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 listen on demand wherever you get your podcast.
It did seem like there was a deal to avoid a shutdown. I remember coming on the air that day to tell you it was the sixteenth of August this month, not that long ago, and Chuck Schumer went on to MSNBC to make the announcement.
Speaker McCarthy and I met a few weeks back and we agreed we should do what's called a CR in other words, a congressional resolution where you just extend the existing funding for a few months so we could work this out. And I thought that was a good sign. But I would say this, our Republican colleagues in the House need to follow the lead of their Republican colleagues in the Senate and work in a bipartisan Wait.
Ah, so maybe that's what this is about, right, A little reminder for the Freedom Caucus, try to get this in the news. Start putting on the pressure. Even though there is a deal in principle, is the White House doing Kevin McCarthy's work for him. Let's reassemble the panel with Genie Shanzo and Rick Davis Bloomberg Politics contributors. What do you think about that, Genie?
You know, Kevin McCarthy, after that piece that you just played from Chuck Schumer, he had a conference call with his members and he talked about the idea and sort of soft rolled the idea that there would be a short term stop gap funding bill that they could pass. He floats that, and of course they went into some kind of uproar, and so, you know, I don't think it's so mysterious what the White House is doing. They
are doing their politics. They are making Kevin McCarthy's life pretty hard because for Kevin McCarthy to do this, he is going to have to help ensure that those conservative members come along, or at the very least that they don't try to call for his ouster with one of them, which one of them could do, because let's not forget one of the agreements that he made to become Speaker
was they would return to regular order. Of course, that hasn't worked out, and so they do need to do a cr But I think the White House here is sort of sticking the finger in Kevin McCarthy's eye and saying, you've got to do this work with your members, because it is no secret that Bob Good and other people, Chip Roy and others were very upset by Kevin mc McCarthy even talking about this idea, and that was about a week ago or so on a conference call.
So I guess, does Kevin McCarthy need them? Rick? Is my question? Does he need the Freedom Caucus to make this work or can he actually kind of deal with Chuck Schumer and move on.
Look, I think he'd like to have his caucus one behind him. You know, that's always been the motivation. You know, most speakers, they don't like taking boats where they got a Democratic vote case to pass anything. But he's done it before, so you know it's he's not immune to it. He's been very clear that he's going to do a CR and even the Freedom Conckers just a few days ago said that, you know, any CR that gets passed should include a bunch of border security stuff we want.
So they're already warming up to the idea that there's going to be a CR. And part of the problem he has a speaker is that the reason there's a CR is because his own committee chair haven't passed their appropriations bills and it's done in the Senate. So the onus really is on Kevin McCarthy, and I don't think he really cares what the White House says or doesn't say about it, because he knows that if he needs
Democratic votes for a continuing resolution. By the way, Chuck Schumer, continuing resolution not a congressional resolution, those are two different to them. Yeah, he can get them. I mean, look, we all know what Schumer means when he speaks. He just doesn't always say what he means.
Just little schoolhouse rock on the CR here, Genie, I don't know when you consider all of this happen and at the same time as trying to figure out not only the trajectory for government spending but interest rates continuing to rise, I'm sure they'll be, you know, all kinds of fun politics that come with the return of lawmakers here in Washington. Is this something that the White House can count on and it's just having fun with now the idea of a stopgap?
You know, I don't know if they're having fun with it, But I am not one of these people who feels particularly optimistic that this is going to be easy sailing when they get back in September. I mean, let's not forget you couple all of this with emergency relief funding for Ukraine at a very serious juncture. And these are things that there is very little agreement on the Republican side of the House about and with the Republicans in the Senate, and so that is going to be a
tremendous firestorm. I don't know if the White House is having fun with it, but what I do know is this is going to make Kevin McCarthy more inclined. How is he going to bring along those MAGA members? And he does need them, not for their votes on this, but he needs them because he doesn't want them calling for his ouster, which it takes just one of them to do.
What's he going to do.
