Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Roudo with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Thank you for being with us on Bloomberg TV and radio. The Wednesday edition of Balance of Power, I'm Joe Matthew and Washington Kaylee Lines is on assignment as we pick up the pieces from debate night, but also bring you breaking news from Washington. Amazing how things can change in
twenty four hours. We were talking at this time yesterday about a looming vote on a stopgap measure that Speaker Mike Johnson had brought forth to extend to kick the can on government funding six months down the road, knowing that funding expires September thirty. This was not expected to be easy. Tied with the Save Act Democrats didn't like, it wasn't expected to pass the Senate even if it
did pass the House. Now it's not happening today, as we report the Speaker talking to reporters earlier, there will be no vote today on the short term spending plan to avoid a government shutdown. They're going to work through the weekend. It seems, in fact, we may not see a vote now until next week. Remembering time is tight
and this is going to be an interesting debate. Donald Trump saying on Truth Social yesterday, Republicans should not vote for any stopgap unless it does come with the Save Act, which Democrats remind tries to solve a problem that is not in existence because it is already illegal for non citizens to vote in elections. Now, that's where we start our conversation with someone who had his eyes on the debate last night, and of course was in Lower Manhattan
this morning on this anniversary of nine to eleven. That would be Dan Goldman, Democratic congressman New York's tenth district, with us live from Capitol Hill. Congressman, it's great to see you. Thanks for coming back. Did Republicans rhetoric change on this stop gap after the debate last night?
I don't actually think the debate had that much to do with it. I think it was very clear that, for a variety of reasons, there were numerous Republicans who
did not want to move forward with this. Some understood that billions of dollars would be underfunded for veterans, for the military, for our national security if this went a full six months and others realized that this was a non starter, it was never going to ultimately become law, and it was playing more brinksmanship with a government shutdown, and the Republicans would have held responsibility for that a month before the election.
Are you worried about a shutdown or is the Senate going to solve this for the House once again.
Look, I'm always worried about a shutdown, but I think we've been through this several times before, and we've seen and we know how it's going to play out, and it's going to play out ultimately with Speaker Johnson needing the Democrats to pass a short term stop gap three month cr that is exactly what has happened the last couple times that we've been through this sprinksmanship and bewildering why he continues to do it again and again and again.
It's the definition of insanity to think that something will be different. But here we are recognizing three weeks before that this is not going to happen.
This is a familiar feeling of afraid Congressman to your point. We've seen this movie before. The talk is then if not six months, three months, is that what happens. We fund the government through the end of the year, and whoever wins the election, the next president is going to have to deal with this problem on day one.
Well, I think part of the point of actually doing it in mid December is so that whoever becomes president does not have to deal with this on day one, that we will get it done before the new president, who I believe will be Kamala Harris, takes office on January twentieth. And that's the way it should be done, and that's the way that I expect it to be done.
But it just goes to show Joe.
How consistent and continuous the Republicans are in playing games with our government, with our national security, with our veterans, with the things that matter to the American people. And it is political brinksmanship after political brinksmanship. They are not serious about doing the actual work to solve the problems for the American people. That has been the story this entire Congress. And that is why Democrats need to win in November so that Democratic majority can actually do the
work for the American people. That the Democrat majority did in the last Congress, and that basically the Democratic major minority rather has done this this Congress because everything that has passed Congress has required Democrats.
Well, if the idea here is then to do a stopgap through December and then somehow craft a real budget with twelve spending bills in regular order, it would take a Christmas miracle, Congressman, and I would love to be talking to you about that if it gets that far by the end of the year. But I want to
ask you about the debate last night. I know you were watching here, and I know the matter of Ukraine is important to you or support for the war in Ukraine, knowing that you were the lead council in the first impeachment against Donald Trump, which brought us back to the original perfect phone call. As we all remember, Donald Trump said a couple of things last night. If he had been president, this war never would have started. Vladimir Putin
never would have invaded Ukraine. He also said, if Kamala Harris gets elected, that this is going to take a very different direction. Do you believe that's true that this war would not have happened with Donald Trump in office?
Absolutely?
Not.
The war happened because Donald Trump had messed around and undermined our alliances with our allies to the point where there was so much discord and disagreement between Donald Trump and our closest allies that Vladimir Putin believed that it was the opportune time for him to make his illegal and improper invasion of a democratic state Ukraine next door
to him. And the reason why Vladimir Putin so desperately wants Donald Trump to be president again and why he is paying social media right wing media to promote Russian propaganda to help Donald Trump win, is because he knows that he has Donald Trump wrapped around his finger. And the reality is Donald Trump could not even say last night that he wants the democratic Ukraine to beat and win this war against the dictator Vladimir Putin from Russia.
That is all you need to know.
This man coddles up to dictators and he undermines democracy both here at home and abroad. And it's why so many of the national security officials who work for Donald Trump have said that he is unfit to the president and that they are supporting Kamala Harris.
This is a critical, critical.
Issue and that specific answer was so telling as to who Donald Trump is and what kind of presidency a Trump two point zero would be. It would be a red carpet for Vladimir Putin to take over Ukraine and expand into Europe.
Well, it's interesting because Kamala Harris said last night that if Donald Trump were elected, Vladimir Putin be sitting in Kiev right now. But the fact of the matter is, Congressman, we've talked to the president of Poland, President Dudas sat here right at the table with us. We had the same conversation with a son of Markarova, the ambassador of Ukraine to the United States, when we ask them about what a Trump two point zero would mean for US
support for NATO and the war in Ukraine. They both said, Hey, Donald Trump gave Ukraine lethal weapons when others would not, and he deserves credit for that. Are they wrong?
