and what was the heaviest air assault on Kiev since spring? Ambassador, How worried are you that there's more of that in the near term?
Well, there will be more of that, and the reason for that it's important people will understand the Russians can't take more territory, they can't advance. Their army is incapable of doing that. So they're doing what they can do, which is just throw bombs and missiles at cities and
kill civilians. It's completely random. The Ukrainians have improved air defenses now not perfect, but improved, so they're able to take down the majority of the drones and the missiles and things that are fired at them, but some do get through. And the case today where these people were killed, I believe it was because of falling debris. So they actually took out the missile that was coming, but then the debris fell and killed a couple of people as it fell.
There's a lot more to talk about here when it comes to funding. As I mentioned a couple of moments ago, two hundred and fifty million dollars more in weapons from US stockpiles. But there's a supplemental budget request that's coming from this White House. Everybody knows that we're talking about a possible government shut down as soon as the end
of next month. Ambassador, how much of what's happening on the ground in Ukraine specifically, but I suppose Russia as well, will impact the outcome of that debate here.
Yeah, I think if the Ukrainians have great success on the ground, that will obviously encourage people to go forward with it, but I think the votes are there regardless, both in the Senate and the House. I think the votes are there to approve it. What I'm disappointed by is that the Administration is not out there making a stronger case as to why this is an America's interest.
Everyone looks at it as help for Ukraine. They don't look at it as it's in our interest to see the Russian imperialism and authoritarianism in Europe is defeated so that we don't actually have to end up defending some of our NATO elements. Giving the Ukrainians the weapons and letting them fight is a very pragmatic way to deal
with it, and it's been very cost effective. It's been about three and a half percent of one year's defense budget, and we've seen we see one of our major adversaries now tearing itself apart, you know, with the shooting planes out of a sky I over Moscow with progosion on board. So this is actually a pretty good bargain for the American people, and I wish the White House would be
making that case. I also think that for both parties, for the Republicans and the Democrats, it would be smart to pass a big spending bill for Ukraine this year and get it out of the way. I don't think it's responsible or in anyone's interest to be debating this again and having multiple votes next year during the presidential election.
Yeah, well, there's a lot there. I could only imagine your thought if you were watching or listening to the Republican presidential debate. I guess it was just about a week ago now, the number of candidates on that stage suggesting that we need to not only take another look at this, but that we should not be supporting a war effort in Ukraine when there are people suffering here in the US. We're going to hear a lot more about this on the trail, aren't we.
Yeah, we are, we are, and I think people have to see through these false choices. Of Course, we have to take care of the southern border. Of course, we have to take care of people in Maui. We're a big country, a big government, and we always have to worry about our own national security and our foreign policy interests.
And the biggest risk we would have is if we walked away from Ukraine and China learns a lesson from that that we don't have the will to fight, We don't have the staying power to stick with our pro American friends in Europe and just side with Putin instead. I think China would take a lesson from that, and we'd find ourselves in a much worse situation.
Victor Orbon says the West should make a deal with Vladimir Putin. It's not the first time he's said that a new deal on Ukraine's security architecture that should not include the return of Crimera or membership in NATO. That might sound predictable from Victor Orbon, but it brings us to the idea of a peace deal. Ambassador, You've actually sat down, as I've said earlier, with all the players
that we're talking about here. We're talking about in the case of Vladimir Putin, a leader who just had if Guinny Pregosion murdered for disagreeing with him and for challenging his authority. How do you cut a deal with someone like that.
You can't. You can't. Vladimir Putin has been crystal clear that he will not cut a deal. He doesn't believe that Ukraine has a right to exist as a separate national identity, people, language, culture, or country. And he's been explicit that he's seeking to reconstitute the Russian Empire. He
has compared himself to Peter the Great. Catherine the Great says he's an accumulator of Russian lands, and to say that you're going to negotiate a deal with him is just nonsense, because he'll take whatever you give him and then he'll just keep fighting anyway, so it actually has to be defeated.