He's going to turn his attention on Hunter Biden. This is what he has done all along, try to divert attention and try to get their support by talking about issues that benefit the American public very little. And that is what he's going to do to keep his job
and to try to move this forward. So of course we will all be watching that distraction while we try to hope that there's a cr to keep the government funded and address important things like emergency relief Ukraine and so many of the other things on all of our plates. And for Republicans in the magaside to say that a government shutdown, which they just said the other day, it's not a big deal. You know, eighty percent of the
government stays open. Tell that to the public sector employees who are severely impacted by a government shut Ye, there are big, big impacts about this. Not to mention the fact we already saw some of the credit agencies or at least one say that if the United States doesn't get its economic house in order by doing things like passing budgets on a regular basis, something we really should do fairly easily, we will downgrade it. And so that
is an impact for all of us. So I don't take this at all lately that that is going to go smoothly or that it's not going to impact any of us, and we can all just sort of turn our heads.
So you're both fired up.
I get it. You know.
It was around this time yesterday, Rick Davis, we were talking about Mitch McConnell freezing up again in public, which was a difficult moment, and it reminds us of the fact that steve'scalise also might not be available for a lot of this. I wonder what the impact is of having potentially these two players not in the mix with Kevin McCarthy when this is being debated in September. What's your thought, you.
Know, I think that it's it's less important on the Senate side with Mitch McConnell because they've kind of they've done their part right. Their budget is done, their appropriations are done. The Democrats in the Senate will lead any continuing resolution discussion, and so I think, you know, the Republican caucus kind of manages itself in the Senate. I think that the House is a much different animal, and it's unruly by design.
So you know, it's not just.
Unruly with Republicans, it's been unruly with Democrats, and people like Steve Scalice are really critical to that because you know, they are the ones that really manage the different constituencies, the five families as it is, in the Republican Party, to get in line and support the speaker on these issues. And the Speaker only has his ability to negotiate with the Senate as long as he thinks he can rely
on at least the vast majority of his caucus. So everything I've read, I don't know anything other than that that Scalice has been doing great with his treatment and we'll be able to function, you know, in his current role in the House. But look, I mean there's a much broader concern that the public is talking a lot more about than we are, nett is the aging political leadership of our country and what impact that has on our ability to function.
This might be an odd question, Genie, but does this situation that we're talking about that Rick reflects very well there on Capitol Hill, Mitch Mcconnald Diane Feinstein, even John Fetterman to a lesser degree as he's a young man. But does this take pressure off Joe Biden in this whole conversation about cognitive ability and age?
You know, unfortunately for Joe Biden. I don't think so. I think it makes worse, It makes it worse rather, And I think it's such an important question because you know, this AP n RC poll that came out the other day was stunning. You've got over sixty percent of Democrats, and I believe it was around seventy percent of Americans seventy seven percent of Americans saying Joe Biden is too
old to serve again and Democrats sixty six percent. So what you're talking about is a political party that is putting on the ballot a candidate for reelection that his own party does not think can serve. And Mitch McConnell's challenges that he's faced physically, which are so difficult to watch Diane Feinstein, they just underscore the geriatric concerns that voters have. So I think it puts more pressure on
Joe Biden, not less. So I think it's not only an issue Biden's going to miss McConnell because he's a friend and the help he offers in you know, sort of pulling the Republicans to more of the center or at least responsibility in Congress, as it pertains to so
many issues at this point. But the fact that it's going to underscore what I think is now even more important to his reelection than the economy and inflation, I can't believe I'm saying it is the real challenge around his age, which many voters on the Democratic side think makes it makes him rather unable to serve. It's a huge, huge concern.
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.
It's section three of the fourteenth Amendment if you have your pocket Constitution handy that bars people from holding office if they first took an oath to support the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof Section three,
fourteenth Amendment. Hearing about it a lot lately, and we talked about it on this program right around this time yesterday with Republican presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson, the former governor of Arkansas, has floated this as basically grounds for Donald Trump to be excluded or disqualified somehow from state ballots in a presidential election. Here's what he said when I asked him, if you plan to sue on the fourteenth Amendment.
Will you sue invoking the fourteenth Amendment 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
determined nation. This is a constitutional requirement. They have to review as well and make a determination whether they violate the fourteenth Amendment.
