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.
Welcome to the Monday edition of Bloomberg sound On. Not just any Monday. This is it the start of the last big push, last week of the year for Congress unless they start adding days to the schedule. The last train leaves the station at the end of this week. And we've been talking about some pretty big stuff that needs to get done around here, never mind funding the government with a shutdown possibly looming in January. I'm talking about Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the big one of course,
the lynchpin the border. So read the headline and Jonathan Tamari's column today at Bloomberg Government. Congress's final week is equal parts acrimony and compromise, and that is where we begin with Jonathan. It's good to see you reporting for Bloomberg Government and of course all things Capital Hill. Jonathan, I'm gonna get to all the deal making in a moment. We've got pretty important news though, and Voladim Rzelenski returning
to the Capitol in person. He'll be here tomorrow, not only to meet with all of the Senators, which is a big enough deal, but he's gonna sit down one on one with Speaker Mike Johnson. Does it change anything in the end, this last minute pitch.
I mean, certainly that's what he's hoping for, but it's more a factor of whether or not whether he's changing things, but how much has changed around him in Congress. The last time he addressed Congress, you know, there was almost universal support from both chambers, both parties, for aiding Ukraine.
Helping them do.
Congress trying to do almost anything they could do to support Ukraine in their fight against Russia. And now it's much much more divided. You know, House Republicans in particular are very skeptical of Ukraine aid. Senate Republicans support Ukraine aid, but they want it to be attached to tougher border policies. And so I think, more so than anything he might say, the issue is whether Democrats and the White House and Senate Republicans can get to a point where they agree
on those border policies. And it's enough for the Republicans and it's something that Democrats can swallow. That's been the big hold up, and that's what we're all watching this week.
He'll be speaking with all of the Senators, at least those who attend the All Senators meeting tomorrow morning at the invitation of Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell. This meeting with the Speaker, though, is interesting to me. He can talk to Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer all day long.
That won't really change the game here. Is this about President Zelenski speaking to Mike Johnson or is it going to be Mike Johnson also sending a message to President Zelenski that this is not going to come as easily anymore.
Yeah, I mean, I think that point has been made very clear. I think this is my interpretation is that this is Lenski trying to make one final push to the most important Republican in the House to say, listen, if we can get this aid through the Senate, trying to get those votes that he's going to need from the House to make it final, if they can get that done this week. Zelensky has always been the best
advocate for his country. He's very skilled in public presentations, and so I think he's trying to close the deal. That is a very difficult deal for him right now.
Well, you also can't really talk about Ukraine without mentioning Israel. The supplemental request from the White House included funding for both, along with Taiwan and the border. This has since broken down into slightly more complex and a lot more complex situation as we approach these one by one. Jonathan Tamari, Where Israeli funding here? We're talking a lot about the border, unlocking money for Ukraine, But if you ask Mike Johnson, those are separate bills that would come to the floor
at different times. Right.
Yes, that is his plan, and in fact, the House has passed aid to Israel on its own already a couple weeks ago. Now, the thing is that was attached to big cuts to the irs, which Democrats say is a non starter. And Democrats want to pair all these things together. They say they're all in our national security interest and that the Senate is not going to move any of these individually.
The House would disagree with that.
I think the fact Democrats certainly want to keep Israel need in the package is something of a sweetener for those Republicans even if they're not maybe fully satisfied with the border provisions.
If any get agreed.
To that Israel can be something that still draws some Republican votes along.
Well, there you have it. Then it's Monday. Will any of this get done by the end of the week, Jonathan.
I think that's that is the million dollar question that we're all watching for. You know, I think it's a big challenge for the people who support Ukraine, you know, trying to tie this up with border funding. It's a big lift. Immigration has been, you know, one of the toughest issues in Congress for decades, and they're trying to
close a deal here in a matter of days. The only thing I would say is that I think with bipartisan support for Ukraine, bipartisan support for Israel, there is potentially room for everybody to get something that they want and to get this over the line.
But I think it's going to be a tough lift.
I would say the odds are against it, but I would not say it's impossible at this point.
Holding out hope with Jonathan Samari. Thank you, Jonathan. I know you've got a busy week ahead reporting for Bloomberg Government with us here to get things started on Bloomberg Sound On. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington. As we turned to the situation in Israel now the IDF pushing further into southern Gaza, two hundred and fifty air strikes or certainly two hundred and fifty targets from the air pushing now thousands of Palestinians toward the border with Egypt, and
questions now about where this is going to go. As we hear from the EU's top diplomat, Joseph Burrell, who says the situation in Gaza is catastrophic, apocalyptic, with destruction proportionally even greater, he says, than that which Germany experienced in World War Two. Reporting by AFP, As we add the voice now of Hadar Suskan, the president and CEO
of Americans for Peace. Now he spent time in the IDF as Sergeant first class, and we've been looking forward to the conversation for some time, Hadar, since you were with us a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for coming back. I wonder your reaction to what we're hearing now from the EU's top diplomat versus Israel's goal to eliminate Hamas.