What do you make of new talk about North Korea.
Yeah, well, before we get to that, let me just all say about Warbon's comment. We always have to remember too, it's not our country, it's Ukraine. It's Ukrainian people's choice what to do. And like us, if someone invaded the United States, we would be fighting. And that's exactly what they're doing. They've been invaded. Their relatives, their friends, their territory, their families are under threat, and they are fighting back. No one can sit outside and oh just give it away.
As the White House likes to say, nothing for Ukraine without Ukraine. Do you believe this idea that Vladimir Putin's warming up to the North Koreans to make an arms deal, what does that say about his relationship with China.
Well, first off, what it says is that he's pretty desperate. He does not have enough weapons, he doesn't have enough ammunition. He is not able to get it from sources that he wanted to get it from. He's not able to build it better and build back quickly because of the sanctions. So he's scrounging. He's getting a drone deal with irans or Iran's going to build a drone factory in Russia and he's buying the drones directly from Iran. He wants
to get ammunition, artillery and things from North Korea. Yeah, some of that may be coming from China as a sanctions of avoidance thing or a cutaway. But the fact is China could have done a lot more to help Russia in this conflict and they haven't done so. And I think this talk about North Korea is really a demonstration that Putin's in a weak position.
North Korea is not exactly in possession of cutting edge technology, is it.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to be using that and think they're not. They do have missile technology, and so they may be able to provide some chips or provide some things to help the Russians with that. They probably have large, large stock files of dumb artillery and that's probably what the Russians are going for.
I just wonder how much this is in this case John Kirby at the White House telling us what they're hearing so it doesn't happen. We've seen that trend with the administration. Hey, we're hearing about lethal weapons from China. Just get that out there, and it seems to blunt the impact and maybe even reverse course of some of these deals in the process. Is that what's going on here?
Yeah?
I think that's a good observation, frankly, because I think the Chinese have been trying to play this very carefully. They want aside with sovereignty and territorial integrity, not reward someone who's trying to break up a country because they viewed Taiwan as theirs, and they want to continue to
make that claim. Their economic interests are much more tied to the US and Europe than they are to Russia, and they can buy anything from Russia that they actually want, and they even want to be part of Ukraine's reconstruction and to be providing technology and infrastructure and linking them into China's Belton Road initiative. So China has a lot of interest that go against the grain here with Russia,
and it has been nice to Russia. It likes the idea of weakening a Western land global economic order, and they can instrumentalize Russia a little bit toward that goal. But they really haven't been aligned with Russian militarily, and calling them out on this is probably a good idea because it will make them think twice about how visible do we want to be doing this?
Yes, right, absolutely, I've only got a minute left, Ambassador. What was your thought when you saw Vladimir Putin accepting an invitation from President She to show up in Beijing? An actual visit to Beijing? Is the unlimited friendship about to find new heights?
It might have I viewed it more as a summons. It's like, see me and tell me what your plan is here.
Wow, it's great to speak with you always, Ambassador. Kurt Vulker, the former US Special Representat for Ukrainey, was of course US Ambassador to NATO, joining US from overseas. Thanks for staying up with us and providing your insights, Kurt Vulker.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch us live weekdays at one Eastern, Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app where there's non demand, wherever you get your podcast.
To consider the situation in Ukraine now, as we were discussing with Kurt Vulkar, the back and forth is really heating up between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine attacking Russia inside of the country. Here in fact, that they hit a town that borders Estonia and Latvia. Noteworthy, as I read here on the terminal, as it's located about five hundred miles north of Ukraine, we are stretching far beyond the
borders of the country. It's home to an elite Russian paratroop unit apparently targeted, and Kiev felt the blowback from Russia with the worst drone and missile attacks against the capital that we've seen since spring. Let's reassemble our panel today. Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano joined Bloomberg Politics contributors having heard from Kurt Volker. Rick, I wonder your thoughts today on a war the counter offensive that is now three months old and appears to be heating up all over again.
