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 podcasts.
I'm Joe Matthew in Washington, where things are a bit quieter today. But like at the end of the horror movie when the hand comes reaching out of the water, that's Chuck Schumer's hand telling members they're not leaving town quite yet. They're expected to report to work on Monday, even as he has the house heads home for the year. The question is is he keeping members here because of progress that he wants to harness on a border deal, or is he keeping them here to apply pressure so
there is some progress. What we're hearing from those at the table is remarkable. Senator uh Cornyn, by the way, there's no reason for us to rush to pass something that's dead on arrival in the House. That's going to be an issue. But look at Cen kirston Cinema, one of the three primary negotiators that appears at this moment. Quote, I can see a deal, unquote. The White House now
deeply involved. Chris Murphy says that might generate something. And we want to talk about specifics because we've been having broad stroke conversations about what could be a once in a generation opportunity to handle this problem. And the person we wanted to call to talk to you with about it is Will Hurd, and he's joining us right now.
The former congressman, of course, former CIA officer, former Republican presidential candidate, who has had a lot to say about the border, of course, not only because of the location of his district, but as a former intelligence officer, has a good sense of the technology involved in some of the demands that we're hearing from the border that escape politics frequently here in Washington. Congressman, it's good to see you,
Welcome back to Bloomberg here. Before I ask you about specifics and where we might find common ground on a border deal, i'd like to know if you think it's even possible. You know the people who are at the table here. Do you think we have enough good faith in Washington? Is there any to cut a compromise on such an important issue?
There is because it makes good sense politically, right, is the bottom line? And I think the answer to your question and the lead up to this was yes to both of them.
Yes, they're staying in this.
They're staying in Washington because they can see the outlines of a deal in two. They're staying in Washington in order to force it to happen. What always shocks people in Washington, DC. You can have debates that take months to negotiate and then get sorted out in the matter of hours when there is a clock ticking and there's nothing better to force elected officials to do something than for them to try to get on a plane to get back home before Christmas.
Well, so what's real? We have already seen HR two and Speaker Mike Johnson says that's the starting line here in the House, as members don't want anything short of that. It did not receive a single Democratic vote, But we are hearing about common ground on tightening asylum law. I'd like to start there with you on what that might look like, because this is an administration that wasn't even having that conversation a couple of months ago. Will hurd to what extent should asylum law be redefined?
Well, asylum law should should. It should be very simple. We don't even have to redefine it stop treating everybody as an asylum seeker like this is an actual a policy within the Department of Homeland Security that comes down from the top, and this was a policy that began under Donald Trump. And so one of the things that's
being discussed is what's called expedited removal. Basically, somebody comes across the border legally, they're in border patrol's custody and then they get deported quickly without going through some of the immigration hearings in order to determine whether they meet the rules for asylum. And I have to remind people wanting to come to America to get a better paying job is not a reason for asylum.
You have to be part of a tectic class. Yeah.
Lookt so you have to be under violent under physical threat before we move on, does it need to be escaping violence or physical threat versus harsh economic conditions that qualify you for claiming asylum.
Yeah, you have to be targeted by your government because you're part of a protected class, or your government is not protecting you from being targeted.
Because you're part of a protected class.
And those definitions State Department has that. It's very clear around the world where there's pockets of this kind of thing happening. Right, if you're a wager in China, you're getting screwed by the government. Okay, there's a there's a good reason for being able to apply for asylum. There's some cases when it comes to Venezuela where there's good reasons for asylum. So that that's the part that is very like. The law is actually very clear, and the
Biden administration is not adhering to those existing standards. Now, so what does that look like in a deal for Congress, a funding deal to improve with ICE, who is the Immigration's customs and enforcement, who's responsible for deporting people, give them more money to deport more people, right, Like, that's
something that has to be at play. And when I said at the beginning of this, this makes sense politically, you know, Joe Biden should be happy that Republicans are willing to deal on this because this could give him a political victory going into twenty twenty four. Because the nonsense that's happening at the border is an issue, and so the people to watch in this case is actually
not necessarily Republicans. It's what are the Democrats could be willing to deal with President Biden on this because President Biden really wants to see a victory here.