Thanks Joe, I'm happy to be back here with you today. Look, there's no question that the situation in Gaza is catastrophic. We've all seen the pictures, We've all seen the videos. The question is, you know what can be done, and you say it Israel's goal of eliminating Hamas in Israel, there's an incredibly vibrant argument and we're seeing it here in Washington too, about whether that's even a real achievable goal. And you know, certainly everyone agrees Israel has the right to defend itself.
Israel needed to.
Respond to the atrocities that Hamas committed on October seventh, But that doesn't answer the question of what are the actual goals of this campaign?
What are they trying to achieve?
And you know, can it be done in any way that brings this conflict to a close sometime soon?
Well, I'll tell you. The fierce fighting comes with news
from the IDF that Hamas is beginning to buckle. As I read in the Washington Post under the onslaught do we need then, as we talk about funding with strings attached to the International Humanitarian law and so forth, should the funding simply be attached to an endgame, an exit strategy here and basically how we define eliminating Hamas because there are many who argue that these strikes, the attacks by Israel against Gaza, is creating a whole new generation of Hamas fighters.
Yeah.
Again, you know, Hamas is an institution, and it's also an idea. And I you know, stand firmly with the people of Israel that Hamas cannot be left in power in Gaza in a capacity to perpetrate future events like what they did on October seventh.
Everybody agrees on that.
But to say you're going to eliminate Hamas, I don't think anyone thinks is feasible. And so the Israeli government needs to determine what that goal is. They need to be clear and specific about real achievable military goals. And you know, on the question of aid, whether you're talking about the supplemental or aid to Israel overall, you know, I support aid to Israel, but I think, like all of our aid to every country, it should support US
policy priorities and American value. And I think that's the debate right now around conditioning aid is making sure that the military aid that we give to Israel, and it is all military aid that it does support those US policies and values.
I was struck by our conversation last time by the way in which you saw both sides of this story. Certainly as a former member of the IDF, it gives you some sympathy, some empathy for those troops or are going into very dangerous areas in Gaza, and that's been the impetus in many cases to strike from a distance, to strike from the air, which you tell Israel to send more boots on the ground to be more precise.
Look, I am not the head of the IDF or a military strategist like you said, I do have some of that experience. You know, it's a really difficult balance. It is the job of the Israeli military to try to keep its soldiers and it's civilians safe. And obviously, you know bombing long distance is safer than sending troops
into the ground in on the ground. But it's also evident that you can't achieve all of the goals, including what I think should be the top goal of this Israeli campaign, which is the returning, the return of the remaining hostages. Cannot be achieved through bombing, cannot be achieved through long distance attacks. You need to have troops on the ground if your effort is going to be to
militarily rescue them as they have tried. What's been successful, of course, was when there was a ceasefire and an agreement to release the hostages.
That brings us to the potential for another truce. And I wonder where your your thoughts are, because time is not going to help heal wounds here. There are more aggravated feelings and emotions on both sides of the of the line here. Do you think that was all we're going to get? Or could you see another week or two come out of this knowing that Hamas has its own reasons to seek a truce, so it can regroup.
Like it can't be all we're going to get. Right, At some point, this war, this specific campaign is going to come to an end, and when it does, there'll still be Israelis there and there'll still be Palestinians there, and they're going to have to figure out how to live, if not together, then in proximity in a better way. And so there's the current hot button issues. There's again, as you said, the you know, incredible humanitarian crisis that's
taking place in Gaza right now. You know, the death numbers keep climbing, not only from bombing, but now we're talking about deaths from disease, deaths from hunger, from lack of sanitation. So there's a huge crisis there that needs to be addressed imminently. And of course there are still the hostages there, and there's still rockets flying from Comas as well.
It's not only Israel who's bombing.
So you know, whether we're going to see that this week or next week or the next or the one after that, I don't know.
I hope it is as soon as possible. I would like to see.
You know, if what we can get is a temporary halt to release those hostages to allow more aid in, I think that would be a positive step, but it's only that step.
Ultimately, there needs to be a ceasefire.
There needs to be an end to this round of the conflict, and I hope that when we achieve that, when we get to that moment, it means the hostages that have been released, and it means that people in Gozla can start rebuilding their lives as well.