Reaching into Russia is a controversial move. Will it actually garner more support for this effort or make life more difficult for President Zelensky.
Look, I think that it goes without saying that. The more active the Ukrainians are in pushing back Russia, either on the ground by getting them out of certain enclaves within Ukraine or putting pressure on them in their homeland, you know, through these drone attacks or other attacks, including the occupied territories like Crimea, that helps the case in Washington, That helps the case in the House of Representatives that this isn't a quagmire and that there's still success on
the horizon and that Ukraine can can still pull us out and push Russia out of their territory. So yeah, I mean that all of these things matter. And now we're getting to the point where some of these initiatives are being pushed both on the Ukraine side and the Russian side because they know that the winter's coming. And here we go all over again, our third winter in this fight, and we're going to see probably people locking up certain territory and waiting out the winter.
Genie. If we see Ukraine reaching beyond its borders like this, and some would suggest that's the only way that it will be able to win this war. What does that mean for support here in the US. There's been great worry about creep. Republicans talk about this. Who at least, I should say House Republicans who oppose the war effort as one of the things they're worried about that this is what could involve American troops if it's gone too far. How do you see it?
You know, I think that is a real concern. And anything that looks.
Like Jennie with us. Let's take a swing at that.
Rick, Yeah, I hear Jennie.
Hey, Jennie, Okay, yeah, I think that Genie. Sorry, go ahead, I'm just not hearing you.
Sorry, Joe, Hi. Rick, No, you know, I was just saying that anything that looks like creep and anything that looks like stale is a bad sign for funding in Washington, d C. And you know, I think it's been coming on us to think about what one of the leading contenders on that station in Milwaukee was saying last week. But vek Ramaswami took I think one of the most radical, unorthodox positions from a Republican perspective, I've ever heard in
saying that we should appease Vladimir Putin. We should give him part of the Donbass, we should allow him to keep Eastern Ukraine, and we should do that to woo him away from China. And that vek Aramaswami doesn't say things because he thinks them or because they make any sense. He says them because he's pandering to the far right of this Republican base. And there's an audience for that.
There's an audience there in the Republican Congress that is going to make funding of this increasingly difficult if there are any signs of creep or stalemate. And I agree so much with what the ambassador was saying to you about the need for the White House to make a case for this, that it's in American interest, But I would just add to that it's even more important that case is made by the grown ups in the Republican Party because the base of the Republican Party does not
listen to Joe Biden. They could care less what he says. It needs to come from Republicans to make that case as well.
This idea of Vladimir Putin warming up to the North Koreans. Rick Volker probably said it best, the sign of desperation. But look, if North Korea does in fact begin providing munitions, even if it's old fashioned mortar rounds, I don't know what else they would have in store, maybe missile technology. To the extent that the ambassador mentioned this is a new front. Do we have to worry about here?
Sure, they're just shopping for weapons, same things they did in Iran when they were able to get Iranian drones sent to Russia to attack the Ukrainians. I for one, sure feel sorry for any Russian soldier who has to light that first mortar round coming out of North Korea. I mean, you know, I mean I think you called it right. Let the buyer beware here, caveat emptor maybe the best gift that the North Koreans could give to Ukraine in the war. So uh yeah, I mean it's
a it's a level of desperation. I mean they are running, as we know, they've overused the amount of equipment they've got. I mean, you think about how much it's stressed our stockpiles just shipping what we've done to Ukraine and the Russian war machine has been hobbled by sanctions and inability to get materials, you know, as as a result of those sanctions. So look, I think that just means we got to start paying attention to North Korea again and
start putting heat on both Russia and North Korea. I mean, honestly, I think we've kind of taken our foot off the accelerator when it comes to sanctions, secondary sanctions, and and and I think this administration has got the tools to do it and support in Congress to to to level those.