Well, that is factually correct, But then he withheld those lethal weapons in order to coerce and extort the president of Ukraine to make up a bogus investigation to help Donald Trump's election and his electoral prospects, and so yes, on the one hand, that's right, but this is the problem with Donald Trump, you can't trust him because when push comes to shove, he will always put.
His personal interest over the countries.
And so he may do something the right way because he doesn't care about it. He's not paying attention to it. But if he finds something that he can do that can help him personally, he always do that. And that's why he got impeached the first time, is because he illegally withheld essential military and financial support for Ukraine against Russia. And so that's obviously why Vladimir Putin is so eager for Donald Trump to become president again.
You know, you saw, Congressman Donald Trump was given several occasions last night, several opportunities to say that he wanted Ukraine to win the war. Each time he would simply say he wanted the war to end. How do you interpret that?
I interpreted exactly as you did, which is it's one thing if he perhaps doesn't answer the question once, but I believe he was asked three times and he refused to say that he preferred that the democratic, independent, sovereign nation of Ukraine that was invaded by a dictator Vladimir Putin would win the war. And then when he talks about in grandiose terms, how and he consistently does this. He would end it on day one before he's even president, and you ask him, how are you going to do that?
Never once has he provided any information about how he's going to do that. And we all know the reason why, and Vice President Harris said it last night, because he will just allow Vladimir Putin to walk over Ukraine and to take over Kiev and to take over a democratic nation for the first time since World War Two. So you don't have to dig deep to figure out what Donald Trump wants.
He makes it very clear.
And what he wants is for dictators and strong men like Victor Orbon who he bragged about, and Vladimir Putin to be his friends. Those are his models, not democracies like Ukraine.
Well, Congressman, you represent New York's tenth districts, and this is an awfully important day here, this eleventh of September, for the people in your district, for you, for the people of New York City, for everyone who's listening and watching this right now. I was struck this morning to see the images from Lower Manhattan in this memorial service that we've grown so used to every year to see Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump all standing together to
pay tribute. What does that tell us about the significance of this.
Day, Well, it tells us many things.
First of all, this was the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack against the United States on US soil and history, and it is critical that we never forget that we have enemies abroad who want to destroy us, and.
That still remains the case.
It's also a time to appreciate and remember all of the first responders who so bravely went into Ground zero, into the towers first, and then cleaned off the pile, many many thousands of whom are now suffering from mental health consequences. There's rather health consequences. But the other thing, Joe and I think this is really really important. Nine to eleven was a day that brought all Americans together.
Whether you were Democratic.
Or you were Republican, or you were independent or nothing, that day, we were all Americans. And this morning, as we stood there at nine to eleven, we were just Americans there to commemorate one of the worst days in American history. And it is really really important, even in our divisive and polarized political times, that we remember we are all Americans, we all love this country, we all want this country to be better. And that was to me so much of the takeaway this morning as I
stood next to Rudy Giuliani and JD. Vance and Donald Trump and President Biden, Vice President Harris, Senator Schumer, Governor Hockel, it didn't matter what parties we were for this day, because we were commemorating an American holiday, which is now nine to eleven.
It's incredibly important. Congressman, I appreciate your answering that question, and I'm glad that you were there for us today because I'll tell you what, waking up this morning, I have rarely felt further away from that moment, and so many of us wonder how we can get back to it without a tragedy. Great to be with us today on Bloomberg. Congressman, thank you, Dan Goldman, New York's tenth District,
Live from Capitol Hill. He's made his way back to Washington, as many lawmakers have following the tributes this morning in New York.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast can Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Ronoo with 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 do thank you for being with us here on Bloomberg TV and Radio, and on YouTube, where you can always find us search Bloomberg Business News Live on this eleventh of September twenty twenty four. A lot of us notice the weather when we woke up this morning here Washington and in New York, that clear blue sky, the fall tempts felt a lot like it did twenty three years ago. And you keep seeing the hashtag or hearing people say never forget. You'll see a lot more of
those today. The fact of the matter is, if you were in Washington that day, or in New York or in Pennsylvania, if you smell the smoke and felt the fear and the confusion, you couldn't possibly forget. And of course that goes for Americans all over the country who woke up that morning, woke up that morning to find that news on their way to work or as they were packing up the kids for school. It changed their worldview.
But you advanced this story twenty three years later, and the ceremonies, the names being read, the chimes being heard, means something different for a lot of young people who don't remember it or who were not alive when it happened. And that brings us to a noted this morning in the Philadelphia Inquirer by the former Governor of Pennsylvania, Mark Schweiker, writing about remembering nine to eleven and advancing the lessons
that we learned that day to the next generation. It is important to acknowledge, he says, the legislation signed into law in June by Governor Josh Shapiro, which established a moment of silence in our schools on nine to eleven to be observed yearly. The sponsor of that legislation, Rep. Jim Haddock, had the unanimous support of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Former Governor Schwiker also hoping that everyone will pause on nine to eleven every year in a moment of silence.
And you wonder if there is more that is needed to remember He's with us right now in Pennsylvania. As a matter of fact, in Philadelphia this morning after the debate, and Governor, it's good to see you here. People should know that you became governor as a direct result of nine to eleven when Tom Ridge was called to Washington to run the new Department of Homeland Security, and you've lobbied and worked closely with the families of nine to eleven.
What is your thought now as you talk to people in their early to mid twenties and think about their kids ten or twenty years from now in advancing the lessons that we learned twenty three years ago.