Where should the president fall on safe third countries? This is something that has been getting a lot of debate here in Washington as well, and I know is on the table in this negotiation.
Well, it's simple like that.
Where the policy should be is, you know, you've got to be a part of protective class and being targeted by your government.
You can't apply for asylum any other way, right.
When you're coming through another country.
If you're coming through another country, it still starts with you where you were from, right, and you should also be applying for asylum in the next contiguous country.
That has been the norm around around the world. Right.
This is one of those issues where where when you look at humanitarian groups in Europe that are looking kind of at America like y'all are a little bit crazy because we're the only ones that are allowing people to travel halfway around the world in order to in order to apply for asylum.
You should be applying for siem in some cases in.
Your host kind or in the first opportunity outside of the country where you're being targeted. And so so that look, this is At the end of the day, people are abusing this process and they're wanting to come to America to get a better paying job, which is fine, and this is what the Democrats.
Are real frauds. Negotiate on streamlining legal immigration.
Right, you know, this is something that I've spent a lot of time trying to work on. And the reason Democrats are the obstacle from streamlining legal immigration because they don't want to get cross with many of their big labor unions.
Well that's interesting, because we need workers in this country if we're approaching full employment. Real immigration is a conversation that we needed to have at the same time as security. As we spend time with Will Hurd on Bloomberg Sound On, I'm just curious when it comes to technology, what we should be spending our money on. We're having a debate again about whether to finish a wall that Donald Trump says was already done, and I guess Mexico is going to pay for it. I know that has not been
your preferred approach. If we have money to spend at the border on security, should it go to drones, Should it go to these new observation towers, these unmanned towers that are being erected. What do you see in our future?
Well, well, the innovative tower initiative started when I was in Congress, and I helped pave the way to make that happen. What we should be achieving on our border is operational control.
That means we know.
Everything that's coming across our border in either direction. We don't have that in the two thousand miles of border in Texas. Every mile is different from every other mile, So you need the right tool. In some places where there's urban to urban contact, a physical barrier makes sense.
But in other places where it takes border patrol hours or days to respond to a threat, you need the ability to determine there's a threat, to track that threat until you're able to deploy your most important resource to men and women in border pature. So it could be light ar, which is basically radar using using later lasers. It could be it could be night vision UH cameras. It could be drones, it could be UH sensors in
the ground. Right like like we and and d HS has done a review of every mile and what the right tool is execute on that, and it's a whole suite of technology that we need and we shouldn't be wetted to anyone, let alone a fourth century uh a solution that people can can get around.
And so that's that include.
Look so so in some on our coast, Yes, look this this debate about booys and preventing people from coming across across the border. You should let the folks on the ground decide what the right what the right tool is. In that case, you would stop having people potentially drowning in the Rio Grande River if you stop creating a poll factor by letting anybody come here and apply for asylum and spend you know, three to four years in America when they when they came here illegally.
As a former intelligence officer, a former undercover CIA officer, are we hearing rhetoric about bad actors crossing the border coming from other countries, from Iran, from China? This is part of the messaging that we're getting from some Republicans in Washington. Do we have evidence to that extent and how worried are you about it?
Well, there's no question that we've apprehended people that have been on a number of lists that elevate them as a potential threat to the country. Right, there's no question, there's no there's no question about that, and how that happens has been you know, a couple of months ago, member in the middle of the campaign, there was an ISIS smuggler, someone who was known to be an ISIS smuggler or had connections to a known ISIS smuggler that was apprehended coming across the border.
Uh, and and and and so.
So that is happening, and you know, the fortunately men and women in border patrol are able to apprehend this and the intelligence services or are feeding the right right data.