He's obviously not going to be filing suit, but wondering if a secretary of state might take that action. And in New Hampshire they are taking a look at this. There's been enough I guess, requests for attention here that, in fact, the Secretary of State is talking to the
Attorney general about this. Now, this after a long shot presidential candidate, as I read of the New York Times, file a lawsuit in state court seeking an injunction to keep the president former president off the ballot, and it's not just in New Hampshire. The group Free Speech for the People sent letters to Secretaries of States in New Hampshire as well as Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and Wisconsin, urging them all to do the same. Let's reassemble our
panel for more on this. Rick Davis and Genie Shanzeno, Bloomberg Politics contributors. Is this crazy talk, Rick, or is there something to it?
Look? I think no matter what, we're going to see this probably in the Supreme Court before the end of this election, because as Asa Hutchison said, uh, he may not do it, but he would expect others to. And and so it's going to come out, you know, in a state ruling. Uh, someone will challenge it. And then and then the states are going to say, hey, this has got you know, all get appealed up to the Supreme Court. So here we go again, right, one more legal issue. Uh that will impact uh, you know, uh,
Donald Trump's candidacy for president. And look, I mean this was a provision put in place to keep Confederates from getting elected after the Civil War, and you know, quote you know, softly taking back the country. You know, I think we have to look at this in the context of what president are we setting.
Uh.
You know, there are obviously a lot of people who will do anything they possibly can to stop Donald Trump from being re elected president, and this is just another tool that they'll use.
Another tool, Genie that could make a lot of people angry. Do you think there's a Secretary of State out there, whether it's New Hampshire or maybe a guy named Raffensberger in Georgia that would consider this?
Oh?
Sure, and thank you, Joe. I was having Trump withdrawal syndrome. So the fact that you allowed us to say his name in the HOTE, I won't let you down, thank you.
You know.
The reality is is there is going to be a lawsuit one or more filed on these grounds, and it is not crazy talk. Let's just be clear. You have two conservative Federalist Society legal scholars. They have a peace coming out in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review next year that we have seen already that they have said President Trump, and they again are conservatives, they are originalists.
They have said a President Trump being elected would not be able to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment Clause three unless two thirds of each House of Congress for gave him for the insurrection essentially or allowed him a pass. And their argument is based on an original reading of that clause and what they describe as abundant evidence that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, and can I underscore those are conservative legal scholars in the federalist society, So there
is an argument to be made. I don't know if it'll have any legs in the court, certainly, I don't know about the Supreme Court, but it is a question that is going to come up and be challenging, and I'll say interesting to hear what people like Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsich and Aldo would have to say, because
they purport themselves to be originalists as well. So you may find an interesting juxtaposition where you have people on Trump's side leaning towards liberals who tend to read the Constitution in a very different way and take into account those things Rick was just talking about, Like the president, it would set versus the intention of the words when they were written and the definition, and so it's going
to be fascinating. I don't know if it'll stop him from serving, but we will see lawsuits come.
Forward well if this goes to the Supreme Court, we're planning back this episode. I'll tell you that, Rick. I know you're talking precedent, but I know that we're also dealing with a very divisive voter base here and a lot of angry people right now. The president himself, the former president, forgive me said it on that interview with Tucker Crassley, started talking about civil war, about people taking
up arms after what we saw in January sixth. Do you see this potentially if they go down this route as a catalyst for violence, imagining if this did get to the Supreme Court.
Yeah. Look, just for the record, Brad Rasenberger has already opined on this, and his view is the voters ought to decide these things and the last thing he wants to do is encourage the State of Georgia to file suit to try and remove anybody from a ballot. So there are a lot of people out there who worry about the long term implications of no election ever going uncontested, uh in the courts, and and so I think that's a fair assessment.
Uh.