Well, I think there is an American instinct to understand more about it, to know more about it, to inquire about it. I think for those of us on the front line, Joe, as you've already emphasized, it's a day never to be forgotten out of respect for the families. And you know that day. You know, by the end of the day, two nine hundred and ninety six Americans had perished.
So we're not going to forget it anytime soon.
But relative to younger folks, I do believe that they want to understand what occurred, what led us to that point, and that they're inclined to be a storyteller of sorts, so that it's handed down over generations through families as well.
You write and remind us, by the way, it wasn't just the almost three thousand people who die that they nearly as many first responders have died after nine to eleven as those who perished in the moments after the terror attacks. Within three years, more than seventy thousand people suffering from physical and mental health issues related to the attacks.
This is something the nation had to deal with, Governor, And you remember the moments that followed nine to eleven, the unity that so many people have tried to reach back to and recreate since then, it has never been duplicated. Why not?
Well, so to speak, America has moved on.
Here we are.
You've mentioned this also twenty three years later, on this gorgeous Wednesday morning or Wednesday afternoon. Now you know that life, so to speak, is somewhat back to normalcy. You know, we don't feel threatened by external forces.
They couldn't be more wrong.
You know, think about this. Not too long ago. There are eight would be terrorists from Tashikastan. Two of them we're in Philadelphia in my estimation, probably casing locations in and around Philadelphia, because in twenty twenty six, when we celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth birthday of this great country,
this longest running democracy in history of the world. I don't think they were here looking for a place to buy hot dogs or ice cream, probably casing the place, as law enforcement would say.
So we've got to stay.
On top of our game, if anything, on this gorgeous Wednesday.
It's also about proper.
Reflection, commemorating those who pershed, and relative to homeland security that it's more than just a moniker, more than just two words individually speaking, And certainly those who serve in high levels of government, state and federal and county and so on need to be extra vigilant as these kinds of instances that occur. So I think nine to eleven can be not just about commemoration, even though that's the
lion's share of the emotional aspect. Today, staying on top of our homeland security game and remaining visual is essential as well.
As we spent time with former Pennsylvania Governor Mark Schweiker with us in a very busy downtown Philadelphia this day after the debate, of course, Governor, we have to remind ourselves that we would not have had a debate last evening about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, if it were not for the events that took place twenty three years ago. Today this has become a big point of contention in
this debate. And as you support one candidate or the other in this race, and you can tell me where you're going to fall on this, to the extent that you're involved in this election cycle, does Kamala Harris deserve some of the blame for the way that withdrawal was conducted?
Well, you know, individually speaking, I'm like most Americans. I'm paying very close attention to every minute in every rhetorical turn of.
Last night's debate.
Individually speaking, along with my wife, will make a decision in due time. As I see it, relative to Afghanistan, it was by most military accounts, most third party independent accounts, it was a messy withdrawal. Lives that, in the in the assessment of many, did not have to be lost if there were a thorough, sensible strategy for exit from Afghanistan. So I do think that the president bears some responsibility here, the current president, President Biden.
As I see.
It, it's a bit of a reach to suggest that the Vice president and management decision. Fingerprints was on on that maneuver that day. On the other hand, it's an administration that that bears responsibility. So I do I sensed last night a bit of defensiveness on her part.
But as I see it, Joe, we're.
In a situation now where we've got to be talking about just living and the the aspects of shopping and the extra expense.
In the supermarket.
We've got to talk about preserving Pennsylvania's economy, which is heavily dependent on natural gas and extraction technologies. So in that regard, I stand here as a long time Pennsylvanian. Those jobs at paychecks need to be protected as well. So aside from what happened in Afghanistan, let's talk about what's underway in the rural areas of Pennsylvania and the prospect of SHU. Should that industry be diminished, that means jobs at paychecks are taken away from Pennsylvania residents.
Well, I'd like to talk about that. Do you take Kamala Harris at her word that she would not ban fracking? What does that mean for voters in western Pennsylvania?
In my assessment that stands today, other than some areas of Pennsylvania, largely.
Urban across the state.
There are great misgivings about her seeming comfort years ago to say fracking needs to be stopped, and at this point, on this gorgeous September afternoon, I believe there are an awful lot of Pennsylvanians who believe they cannot take her at her work.
Josh Shapiro, of course, is not one of them. I think you're a fan of the governor. Is he the best asset she has in Pennsylvania?
Without question? I mean, Josh Shapiro.
Is someone that has won a number of elections. I think it confirms he knows how to compete both on a rhetorical and public policy choice level. I think in sensible fashion, he has made it clear that we're not in a state government is not in the business of destroying the local economy. It's about sensibly helping it in that regard federal attitude on some counts, and yes, as expressed by the Vice President, the idea that fracking should go away, that's just that is Hillary Clinton.
Like here in Pennsylvania. If you remember, let's.
Look back a couple of years back, when Hillary Clinton was competing against Donald Trump, she made, I think, in the estimation of many, the rhetorical misstep and said in West Virginia, these cold jobs are going away. Well, you know what happened to West Virginia, and you can't. As I see it, it's not the job of an officeholder or a nominee to say I want to take away your job in paycheck. In effect, that's what it means.
So as I see it, some on this September Day, kind of a no blood outcome to last night's debate, and the Pennsylvanias will be looking very closely at how they comport themselves between now and November fifth, particularly on economy building efforts, and particularly on natural gas because Pennsylvania, after Texas, is the number two producer. We're talking about jobs and paychecks for regular Pennsylvanians.
So I think they're going to have.