But we should be concerned.
We should also be concerned with our biggest adversary, the Chinese Communist Party, coming in here and doing intelligence operations. A couple of years ago, there were a number of Chinese astrophysicists that snuck across the border and act like they were Uh. They applied for jobs as janitors at at SpaceX, and part of it was in order to get access to rooms and capabilities and understand what was what was happening with that collaboration between SpaceX and now an American SPACEWLSE.
So those are some.
Concerns that we should have as well of our adversaries using that poorest border in a way to conduct some intelligence operations.
I wonder if they got to meet Elon Well heard you left the presidential race some time ago. I was amazed to see that the date on your endorsement for Nicki Haley was the ninth of October. A lot has happened for her campaign since then, and she's really become the candidate to watch based on the conventional wisdom. I know she has a long way to close a gap with Donald Trump. Can she win the New Hampshire primary.
She can absolutely win the New Hampshire primary.
The Republican nominee for president is down to two people.
A man and a woman, Donald Trump and Nicky Haley. And Nicki Haley has had real momentum. That's why I endorsed her.
She is, you know, we have a choice between chaos and drama of Donald Trump or a thoughtfulness, prag being a pragmatic approach and getting things done with Ambassador Haley. And and look some of these endorsements, her recent endorsement of Governor Sanunu, who's well liked up and down the ballot in New Hampshire, and then also organizations like Americans for Prosperity. They have an amazing ground game in New Hampshire. I saw it firsthand. I'm familiar with the organization. They've
been helpful to me in previous elections. And so this is a real opportunity. And on what people are failing to realize that Donald excuse me, President Biden is not going to be on the ballot in New Hampshire because of all the decisions within the Democratic Party on which state should go first. And so you're going to have
a lot of unaffiliated voters in New Hampshire. Of the voters primary voters are registered unaffiliated, which means they can pick whichever ballot they want when they go into the when they go into the to the ballot, and there's a lot of people that that they're not getting factored into polling that are going to vote for someone like Nicki Haley. So so Ambassa Haley has a real shot.
She's she's on the ground, she has a great organization on the ground, and this is one to watch and I think, and then the thing that the Price is failing to do. We talk about all the ten seconds sure sure that Donald Trump is ahead of Joe Biden, Nicki Haley has an even bigger margin against against Joe Biden in a general election.
Well, we are seeing that in our polling as well. Will hurt If you're in Iowa or New Hampshire, come see us. I want to have this conversation with you. In the early States, we'll heard former congressman former Republican presidential candidate The Panels.
Next, this is Bloomberg. You're listening to the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, 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.
Chris Christy just threw the Hail Mary pass in New Hampshire. If you listen to this program, if you listen to Rick and Genie, you know he's put all his chips on the first in the nation primary state and he's up with his first ad. Will it be the only ad? Might be the question. It is a six figure ad by here and it's going to be going up on local TV, on cable news. It's called The Only One.
Nikki Haley down by twenty six on her home state to Trump attacks DeSantis too Lane to lead two week to win, DeSantis down thirty two to Trump, and Iowa attacks Nikki Haley. You can't trust tricky Nicky. There's only one candidate trying to stop Trump. Chris Christy is the only one who can beat Trump because he's the only one trying to beat Trump.
I'm in this room, okay, So you get this that goes on and he talks about how he's going to go after Donald Trump, but he's not really going after Trump here. He's going after the other two, Ronda Santis and Chris Christie, attacking them for attacking each other. Let's reassemble the panel. Rick Davis and Genie Shanzo are here,
Bloomberg Politics contributors, Genie. As you watch New Hampshire and you consider the potential fortunes for Chris Christy, what does he get out of a six figure add by here? Is this something that might be geared more toward Ronda Santis Because he's talking pretty tough about Nicki Haley. Doesn't sound like he's about to endorse her.