You know, look, I mean, we we live in a dangerous time. Political violence is up. You've got you know,
candidates like Donald Trump. He's not the only one who go out there and preach you know, various levels of of of uh, you know, sort of violent reactions to his own legal problems, the you know, weaponization of government and all those things, and and so, yeah, I worry about another you know, January sixth Uh, when you have people like Donald Trump who try and whitewash it by saying, oh, it's just a bunch of you know, friendly uh, you know,
tourists going to the capital. I mean Tucker Carlson, I mean, shame on him. You know, he obviously doesn't know how to watch a television because you know, you can't see the violence that was broadcast live and think that this was anything other than insurrection.
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.
It's just they open a couple of them right here for this conversation. If you feel like a beer here, pull up a chair with the panel. Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzino are with us here. Because beer has been talked about quite a bit over the past couple of days here in Washington. It came up at the White House briefing, and it came up again last night on Newsmax with Ted Cruz.
Have viewed they're trying to go after and regulate ceiling fans. I gotta tell you, it's hot in Texas. We don't want to get rid of our ceiling fans. And now these idiots have come out and said, drink two beers a week. That's theirline. Well, I got to tell you if they want us to drink two beers a week, frankly, they can kiss my ass, all right.
So, and then he actually took a drink of a beer on Cable News last night. This is from I think the gas stove and ceiling fan file, if not
the washing machine file. It came up at the White House earlier this week with the Fox reporter who referred to a conversation in the Daily Mail of all places, with George Koob, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, preparing I guess a suggestion that for our health, not a mandate, but a suggestion that we limit our intake Genie Shanzano to two beers a week? Is this going to become a draconian rule? As Ted Cruz is suggesting.
So many things by this segment? Joe, thank you. I didn't know, for instance, that Canada recommends only one for women and two for men, right, That was new to me. Yeah, And I think it's very very strange that anybody would expect you would ask this doctor who studies alcoholism for his life if he's going to recommend more alcohol. Of course they're not going to recommend it. But listen, when do people really listen to the government's recommendation.
Well, that's exactly right. Hey, Rick, do you want to meet for a beer later?
There's Joe.
I think he's a martini guy.
I don't know. 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 listen on demand wherever you get your podcast.
We're going to begin with actually this remarkable piece from Josh Green. If you haven't seen that, get to your terminal or Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Blue cities in red states become latest targets for Republicans. The headline that says it all and Josh, it's great to have you back with us here. You focus on Nashville and the state of Tennessee for a lot of this piece, but it's bigger than that.
As you report and write, similar dynamics and other states have also led to a flurry of laws and executive actions preempting local ordinances. You point to Greg Abbott in Texas, Ron de Santis in Florida. Can we call this a national trend?
Yeah? I think it's absolutely a national trend. It's been one for a while, but it's one that's particularly sped up over the last few years. And now if you follow the news, you know, you see these increasingly routine stories about clashes in particularly red state governments between state legislators who are Republicans and of urban blue city legislators
who are Democrat. And this has really become kind of a new frontier in American politics of this battle between states, red states and blue cities.
People think about red and blue America as being different states, and you look at the map with that big red blob in the middle and the blue stripes along. What we're talking about red and blue division within states, and it strikes me that capitals, you know, of course have the political power, but that doesn't seem to matter if it's a Republican legislature.
And yeah, I mean, like we all we all got to know that because of the you know, the famous presidential electoral maps. But you know, one of the trends in political demographics has just become clearer and clearer with every passing years is that these red blue divisions really happen at every level in the country and the state, and even within cities. You know, urban areas tend to be much bluer, and ext urban and rural areas tend
to be much redder. And so a lot of the friction that you have between you know, red states and blue states and a presidential primary or a you know, in Congress, those same kind of battles are playing out
within states. And partly because our national politics has become so broken down and gridlocked and neither party can really get big legislation through, both parties have increasingly kind of turned their focus to states, and it's an area where, particularly in the South, where there are really strong Republican legislative majorities, but still you know, urban capital cities in their midst This is where the real classes have come in politics, whether it's over gun violence, or race, or
COVID mask mandates or these things, just about anything.
It spawned national stars here politically, when you talk about Greg Abbott or Ron de Santis, I'm sure I could name a few others here. It's been the foundation of a presidential campaign for DeSantis, you.