To step very carefully relative to and I think listen to Josh Shapiro, I think he's got it right.
Fascinating conversation, and it sounds like Kamala Harris has more convincing to do to get Pennsylvanians to vote for her. I only have thirty seconds. Governor is Tim Walls the right man to deliver that message to your state.
As I see it, his outlook is really all about a growing role, and this is odd coming from a state's governor. Generally, it's an assertion that the federal government should be a central force in American life. I don't believe most Americans see it that way. And regardless of the issue or the policy proclamation that he shares, suggestion that the federal government should be bigger in our life, I think most of America has questioned that direction.
Rank Governor Mark Schweiker, the former governor of Pennsylvania, with us on this twenty third anniversary of nine to eleven on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Eppo CarPlay, and then Proudoro with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube DJT.
Look at that is basically sixteen dollars stock now after approaching seventy where'd that top out sixty six dollars a share? Lots changed since then, like the entire race. Thanks for joining us here on Balance of Power. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington, the fastest show in politics, not slowing down this day after the debate, even as we peak out of one eye. I don't know if you were with
us for our special coverage last evening. We went through this all together here with Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzano, and I'm deeply curious to hear what's on their mind. Having remember the moment he was right in the first half hour, maybe the first twenty minutes, when Kamala Harris reached into the bag to pull something out that she knew would upset Donald Trump. Of course, it came down to crowd size last night. Let's listen.
You will see during the course of his rallies he talks about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter. He will talk about wind mills cause cancer. And what you will also notice is that people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom.
She said, people start leaving. People don't go to her rallies. There's no reason to go. And the people that do go, she's busting them in and paying them to be there.
The whole mood of the debate, the direction of the conversation. The tone and tenor, and the body language all seemed to change at that point. And here we are now today looking at a series of headlines indicating Donald Trump took the bait? How does the panel see it? They're back with us, Jenny Shanze know and Rick Davis, as I mentioned, Genie of course, a senior Democracy Fellow with the Center for the Study of Presidency in Congress and
political science professor at Iona University. Rick Davis, partner at Stone Court Capital, Republican strategist. Great to see you both, Genie. I was the guy questioning whether this was a worthy effort here. Why not simply go out and lay at your policy proposals, tell the American people what you want to do with the country, instead of spending all this time prepping on how to needle Donald Trump, get it under his skin, trolling him before try to draw him
out on an open microphone. But was that in fact the right strategy.
It was the right strategy. I think this was a win for all of those of us who liked to prepare. Kamala Harris was well prepped, well prepared, and she delivered. Donald Trump, on the other hand, he looked something like an incumbent president who's too busy to repair, doesn't take this all that seriously, goes in there with one job to do, define Donald to define rather Kamala Harris as too liberal, too dangerously liberal, to be trusted with the keys to the White House. And he simply could not
stick to that message. He kept getting distracted, and so from that perspective, she certainly got the better of him, consistently goading him into responding to things that, quite frank they weren't going to help him, like crowd sizes.
Is it as simple as that, Rick, And did Donald Trump perform any worse last night than he did in the first debate?
You know, I think he did a little bit worse this time.
Obviously.
You know, he didn't quote take the bait in the first debate. He was driving the messaging against Joe Biden, and Joe Biden was taking the bait and trying to respond to his outlandish claims and in many cases nonfactual statements. So you know, never answer a lie with a fact. I mean, it just doesn't make sense in a debate.
But I think there was a bit of an elegance to the way that Kamala Harris did the debate, and that was not only did she trol Trump, bait him into getting off of substantive issues to talk about, you know, things that drive his ego, like crowd size, but then she tied that kind of behavior into how authoritarians like
Putin and she can take advantage of him. And I didn't really notice it that much in real time, but afterwards, I really thought through the whole approach to the debate was very comprehensive in that she proved to Trump, to voters, to viewers that Trump could take debait, that he would be able to be played like that. And then she said, and others who don't have America's interests in mind play
him the same way. And I thought, wow, that's a really interesting construct that they did, because it's a little subtle, but I thought it was very elegant.
Love to hear from you both on the moderators, because you know, we're all hearing, and we were hearing before we left the air last night. Three on one is the take of the Trump campaign. Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted, I mentioned this earlier. The moderators might as well be on the DNC payroll. This is ridiculous. This is the worst moderated debate in history. Genie, is he right?
No, you know, I don't think it's the worst in history. I think Candy Crowley probably still owns that mantle. Love Candy, I think she still owns that one. But you know, there was points at which you could nitpick and say that they were fact checking Trump more than they were fact checking Harris. Harris did make some misstatements. The one that stood out to me had to do with the bloodbath comment. She took it out of context, could have
been fact checked. But that said, her comments were not as egregious as Donald Trump's were, and so that is the result of that. So yeah, I think you can nitpick on the moderators, but the reality is Donald Trump did himself no favors in this debate. We have long said, and I will stand by this through the election. Whoever this election is about is going to lose. That was true when it was Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee. Same thing for Harris and Trump. And last night Donald
Trump made it all about Donald Trump. And that is a problem. This is an egotistical guy. He does not want to make this about Kamala Harris. But that's unfortunately what he needs to do. Define her, talk about how liberal she is, talk about issues he wins on, like the economy, like security, like immigration, like inflation. He tried, but he just couldn't get out of his own way. So you know, I don't think you can blame the moderators for that as much, again as you can nitpick
on little things. I think both the no moderators candled it as well as can be expected live broadcast. That's awfully difficult to do.