Well, now that's its term, genie. I have not heard in a while secondary sanctions. Is there a stomach for that in Washington if we're concerned about even funding the war effort?
Yeah, I do think there is a stomach for it. I also think you need to make a case for it that people can understand, because that is what I think is really missing here. And it is that case that has not been made. You know, it wasn't just a few days ago we had Bricks meeting and then inviting six new nations to join them. They are going
to confront the West. It is in our interest not to you know, step away from and defy our allies like those people in the Ukraine who we have long stood with, and part of that is funding and making sure this is a successful effort over there. But you have to do that at home, and you have to make that case here. And that is what is completely missing, and it's quite apart from the twenty four campaign because people won't vote on it.
Well that's a great point. And I guess question for you, Rick, so what extent will the war in Ukraine actually be a factor in this campaign. We saw the candidate's wigh in on this in was a fairly policy heavy debate last week on the stage in Milwaukee. But once this comes down to tour, are we really arguing about Ukraine? Maybe we are.
You tell me, you know, the one guy we wanted to hear from was you know, President Trump, and he wasn't on the stage. I don't think it matters what Ramaswami thinks. I thought it helped Nicki Haley to make such an articulate pitch for why it matters to support Ukraine.
And and and yet.
You know, look, we have this divide in the Republican Party is being driven by people who aren't even Republican. Look at the Tucker Carlson influence. In last week, he takes Trump out of the debate and interviews him, which I'm still trying to figure out what that thing was.
But let's say they ate up an hour of you know X time to do it, and then he flies off to Victor Oorbon where he can run down liberal democracies, things like freedom, things like you know, a democracy, and and and talk about how the Ukrainians just sort to throw it in. So, like, you know, I think that Republicans need to start getting straight, and so does Donald Trump. That that if this country's gonna be run by Tucker Carlson, we've got a much bigger problem than domestic politics.
Not a shocker to see him sit down with Victor Orbon. I guess they're pals, Genie. I wasn't gonna go there with you, but Rick brought it up here. Victor Orbon says the West should make a deal with Vladimir Putin. I don't know if that's the news or if maybe he's preparing his speech for seapack next year.
Yeah, and Tucker Carlson is also trying to get Putin on the screen with him. Yeah, right, Well, see if that occurs listen.
You know that that would be quite the bromance, wouldn't it.
Oh yeah, it really would. Maybe they can go shirtless together and fight bears. I don't know, but you know, here's here's the thing, is that this the Republican Party from a foreign policy perspective. We are seeing such a divide there and the people who are pulling in the numbers at this point is this new really radical right wing populist idea. And so while I too wish that the vek Ramaswami and quite frankly Donald Trump stands on these issues didn't matter. They matter to the base that
will decide the nominee of the party. The George Bush conservative wing old style seems to be gone. I mean, Chris Christy, Mike Pence, they're up there. I thought Nicky Hilly did a brilliant job, but it is not resonating with the base. And they're running in the primary right now, not the general election. And this is a problem not just for this party but for the entire country, and the leaders of the party need to step up and set this straight. But it has not happened yet.
Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound On podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in alf Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
We have the voice of Rock longs now the executive chairman of Hagridy Consulting, but he was not that long ago, the administrator of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is in the throes of dealing with this storm and the situation in Hawaii and what will likely be a very large supplemental funding request. Brock Long, welcome back to Bloomberg. It's good to have you. Do agree with with Brian's take here. This could have been a lot worse for Florida.
Well, I think the worst case scenario would have been a would have been this if this event had gone into the Tampa and Penelas County. You know, I think that the citizens living in and around that area should be very aware that they got missed by this storm. It went in pretty far to the north, but they still got four to six feet of storm surch so imagine what would happen if it was a direct hit.