It doesn't, you know. I think this only plays ultimately into the hands of Donald Trump. You know, you listen to this ad. He's going on and on about how these people can't beat Trump. Well, you know who can't beat Trump, Chris Christie. They need to consolidate against or behind somebody who can run against Donald Trump and has a shot, a long shot at this point. That person now is Nicky Haley. Your conversation with a representative herd,
he made the same case. The reality is she's got the momentum, she has the support, she's getting the endorsement. She's still well behind, but she's a lot closer than Chris Christy. So you know, to me, I think he is just really really playing into Donald Trump's hands here, and it is baffling to me that he's continuing on except that he's invested a lot of time and money. He's got donors who have donated and he's going to
see this through New Hampshire. But it is helping Donald Trump as he does that.
Rick, I want to ask you about the strategy here and where they're placing this at. Again, it's six figures, that's not that much money. I guess you have to go local when you're in New England. I suspect the buy Manchester and Boston, but they're targeting on cable CNN and Morning Joe on MSNBC, and by that I mean not Fox, not Newsmax. Is he looking to bring Democrats over to vote in this open primary.
Well, he can't bring Democrats over in this primary. And a six figure buy won't buy you Boston TV. You know that better than anybody. So it's a local buy and the cables are really I think Feather betting for his next job, either on Morning Joe or on CNN. I don't know. I mean, I'm almost at the point.
So this isn't a big independent spree here, Yeah, I mean, look, he wants the Independence to vote for him.
He knows he's maxed out on Republicans. He's got, by the grandest measure, ten percent of the New Hampshire Republicans voting for him. There than never Trumpers. As Genie points out, all of those never Trumpers would be for Nicki Haley if he weren't in the race, and so he obviously wants to hold out of them and see what kind of deal he can get with the Independence. The Independence
aren't well pulled. They are a substantial almost forty percent of the primary, maybe even more this year since there's no Democratic active day Democratic primary and and so yeah, I mean he's throwing the hail Mary Pass as you said, I mean, I'm more inclined to believe the conspiracy theory that Trump put him up to his campaign at the very beginning, you know, probably helped him with some donors, you know, and said at the last minute, I'm going
to say bananas, and then you're going to attack my closest opponents. So banana has been called.
I think are you Are you being real? Is that what's happening here?
No, I'm being completely facetious. But these days I have to make sure, No, you're going to end up on Twitter if I don't make sure that you're being sarcastic.
Genie, I've got to ask you about what's going on in Nasau County. Republicans have put up a candidate to fill the seat or buy for the seat once held by a guy named George Santos, and as we've discussed, there's going to be a special election to fill that seat, introducing Nassau County Legislator Mazi Pillip. This is fascinating, what a story to tell she's served in the Israeli defense or so she's former IDF as an Ethiopian born Jew
who fled to Israel as a child. This is some kind of a storyline here, except she's an enrolled Democrat. Am I missing something here? Genie? There are Democrats running as Democrats in that race? Why her?
There are? And she's a sitting Nasa County legislator on the Republican side, So you know, this is a swing district. As we know, there is some school of thought that the fact that she's running as the Republican but is a registered Democrat may help her in this district. I do have to say her backstory is incredibly impressive. Amongst other things, she is also the mother of seven children
and a very accomplished woman. But you know, unlike in the case when George Santos was running, we're seeing a lot of vetting and one of the things that reporters had, like you have uncovered, is that she is a Democrat. There's also a lawsuit involving her husband's business that shouldn't probably impact her. But this is going to be a really tough, much watched district. The special election is February thirteenth, But of course New York now is going to be
engaged in redistricting. It probably won't be before then, but certainly right after that. And we are going to be just right on top of the June primaries and then the November general. So this is going to be fascinating to see who comes out on top here. Tom Swazi, the Democrat, is a well known figure in those parts. He has his own challenges, including a progressive liberal.
Also happens to be an actual Democrat. I don't know, Rick, just a minute left, Rick, do you tend to check what party your Republicans are enrolled in before you run them?