Rick they did fact check Donald Trump four times on abortion, the idea of a post birth abortion, claims about Haitian immigrants eating dogs and people's pets, violent crime going up when it was down in the twenty twenty election, whether it was stolen? Should they have fact checked Kamala Harris more? Should they have fact checked Donald Trump less? One thing I did notice is that the moderators let Donald Trump
bend the rules a lot more. He managed to roll over them more than Kamala Harris, who was held to time. What's your thought, Yeah.
I mean, overall, I thought that the moderators did a great job. Donald Trump's maybe the hardest presidential contestant in a debate ever to manage, and by and large, most of the moderators that have had to moderate Donald Trump presidential debates have failed miserably. And I would point, you know to my good friend Jake Tapper and the CNN debate just you know, a couple months ago that was a disaster, and they had a gloves off polow see, they let him say whatever he wanted to say, and
it went unchecked. I think the four things you mentioned, I think our friend Lindsey Graham would actually never say those things because he knows them to be untrused. And so I'm not sure what part of that that he would disagree with. On the second, on the other hand, and you make a good point, there were some things that the Matters could have fact checked Kamala Harris on. But then again, the Harris campaign has a right to be complaining about the fact that she was cut off repeatedly.
And Donald Trump, I don't think it was ever cut off. They let him go on and on. He added, question, you know, responses to everything that Kamala Harris said, even though it wasn't in the rules to do that. And so look, I mean, these things are an art, they're
not a science. The rules are set up to manage guardrails, not to dictate every activity in a debate, and for a network to do this, which is hard to do, and for the contestants to be willing to go in without an audience, with microphones turned off and all the rules that were I thought it was I thought it was a very well run debate. We should aspire to have these kinds of debates all the time, where if you lie, you get called out and you have plenty
of time to make your case. And that is the case. Even the fact that they extended the time of the debate outrageous, right, I mean, like, nobody ever does that. Oh, let's give you another ten minutes. Right at that hour, I was ready for bed. But I thought it was actually a really great decision. People could take a lot from that, And I thought.
This is this.
I thought it exceeded my expectations when it comes to creating a forum for both the candidates to be able to make their case.
There's a phrase we hear in the newsroom sometimes or in the studio, blow the brake, because sometimes you have to go into overtime. Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano. Thank you. They were with us for the Big dance last night. They'll be back with our two here on balance of Power, as we will welcome our global TV audience to the conversation the big question a lot of us have. They're going to be another one. Kind of felt like it last night that Donald Trump might want to come back
around and maybe take another swing at this here. The Harris campaign was welcoming it within minutes. Let's do that again, said Brian Fallon on Twitter, within moments of the debate ending. But this kind of took on a new wrinkle this morning Fox and Friends, Donald Trump qualifying this idea. Fox has now floated a couple of dates to potentially do a second round in October. But it's very difficult to tell where we stand on that, and that's why we
want to bring in Tyler Kendall. God blessed. Tyler is still in Philadelphia, having been there for the duration yesterday reporting for Bloomberg and producing our great coverage last night. Tyler, it is great to see you. What are you hearing on the ground this morning in Philadelphia?
Yeah, Hey, Joe, so new this morning former President Trump casting out on whether or not there will be a second debate, saying that he's not inclined to do one after, as you mentioned, the Harris campaign challenged him to one
after last night's quickly concluded. We started to hear this messaging from Republicans pretty quickly after the debate last night in the Spin room, including from former President Trump himself, who made a surprise visit to US reporters in the Spin room, holding this impromptu press conference where he repeatedly said that if Harris has to do a second debate, that must mean that she has more explaining to do on her policies, but that he doesn't necessarily feel like
he needs to do that. I heard pretty similar messaging from most Republicans sort gets in the room last night. That includes Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida, of course, a former presidential candidate himself, someone we know was on the vice presidential shortlist for Trump's campaign. I asked him if Trump should engage and have a second debate. Take a listen to what he told me.
Maybe.
I mean, I think you would do fine in a second debate. I think it's interesting she wants one. Usually, look, if you're winning. I've done debates. If you're winning a camp pain, you don't want any more debates like you're winning, Why do you want to expose yourself to something going wrong on the stage.
Now.
Democrats, for their part, were incredibly eager to try to hold this second debate, all the surgets coming out. But what really struck me was just the sheer number of Democratic turguits that came out and how quickly they started to fill the spin room floor. It shouldn't start. Contrast to I was at the Atlanta debate and we literally had to wait and hardly saw any Democratic circuits come out after President Joe Biden's performance on the debate stage then.
But Joe, I will quickly mention that one person who bloomed pretty large but was not in the spin room was Taylor Swift and her endorsement of Vice President Kamala Hair shortly after the debate ended. That was pretty much a huge talker in the spin room last night as Democrats cheered the endorsement. But for his part, Former President Donald Trump was asked about it this morning and he said that he's not a fan.
Not a fan. I thought he was working on that endorsement Tyler.
Thank god.
Tyler came on to mention, I haven't even mentioned Taylor Swift this hour. I am remiss. Thank you, Tyler. It travels safe to get home Tyler Kendall in Philadelphia this day after the debate.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Kens just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Enron Oro with a 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 was in the first what ten minutes we got to inflation, the issues of the economy. We did hear from both candidates. Let's go to Philadelphia, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
My plan is to give a fifty thousand dollars tax deduction to start up small businesses, knowing they are part of the backbone of America's economy. My opponent, on the other hand, his plan is to do what he has done before, which is to provide a tax cut for billionaire and big corporations.