But the most important thing is this storm is definitely not over, and Adelia, there is a reminder that not all storms are coastal events. While we're worried about storm surge and storm search has the highest potential to kill the most amount of people and calls the most amount
of damage. This system is trucking through at twenty miles an hour through south south south South Georgia, headed up towards South Carolina, North Carolina, and with that, anybody that is living near where the center of circulation is going to pass is going to experience hurricane force winds. And I worry about the construction standards of some of the homes in some of these south like South Georgia, South Carolina, and some of these areas. They're going to see a
tremendous damage inland. And it's definitely not over. This is going to be a pretty sizable event for FEMA.
So we're not out of the woods yet literally as this heads inland to Georgia. The other problem I'm sure brought is that these people were not told to evacuate like those on the coast were warned repeatedly by officials in Florida.
Yeah, so the main reason that we issue evacuations in the emergency management arena is again for storm surge. Right, So, while storms are classified by wind intensity, the storm surge again has the highest potential to cause the most amount of deaths. And in this case, sixteen feet of storm surge coming into the Florida Panhandle, and that doesn't include another three to six feet of breaking waves on top obviously swallows people up. And I've always said that storm
surge is the unforgivable hazard associate with hurricanes. Very few people live to tell about what their experience was like going through through storm surge when it moves inland. You know, the goal is if you're not in if you're not in a facility that can withstand hurricane force winds, then you don't have to go very far. But you can shelter in place, and other homes or other facilities that may be opened by local officials that can withstand the
winds that are built to a higher standard. Florida's done a great job with building codes. Other states, you know, could step up their standards, you know, to make sure that in the future we reduce the impacts of these things. But that's what we're looking at right now.
A lot of folks and watching Governor Ron DeSantis closely. He's no stranger to storms, remembering I believe it was Ida last year that we saw him deal with. But he's come off the campaign trail to manage it. Is that necessary for the governor of a state to make that effort? Does he actually need to be there or could he have orchestrated this from somewhere else?
No, absolutely, governor's you know, all disasters are locally executed, state managed, and federally supported. So it's not FEMA's disaster. FEMA's you know, while it's looked at is nine one one, it really isn't. FEMA is designed to support a governor's actions when it comes to events like this. You know, FEMA again is there to fill a you know, to help state governments overcome any gaps, or to support major missions like search and rescue and debris removal, those types
of things. But the governor being there and taking charge is exactly what the governor should, any governor should be doing and putting forth their command and control. They are the chief executive for their state. When lives are in danger and when lives are going to be you know, altered as a result of this, they need to be you know, front and center. And that's what that's what you're seeing.
I guess we're going to add Brian Kemp to that list as well if he's dealing with some damage in Georgia. Brocklong, there's a big conversation about funding here in Washington. I'm sure you're well aware of it. The Biden administration will likely have to make a pretty major request for supplemental funding to handle what's happened in Hawaii, of course, now in Florida and the southeast and what might come next.
The line that we've been hearing is just, you know, one hurricane could make the difference, and we've had a couple of events here. Does this look like the right amount that FEMA needs in terms of resources that that's coming from the White.
House regardless of this current hurricane, FEMA needs the funding and what you know, most citizens have no idea how busy FEMA is from day to day. And right now, FEMA has twenty three joint field offices spread across this country. Some are physical, summer virtual, but They're working over seventy five different disaster declaration requests that are currently open across It's not just Maui, It's not just this this current hurricane. Seventy five different disasters are going to be impacted by
the lack of recovery dollars. And what FEMA has to do with the Disaster Relief Fund is they have to estimate by each quarter fiscal quarter, they have to estimate how much money is likely going to go out and be obligated on behalf of local communities and state governments to help them affect the long term recovery, which takes years.
And if I read the disaster you know, the Disaster Relief Funding report that they put out most recently, they estimated over two billion dollars was going to be needed to you know, administer the recovery to the recovery needs at these local levels. And that was before Maui, the Maui wildfires, and this new hurricane. So Congress is got
to step up. They need to pass a clean supplemental and get the funding to Dean chris Well, the administrator of FEMA, and give her all the tools she needs in her toolbox that are necessary to handle not just this event, but all the events.