Sure?
But as Genie pointed out, she's already a legislator under the Republican wing. It's really unique. I think that basically, the NASA county chief said, I was someone who diametrically the opposite of our previous member of Congress, the former George Santo.
I guess that's a win. Then we can check that box. It's going to be an interesting race, though, and why Democrats wouldn't just vote for Tom Swazi remains a question. We'll keep tabs on this for you. You better believe with Rick, and Jeannie. I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington. We're just getting started on the fastest show in politics. This is Bloomberg.
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.
Now alongside Kaylee lines. Kaylee is great to see when we have breaking news on Israel here, which is not good. That just crossed the terminal a short time ago, remembering the calls from the White House for restraint to protect civilian life. There's also been a matter of protecting the hostages, many of whom we don't really know where they are.
Yeah, they're whereabouts, highly uncertain given Hamas itself isn't necessarily hosting or holding all of them in the same place.
There's other entities at play here. But yes, from the Israeli military itself releasing a statement today saying three hostages were mistakenly identified as threats during fighting shot out and therefore killed once they were brought back to Israeli territory and identified, they did confirm it was three Israeli hostages, just obviously, Joe, very awful to see in a reminder of how much innocent life is being lost in this conflict.
Absolutely, and still how little we know about the location and the identities of some of these hostages. We know it's been on the area of one hundred and twenty, but we actually don't know, Kayley, because in some cases Hamas is not holding them any any longer. Other groups are in God and the more questions we ask, the
more we realize how much we don't know. Here we heard from John Kirby, of course, the retired admiral speaks for the National Security Council in the White House, about a conversation that Jake Sullivan had with Benjaminett and Yahoo Jake Sullivan in the region more shuttle diplomacy and the calls for restraint by the IDF for growing more intense, as Sullivan asked for a new phase of less intense fighting within weeks, not months. Here's John Kirby.
Jake also discussed the next phase of Israel's military campaign, and he asked hard questions as we have been doing about what all that could look like.
He did talk about.
Possible transitioning from what we would call high intensity operations, which is what we're seeing them do now, to lower intensity operations sometime you know, in the near future. But I don't want to put a time stamp on it.
And that's of course one of the real issues your is how long this go on for and have the administration continue to support the mission?
Well, exactly, especially when here at home there's growing pressure from within the president's own party to take more caution when it comes to the cost and civilian life, the humanitarian aspects. There are many Democratic members who are talking about an outright ceasefire, not just a lowering of intensity that we're hearing.
From the White House.
Well, this is one of several issues we're dealing with today in Washington. The other, of course, brings us to another ally that's in a hot war, and that's Ukraine, and great questions about whether we're going to be able to support either of them, all hinging on a debate over the border. Kaylee, We've been steeped in this since we started talking about an hour ago. Chuck Schumer's keeping Senators in Washington. Yep, they're coming back Monday to work. Supposedly,
negotiators will be busy all weekend. The question is will this be in vain somehow solving a generational problem the next four days.
Yeah, you're certainly seeing a lot of skepticism on the Republican side that this realistically can get done, even beyond just a very simple outline. Then there's the other consideration, and that's the House of Representatives. Say the Senate is able to sort this out next week. The House is still gone and the House may not like whatever compromise senators reach with the White House.
Well, they're telling the Senate it's already done on arrival there. And we've been talking about this for days, if not weeks now, which is a great opportunity to bring in a special guest. Jim Gilmore is back with us on Bloomberg, someone I always think of as the former governor of Virginia, the former chair of the RGA, but actually spent time in foreign affairs and an important role that brings us to this conversation now as former US Ambassador to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Mister Ambassador, I feel like I should call you a governor. But welcome back to Bloomberg. It's good to see you here. A big case needs to be made in Washington. I guess, then again, we're not really talking about the need for funding in Ukraine. We're talking about the need for border security and a border deal to unlock that funding. Should this conversation be happening the other way around.