We've had a terrible economy because inflations, which is really known as a country buster it breaks up countries. We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before, probably the worst in our nation's history. This has been a disaster for people, for the middle class.
I don't know if it's a country buster or who calls it that, but it's a problem for Kamala Harris. And as I mentioned, if this had taken place yesterday, CPI that is that conversation might have gone a bit differently here. This is something that has tested obviously very poorly for Kamala Harris. Look at our own Bloomberg News Swing State Pole with Morning Console. This is the issue
Donald Trump beyond any other except maybe the border. People trust Donald Trump more when it comes to how to handle the economy, when it comes how to handle infrastrates, when it comes to lowering prices. At least that was the narrative going into last night. Did that change it all? I've got a lot of questions for Frank Lunz. What a great day to spend time with, mister Luntz politics communications consultant Polster, CEO of fil Frank, thanks for being
up with us. It was a late night for everybody. And like I said, I want to go around the horn with you here for a minute. It's great to have you on the matter of the economy as we look at the CPI data this morning. I saw you talking about markets earlier today. Did Kamala Harris convince anyone that she was the one to be best trusted with this issue.
It's a great question. I don't really think so. But she still performed much better than Donald Trump. Let's be completely accurate. She did not provide significant detail. She did not explain step by step what she's going to do starting on inauguration day. She's still very, very light with the details, but she answered the questions and we do
get an idea of where her priorities are. In Trump's case, when they asked him about his strongest issue, for some reason, he pivoted to immigration, and when they came back to it, he was talking about some other issue. There's a rule of politics which is if you're defining the election, you're winning the election. And he absolutely did not do that last night. In fact, he gave away the definitions where
he was strongest. So I don't think it was pretty I don't think last night was a good night for America, and I know it was not a good night for Donald Trump.
The headlines this morning are something, if only in their continuity. Frank Trump takes. The bait is everywhere. It doesn't matter, it seems where you're looking here. The New York Post headline is cambush. Are they deserved?
Yes?
And then deserved because you should have known better. She's never had a podium like this. She's never had this opportunity. He did it in twenty sixteen, he did it in twenty twenty. He's had the experience. Let me differentiate here because I want to be careful. His campaign in twenty twenty four is better than the previous two. The candidate is what's worse. The campaign is running comparative ads. The campaign is focused on what Trump should be focused on
to win the selection. But the candidates, I don't know what it's like. He didn't attend debate prep, or he didn't listen, or he didn't learn. I believe that most high school student body presidents would have out debated Donald Trump last night, and I don't say that easily. And in the end, food and fuel, housing, in healthcare, the sense of insecurity, the policies that matter most to Americans.
Donald Trump is the advantage as she started to say in the introduction, but you want to have known that last night, because that's not how he communicated. And in fact, I think it was so bad that it is quite possible that Harris will never agree to stand up next to him again. And then this came Pain is over.
I'm gonna get your thoughts on the moderators in a moment here, Frank, because I keep hearing three verses one. But when I woke up this morning, the same thing was trending on Twitter. Then when I went to Better around two o'clock in the morning, they're eating the dogs. People talk about, you know, the takeaways, the historic moments from the big campaigns. You're no John Kennedy, you know, whatever it might be. That's apparently the moment we're gonna
remember from the campaign They're eating the dogs. Was that the moment that he lost.
That's the moment when people looked each other and said, what the hell. When we actually had to get a check, we had to look at the transcript because it was so insane. And of course Trump is not going to back down. Of course, he's not going to admit that he made a mistake, and he's not going to acknowledge that he got this wrong because he doesn't do it. He was given the opportunities several times last night to acknowledge what every other American acknowledges, humility, decency, that you're
not perfect. Well, here's the good news for Trump. He'll continue to complain that he's perfect and other people have got it wrong, and he'll be doing it from mar A Lago, not from the White House. I can't begin to tell you how poor a performance he exhibited for the American people. Now, his conclusion was very strong, but the opening and for the first hour and almost hour and a half that people just scratching their heads wondering
what is up here? Is he actually trying to lose that no human being could could with his experience, could actually be as ineffective, could could say things calling Victor Orbron one of the great leaders in the world. Is I'm literally speechless, and I've never been speechless. I'm bloomberg and never been speechless in politics. It is so absolutely unfathomable. But that's exactly what he did.
You made a great point about the closing statements, Frank, this thing went into overtime, by the way, if he didn't watch it in real time. They got their second commercial break, and all of a sudden, we're going five minutes late time for closing statements. And Donald Trump said something that I expected he was going to say, at the very beginning of the debate. If you have all these good ideas for helping average Americans, why haven't you implemented them in the last three and a half years
that you've been in the White House. Frank, why didn't he do that first?
And because he was just so poorly prepped or he's just really bad at this. We forget that he's old. That we made fun of Joe Biden for being eighty one and Trump is almost eighty, and that he's not the same person that he was eight years ago or four years ago. Probably he forgot. Probably his irritability wasn't just Harris getting under his skin, but it's simply we know older people. Probably I've done it. Then we get agitated and irritated if things don't go our way, we
become more impatient. But you're not supposed to do that when you're running for president. You're not supposed to You're supposed to be have self control. And we didn't see any of that last night, and I think I wonder how many people are telling Trump the truth because I've seen the tweets he's been sending out. He says it's his best debate ever. If he really believes that, then he actually is in real trouble emotionally, intellectually, and physically.