I'm sure you worry about ideas of this getting bogged down, and it could. The White House needs money for a lot of things. The government has to be funded. You've got a war in Ukraine. Is this something that should be handled as a standalone issue or you worry that it gets bogged down into a lot of other things. I know you're not a political analyst brought I don't want to make you one, but you do know the resources that FEMA needs well.
I've always thought that the you know, the future of FEMA should be one that's politically neutral, that should not be a political animal by any means or be brought into politics. I mean, we're talking about people's lives and the viability of communities before, during, and after disasters. Soul I would hope that we could find another way to work out other issues, whether it's Ukraine or other funding
that's on the periphery of this DRF funding. Get the money in the coffers and you know, help help FEMA out. Because what happens is is that FEMIS had to move to immediate needs funding, which means that the only money going out FEMIS doors right now is dedicated to life
safety and life sustaining missions. So all of the communities over the past couple of years that have been through you know, disasters like Hurricane Michael, Hurricane E and Hurricane Irma, you know all of these other hurricanes that have occurred in Florida, for example, the long term recovery dollars come to a screeching halt and it backs up projects, you know, major infrastructure projects or you know, different things that need to be done to help a community fully recover or
become more resilient for the next event. And that's what's going on here. So again, I mean, I think it's got to be a clean, clean supplemental get it done, get d M the money she needs. But there does need to be a greater conversation about the future of emergency management and the way that we do disaster decorations.
I don't belie that the current system incentivizes proper land use planning states that implement stronger building codes or properly ensure their their public infrastructure which we all depend on.
We haven't talked about California in some time. Was what the week two weeks ago we were looking at historic flooding in Palm Springs Brock. There's an element of this story, and I don't have a lot of people want to talk about it. Not everybody does, at least involving climate change. And I wonder your thoughts on this if this is going to become more severe in areas not used to this type of weather every year as we go forward.
Yeah.
So, so there's a couple of things that are taking place here. I mean, you know, I believe in a client in a changing climate. I also believe in climate variabilities. There are different cycles that impact the severity of disasters or the frequency of disasters, such as thermal haline circulation
or al Nino or La Nina. And you know, it's a changing climate coupled with climate variability, coupled with we got a lot of people living in vulnerable areas, and you know, with a lack of building codes, a lack of land news planning. And so it's a culmination of manufactors that is playing a part here as to why disasters are getting worse. And for any citizen in the United States, you know, the last place you need to cut back on expenses is ensuring your homes and insurance
is the first line of defense. And I know that there's a big debate there, you know, with insurance companies pulling out of certain parts of California or Florida. But Congress is going to have to work with the private sector to be able to understand how you keep these insurance industry there. But it's also there's work that's got to be done by our legislators to increase the performance capability of our communities. And until that happens, strap your
seatbelt on. Continue to see these disasters get worse and worse every year.
How much do you worry about what you just referred to its state farm and all state both pulling out of a place like California. What's a homeowner supposed to do?
I do worry about the vulnerability that many homeowners are facing and repetitive loss areas and different things. People that can't get that can't get insurance because again, it is their first line of defense. And when you have home you know, homeowners or families that lose everything and are uninsured or under insured, their credit spirals out of control.
After that, it is very hard to overcome that. And you know, I don't know what all the answers are when it comes to the insurance industries and what it takes to keep them there. But I do think that you know, there has got to be some serious sit down meetings between FEMA, Congress, the insurance industry, code officials, Landy's planning officials to say what is the right balance here as we're facing new extremes.
Great conversation brought long, great insights, and I thank you for them now at Hagridy Consulting is the former administrator of FEMA in a conversation you'll only hear on Bloomberg Radio. Thanks for listening to the Sound On podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. And you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at one pm Eastern Time at Bloomberg dot com