Well, we know what's happening, and that is that the Republicans believe that they're not going to ever get any serious action from the White House or from the Democratic Party unless they use the Ukrainian and Israeli money as leverage. We know what's going on. My view is that the border issue is legitimate. It's something that ought to be taken up as a consensus in the United States that
it ought to have to be addressed. But I don't think we ought to lose sight of the reality here that the real strategic threat to the United States rests in Ukraine. Ukraine is the pivot on which the future is going to turn. If the Russians are able to conquer Ukraine and absorb them into the Russian Empire by force, violence and atrocity, they change the entire rules of the game, not just in Europe but worldwide, and America has everything
at stake in this. It is vital that this money get passed to go to Ukraine and also to Israel.
So, sir, what is your message to your fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill? Even if border security is a legitimate issue, is this really the way or are they are they going about this incorrectly?
Look, if it were me, I would make darn sure that the Ukrainian money is authorized. You don't want to give encouragement to Putin. This confusion is already giving encouragement to Putin. Putin is a war criminal. He is an aggressor and it has to be stopped. And I think that there's a consensus also regarding the Israeli money as well. No, no, I think that that is vital. I understand why it's
going on. Frankly, I can't see the issue here. It seems to me that the White House and the Democrats ought to be able to work on a border compromise that the Republicans can live with and that we can get on about this serious business of financing our national security in the international field.
And I M sure go ahead of.
Well, what I was going to say is this, Listen, I don't want to be unaware of the power of messaging, like we're doing right now on Bloomberg Radio. You need to persuade the American people that this Ukraine crisis is real. You have to persuade people it is really wars on every day and every minute. But the real crisis here is Ukraine, because that's the threat to Europe, which is a threat to the United States.
If it goes the wrong way.
Now, with that being said, the President has the bully pulpit. He's the one that has to make the case to the American people, and he isn't doing it.
Maybe he can't.
Do it, but in any case, the public has to understand exactly what's at stake here.
Seemed to be trying pretty hard the other day when he hosted President Selenski at the White House. But I'm curious, Ambassador about the messaging on this legislation. Why not call this the US Defense Restocking Act or the Protect America's Defense Supply Chain Act or something. The fact is this sixty billion dollars is low largually going to states like Georgia, Texas, Alabama, that are home to our defense contractors. Are they selling it the wrong way?
I think it's a reality that America's power rests not only in its national government it's military, but also our supply chain and our defense contractors. I know a lot about that. I worked with them quite a bit, and this is an element of American power. And then I going to contribute these things for nothing. You can't expect that in the capitalist system. It's not going to be expropriated.
So it's reasonable that this funding is going to go in order to supply the weaponry and the other resources necessary for Ukraine to prevail. And by the way they are prevailing, Russia decided they were going to conquer the whole country. It's clear now they can't do that unless
we surrender here in the United States. If the United States politics grows now to all of a sudden being defeatists or people who are surrender types of people that want to give up on this issue and put it off to another decade, We're going to pay a.
Big pass for this move.
Well, you may call it defeatist, ambassador, others will call it isolationists. And it seems like there is a growing number of Republicans in Congress and arguably in the presidential field as well, who are adopting that worldview. What do you think of that?
I do Isolationism is exactly what's going on, you know.
I characterize it.
Yeah, it's appropriate, and frankly, people ought to read exactly the history of the United States in the nineteen thirties when America had a strong isolationist element about it and it kept us out of the war in the Nazis conquered Europe, and we are now are seeing the exact same thing. We need to learn the lessons of history here, and this is easier to do is the Ukrainians that are fighting for their own lives and their own safety and sovereignty. We're putting in a reasonable amount of money,
diminishing that. It's very hard for Americans to focus on this when they're thinking about inflation, in the border and all the other issues that have been have emerged in this administration. But the fact is that this is a serious moment when we have an opportunity to stop this kind of aggression in Europe and preserve the principles and values of the American people.