Well. He does say that this was three on one, and he's not the only one saying that this morning, Frank, your thoughts on the moderators, Lindsey Graham tweeted after the debate, the moderators might as well be on the DNC payroll. This is ridiculous. This is the worst moderated debate in
him history. The fact is they fact checked Donald Trump four times during that debate, First on abortion when he said that it was legal in some states to kill a baby after it was born, the claims about Haitian immigrants. We mentioned eating people's pets, violent crime, it's up, as you know, the FBI said it was down. And then the stop the Steal thing twenty twenty, whether he actually won the election, was that a justified effort to fact
check him? In real time? He's complimenting CNN this morning, Frank, should they have stopped down and fact checked Kamala Harris more than what we saw last night.
Look perceptions reality, and if the perception is that the moderators are biased, then there's something that's not right about what's happening. ABC had every right to hold people accountable. The public has every right to hear the truth, and the politicians have every response ability to tell the truth. There's no attribute or value more important than the truth in these debates, conversations, and in the debate itself. And they found what Trump was saying to be wanting to
be questionable. Should they have done the same thing to Harris? Absolutely? And it did come across as being one sided, and maybe that's because of the things that Trump said. I'm actually surprised that no one has asked me even up to now, why is it that both Mike's returned on why is it you could actually hear the crosstalk between the two candidates that was part of the rules, and no one's.
Talking about it. They did reserve the right to do that, and I'm glad they let it happen at least for a moment. Frank, I wish I had more time with you. I appreciate your insights as always Frank Lunz this day after the debate fil and of course the familiar voice to our viewers and listeners here on Bloomberg. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch just Lie weekdays at noon Eastern on Apocarplay and then Prounoto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, watch us live on YouTube.
So much on this eleventh of September. We thank you for joining us on the Wednesday edition of Balance of Power here on Bloomberg Radio, on the satellite, and on YouTube, where you can always find us search Bloomberg Business News Live as we bring the program to you live from Washington just hours it feels like, well about twelve hours after we left here after the Grand Debate last night, that we're going to be talking a lot more about with some words, not a lot of specifics, in terms
of policy delivered on Ukraine, on Israel, other matters of foreign policy, including the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. But it is Ukraine we want to begin with with our colleague from the Pentagon, Tony Capasio, who's with us today. Following, of course, he had another important and emotional ceremony at
the Pentagon this morning. Ukraine asking the US and the UK for that matter, and this has been going on months to allow to be able to use Western made weapons offensively against Russia, beyond the cross border incursion that's already been had. Now add Ben Carden's voice to the story,
of course, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair. He says the US must act swiftly to ease these restrictions on Ukraine's use of US provided weapons against Russia, calling for greater flexibility in his statement to target Russian military assets to degrade Moscow's ability to harm the Ukrainian people. It's got a lot in common right now with some Republicans House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers, House Foreign Affairs Committee
Chair Michael McCall making the same call. And you wonder if we are getting close to something, as we've seen this movie before. First it's a no, then it's a maybe, then it ends up being a yes, it seems eventually, whether we're talking about Abrams tanks or F sixteen's Tony. It's great to see you. Thank you for being available. On what I know is a busy day for you. Are we about to see evolution in these restricts.
Yeah, that's my impression that the attacking is issue is going to fall next. The issue these the longer range missiles that they actually gave these two Ukraine in March. They stealthily gave them to them as part of any arms package that they didn't disclose until weeks eleven.
Been asked for months to provide them, right, these are the longer range versions.
Back in October they started using the shorter range versions with a lot of effectiveness in Crimea, and the longer range versions they've now been using in Crimea and other parts of Ukraine and then the narrow pocket in the
north into Russia that the White House allowed. The debate now is whether to allow them to go longer into Ukraine, and I think that's going to that's going to change interesting other on the sub on below the surface, they have F sixteen's, but also the White House is reviewing whether to give them the jazz and long arranged cruise missile, stealthy cruise missile that has qualified on US aircraft that can go like three or four five hundred miles within
and it's a very precise coordinate, has GPS coordinates that could destroy Russian bombers that drop these glide bombs at their basis. If in fact the administration allows that, that will be a bigger kahuna, so to speak, than the attack them's almost.
How about that. We have no indication on where the administration is in this evolution, do we, or whether Kamala Harris sees this differently than Joe Biden.
No, she's not going to go differently on this subject. I mean, she is the vice president. She doesn't make the policy on this stuff.
She advises, but were she elected, you wonder if she might see it differently.
I'm thinking that it would continue. There's to be continuity there. I don't see any great change. But the Jazzam decision will be a big one, almost bigger than the attack ems issue. But they have attack thems now know how to use them. Jasms of pilots out of sixteens would have to learn how to use them. So there's a learning curve figure picture.
With the weapon systems that we've mentioned that we were told were maybe not appropriate or useful or most efficient for Ukraine. I mentioned the abrams tanks, the F sixteen's. Have people been proven wrong or are these toys that are kind of hanging around that aren't being used.
Well, no, no, they're being modified. In fact, Kamala Harrison her weapons last night that she talked about in terms of beefing up Ukraine and US, she actually mentioned the Abrams in one of her sentences. Well, no, My understanding is the Ukrainians. Ukrainians have used have come up with ways to protect the Abrams from Kamakazi drones in terms of top cover on the tanks and on the bradley. So there's been no great stories saying that the bradleys
haven't been effective where Abrams haven't been affected. The issue is maneuver and visibility. Drones take a lot of that away in terms of you know where the tanks the ground systems are.
Interesting to what extent is this argument over government funding going to become a challenge for the Pentagon. I know I'm sneaking up on you on this, but I keep hearing Chair of Armed Services the Pentagon itself a six month stopgap will impact readiness. What do they say? What do they mean when they say that?