Know, it has. And I think it's a reflection of another trend, and that is the nationalization of our politics. You know, the old famous Tip O'Neil phrase that all politics is local said that I think in the early nineteen eighties. Well, today all politics is national, and that includes city and state politics. And as you know, local American newspapers die as local TV station does, less hard
news reporting. People are getting their news sources from national partisan outlets, which I think has radicalized people on both sides, and so you don't have the kind of practical consensus making politics between you know, moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans that you historically had in states like Tennessee and particularly in Nashville that that's becoming rarer and rarer these days, and it's being replaced by the same kind of contention and fighting that we have here in Washington.
The idea of all politics being national just can't be good on a lot of different levels. But there is a local fallout. As you point out, I'm struck by the time that you spent in Nashville City Hall and the time that you spent with Mayor Cooper, who's decided because of all of this not to run for reelection.
Yeah, I mean, I you know, Nashville is one of the most interesting cases because Tennessee has a long history of this kind of bipartisan consensus and they're famous, or they have been famous over the last half decade for kind of minting these national figures who are kind of moderate, consensus minded Republicans, people like Howard Baker and Lamar Alexander. And yet today they're in the news because the Republican legislature has expelled black Democratic lawmakers for processing gun violence.
And I sort of picked this as the location of the piece because there seemed to be more friction here than in almost any other city. And I sat down with John Cooper the mayor who has led a very successful term in terms of economics, in terms of growing Nashville. The economy is booming. It's more than recovered from COVID, which a lot of a lot of urban centers have not.
And yet there's constant fighting between Republicans who want to impose their values on Nashville and Nashville Democrat and citizens who want to govern themselves the way cities have traditionally
been able to do. What's really new about this trend is that both parties at the state level tended to defer governance to cities themselves, and now we're seeing that go away as these political battles become nationalized and as Republicans and Democrats lose the outlet of Congress as a real viable way to legislate the issues that they care about.
You know, people talk about how to solve division in this country, and we talk about gerry mandering and a couple of other very significant elements. But when you drill down on a local level like this and you start looking inside states, it's just much more granular, isn't it.
Yeah, it really is. And what's happening is the old niceties and political norms that kind of used to keep the machine running have gone away and broken down. And you see that distinctly in Nashville and even in Mayor
Cooper's own family. I also met with his brother, Jim Cooper, who I've known for years and years, is a longtime Democratic congressman, a centrist blue dog Democrat who had represented Nashville on an ausince nineteen eighty two, and he was essentially forced into retirement by Tennessee Republicans this year because they took his Democratic district and they chopped it up and spread it out among three conservative Republican districts, so
essentially undermining democratic power. So now Nashville, a very democratic city that voted two to one for Joe Biden over Donald Trump in the presidential election, is represented by three conservative Republicans. And that just goes to show you the kind of tug of war that's happening in these cities that are located within red states.
You know, it strikes me, Josh. The contrarian element to all of this is watching business, and in many cases liberal leaning business or wealthy liberals moving from places like New York to Florida, moving from places like California to Texas. Could that bring a balancing effect.
Well, you know, it's interesting because Nashville itself is sort of in the middle of that balancing seesaw. I mean, on the one hand, it is a wonderful city, a huge creative economy, a music scene, healthcare, a lot of kind of creative class amenities that attract young people, minorities, people who are traditionally Democratic. But on the other hand, Republicans and Tennessee point out, hey, look we got rid
of a state income tax. You know, this is a wonderful relocate to and there are many businesses relocating to Nashville, so, you know, the business community see things both ways. I mean, on the one hand, they're attracted there because it's great for their bottom lines and educated workforce. It's a great
airports in the middle of the country. On the other hand, business people I talk to, we're worried that if the reputation of the city becomes you know, two right wing and too hostile to people who are Democrats, that it will hurt Democratic Nashville's economy, and ultimately that hurts everyone at Tennessee, Republican and Democrat alike.
Great talk, Josh great to have you back. Let's do it more often. Joshua Green, Bloomberg BusinessWeek National correspondent with a great story that I suggest you check out. Carve out some time for it. There's a lot of great stuff there from Josh's travels. 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.