So I guess what I hear from the ambassador here, Joe, is that isolationists maybe an appropriate way of categorizing this way of thinking, but not necessarily an appropriate way of thinking during a time of such conflict around the world.
Well, that's right, correct if we're wrong here, ambassador, because that's the direction that many in the Republican Party want to take. In fact, I think you could even argue that's what the front runner is calling for here in this presidential cycle. What do you tell your Republican colleagues when you hear talk like that.
Well, we don't actually know what President Trump is going to do if he's reelected. I know when I was taking a strong position in Vienna at the Ossee, nobody was pushing back on me and tell me to prevaricate or to stand aside. I was pushing very hard on the Russians, on behalf of the United States. So my message to our isolation as friends is turn away from this.
This is dangerous to the United States. If America draws back within itself, then at that point our ally may very well lose heart, and the politics of Europe may go haywire, and Putin may be in a position to reassemble his empire the way that he says he's going to maybe even including an attack on a NATO power, and then at that point, if we don't do anything because our isolation is then at that point that collapses NATO, which is exactly what Putin wants to do.
Well, sir, we certainly appreciate your view of the world here, especially given your former ambassadorship, but also I'd like to ask you a question, and it is a Friday, this is on a bit of a lighter note, regarding a state. You were formerly governor of the state of Virginia. Back on that which has now attracted potentially two new sports teams, the Caps and the Wizard's going to cross the River, Governor or what do you think of the deal and what it must have taken to make it happen.
Well, if it can actually come to fruition the way we hope, I think it's a really good thing for Virginia. It's probably a really good thing for these teams. You know, I've been following the NBA because I always follow UVA players that go to the NBA, and one of them is Anthony Gills, who plays for the Wizards.
I'm looking indeed, that means everybody's got across the river, though, Ambassador, I'm going to call you Governor for this portion of the conversation, and they're not going to be able to park over there. How's this all going to come together?
Well, I've spent a lot of time in Alexandria and it's pretty busy up there, I must say, so they're gonna have to figure all that out.
Well. As a resident of Alexandria, this is something that I am acutely aware of, and I'm wondering how this is going to impact my home values here to speak on a very personal level. But Governor, what's the possibility were the odds of this turning back around at the eleventh hour and these two teams staying in Washington based on a counteroffer?
Well, look, it's never until it's done. I learned that when I was governor. It's never done until it's done. But I think that Governor Younkin has really moved this ball along with up the field, if you will, and he's to be commended for it. I think it'll be good for the teams and good for Northern Virginia, good for economic development. But you're right about this, I'd be very careful when I got in my car. What restaurant want I wanted to go to?
Very fair? Well, you mentioned Governor Younkin and governor last time you and I spoke, it was on the day of the elections in Virginia a month in change ago, where there was talk of him potentially being able to achieve or wed wave perhaps give him some momentum toward an eventual presidential run, something you yourself have tried a few times. Do you think those ambitions are diminished for Youngkin given how that actually turned out?
Well, I think that you can't underestimate Governor Younkin. He's a very vigorous leader, and of course this is a nice feather in his cap. The way we've been discussing it, you know, I think that it would have been better if that election had turned on issues like crime inflation President Biden himself, I think that could have happened, and they probably would have been yielded a better result. But look, I never count out a governor of Virginia. The twelve finance, never count them out.
Spoken by one Jim Gilmore, it's great to see a governor and ambassador. We always welcome you back here to Bloomberg. Happy holidays. If we don't see you again before then, fascinating conversation are these teams going? Is this real or is this conversation supposed to be the stuff that prompts them to stay.
I think it's kind of anyone's guest at this point. It's real for now. Joe, Onto Virginia, whether it stays stays real.
Onto Virginia by God with Jim Gilmore, I'm Joe Matthew with Kaylee Lyons. This is Bluebird. 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