What it means is that certain funding will not be allocated. I'm not sure how operations and maintenance would be effected or pay what would be effected A new contracts, for sure, and the columns.
I wonder how much of that is blustering you. We're talking about this in a budget debate.
Yeah, this is this has been the least. This happens every year, every year, annually. The Pentagon's learn to adjust GEO did a good The General Government Accountability Office did a pretty good report a couple of years ago, three four years ago, talking about how the Pentagons learned to work around these restrictions. So it's not as cataclysmic as it once was, but the language of cataclysm continues. It's just I'm skeptical of how impactful it is.
I mean, a year.
Would be bad, Yes, sure a year would be bad, but the troops would they would get paid. It's new contracts would not be issued, and there would be impacts on current contracts. But it's not new contracts.
Yeah. I just know nobody follows the money quite like you do at the Pentagon. I bet you. I thought the same thing that you did when I walked out the front door this morning, go out to walk the dog. You're going to work or whatever it was, walk out the front door. The weather was exactly today like it was twenty three years ago. You're right, it was crystal blue sky, the crisp fall air. It's been twenty three
years since nine to eleven. You were going to work that day, coming up the escalator when everybody was coming down there. You can take the metro. People should know to the Pentagon, right. What do you remember from that?
I remember pretty well.
Did you get in the building.
We didn't get into the building. I was going up the escalators, which no longer exist, by the way, ye did.
The walls all.
Blocked off and the people were coming down the other two. It was urgent, but it wasn't panic. And I heard some people say they'll get out of the buildings about the blow. Nobody knew what happened.
Had been struck, but it had been start.
But just so you know, we were on the opposite end where the plane hit. It was the day of the Locusts, so to speak. Your phones were crickets. You heard crickets. I had a motoroll of Star Tech. Nobody had smartphones, by the way. We had beepers, yes, we did. For hours and hours. Nobody really knew in that area it was a war zone. In other parts of the building where I was, people were milling, kind of mindlessly
milling and confused. We did watch the wedge fall. I was with Tom Bowman, then with the Baltimore Son We were interviewing a guy was in tattered clothing. So it wasn't panic. There wasn't a lot of knowledge. It wasn't untill later in the day that we knew that a plane had hit. But why that wedge just collapsed? It looked like a prize fighter. I told another reporter, well, its teeth knocked out, but the boxer was still standing.
Incredible. You've then spent many hours, of course, going through news conferences. I'll never forget walking home. I was in the press building at that time and walking home down the center lane of Connecticut Avenue without a car in site. Is this something that we'll never quite forget, that feeling in Washington by the end of the day, But before those quiet moments came and it was the confusion, the madness. How long was it because we don't have photographs of
that impact outside for some stray security camera. Oh how long until you realize what had happened at the Pedaga.
It was later that day I was someone pointed to me an FBI agent who knew what was going on. So I ran up to this FBI agent and he turned out to be he worked for US at WUSA nine. He put his and he drove away. He says, I'll talk to you later. So he came back to me later and he gave me a great quote. He actually saw the plane hit. He said, I could see those double as hitting on the plane as it hit the Pentagon. We used a quote in one of our stories, but yeah,
it was it was. The knowledge was there was no knowledge of what happened. Basically, you thought it was a bomb. You thought it was a bomb. I was there till like two in the morning covering a lot of this, and then I covered the Rumsfeldt Henry Shelton press conference. Rumsfelt was very Secretary.
Of Defense that night, Yes he was.
He said the Pentagon will be open for business the next day.
And it was really something. You still were There were a lot of people who were in the building less less and less well. I believe that. And what does it mean though? And it's twenty three years later on a morning like this President of the United States comes by for the memorial.
Well, it gives you a sense of the vulnerability of institutions about that and the need for eternal vigilance. I don't want to sound too much like a falk here, but the need for vigilance and the resilience of a human spirit to not only take that tragedy and conculcate it, but keep moving on and keep working.
And the building.
The building was functional the next day. It's full of smoke in the National Guard armed National Guard, but we found out they didn't have bullets in their eclips, but their built flames are still billowing in parts of the building and clouds of smoke and accurately ugly smoke. So the human spirit survived that day, and you know it was It was a day of resilience that Americans can be proud of.
This is why I wanted you to come on today, because this is the stuff that informs your worldview. I'll never forget up but Arlington, you could go up there and look down at the blue drape for a long time before that was repaired. I was on the other side of the river from you, and I came out of Metro Center. I was underground when the Pentagon was hit and I came out to the sound of fighter jets, saw the smoke, and you said it perfectly. People thought
it was a bomb. They thought I remember there was a report that the State Department had been bombed that day. It was the confusion in that moment that's hard to forget.
And it's it's it was an undocumented crime because nobody had cell phones. I had to buy I ended up buying three rolls of quarters from the Ritz Carlton guest shop.
I skiv you down. That's a real reporter.
I skiv you down from a highway spider walked down. I borrowed twenty bucks from a flack I knew who he was standing buy Macy's and I bought three rolls of quarters, and we use that throughout the day to make phone calls to my office.
And I give you were a reporter's best friend.
I was.
Everybody who was here that day has a story like that. Everyone who was in New York has a story or Shanksville. Of course, glad that you could come on to talk to us. You know, we spent a lot of time this week on the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Wouldn't be talking about it if it weren't for what happened twenty three years ago today.
Twenty three years ago set the stage for a rock that disaster and then Afghanistan.
I hope you have a good day. Thank you for sharing part of you with us. Tony Capasio doing great work as always on behalf of Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.