Dar. I'm glad you can come back to talk to us. Saddar Suskan President's CEO Americans for Peace now former sergeant first class in the Israeli Defense Forces. Good to have
your insights today. As we assemble our panel, Rick Davis and Jeanie Shanzino are with us Bloomberg Politics contributors, and we'll have time for everyone to be able to weigh in on this when it comes to Israel, Genie, after what you just heard from Kadar, it's pretty difficult to come to consensus in a conversation like this, with such
a complex set of situations here on both sides. What's the view of Joe Biden when we hear about two hundred and fifty more strikes overnight, as any of the message from the White House being heard in Tel Aviv.
It doesn't feel like it's being heard, and it's got to be deeply concerning. You know, look at the step we took just the other day on the UN resolution.
The Biden administration is going to have to really think about this passive strategy that they've adopted, you know, to the point of your previous conversation, the reality is is our funding has to be conditioned on what is in the best entrance of US policy, what is within the international law, and of course the fact that Real seems not to be listening is problematic.
All right, We'll have more time on this, as I mentioned with Genie and Rick, also the matter of Ukraine. With President Zelenski visiting Washington again this week. We'll see what happens to the debate on both and we'll air it out here next. I'm Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg.
You're listening the Bloomberg Sound on podcast. Catch the program live weekdays at one Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, the tune in alf, Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
President Zelenski will be meeting tomorrow with Senators, with the new Speaker of the House and with President Biden. But he is already here today. The delegation from Ukraine is in the Capitol. In fact, he appeared alongside Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense. President Zelenski speaking earlier to the National Defense University The real high stakes day, though, is tomorrow, as he finally gets in front of some of the very lawmakers who have been doubtful over the effort to
continue funding Ukraine. Let's reassemble our panel. We have a lot to talk about today with Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano Bloomberg Politics contributors. We'll get back to the matter of Israel in a moment, Rick. This latest visit by President Zelenski comes thanks to an invite from not only the White House, but the leadership in the Senate. What happens when he gets in a room with the Speaker
of the House. That's the real business at hand here, when he looks eye to eye with Mike Johnson, what should be the message.
Well, I think, first.
Of all, the atmospheric says, he's coming off of a very bad week. The collapse of his visit last week, or at least the visit virtually to the private briefing. The briefing itself collapsed through the fact that there was no new information being imparted. You can try the senator's time all you want, but if you ask him to go to a meeting where they don't learn anything, they're going to be pretty grumpy, and that's what you had at the end of last week, a real negative turn.
So he's got to overcome that. He's got to build a relationship with the new speaker. He really doesn't have one, certainly not since Johnson's been elected Speaker, and he has to do it all in the context of trying to get something done in literally one week in order to try and preserve the funding that he needs to go
into to extend the war into new year. So it's a monumental task and frankly one that I think all the cards are stacked against his success, which may actually be the blessing in disguise, because at this stage, you know, just being able to build that relationship with Johnson might be enough to preserve an option for next year funding.
Well, of course we're not talking about Ukraine funding or apparently Israel funding without a deal on the border. And I want to get both of your takes on this, because we heard from both the lead negotiators the Democratic Republican Party, they both did the Sunday shows. Although we heard from James Langford the Republican of course, the senator here who's leading negotiations just outside the Capitol on the steps. He's coming into work today and he was on sea
and I want to listen. I want you to listen to how close actually what Langford and Chris Murphy, the Democrat are saying. Here. Here's James Langford with see.
You got a narrow majority in the House, we're in a minority in the Senate, and we don't have the White House on it. I mean, we don't have the pole position may have resolve this. We're not going to resolve every area dealing with border security, but based on right now what's happening along the border, we shouldn't just ignore it.
Okay, We're not going to be able to resolve every area with regard to the border. That's the Republican lead of negotiations. Here's the Democrat on Meet the Press, Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Ukraine is running out of ammunition and if we don't solve this in the next few weeks, Vladimir Putin is going to have an opening and opening to march through the Ukrainian lines to make a move on Kiev, threatening all of Europe. So this has to be resolved right now, which is why Republicans have to be reasonable we are not going to solve the entire problem of immigration between now and the end of the year, but we can make a down payment.
We're not going to solve the entire problem of immigration, Genie. It was almost word for word. Does that make you feel like we're getting more realistic about a compromise here or might get something done?
Yeah, I mean, I think they both indicated over the weekend that progress was being made definitely better than they were the weekend before. One big concern in my mind was hearing Chris Murphy over the weekend saying the White House is going to get more engaged. It would seem to be given the timing that their height of engagement
would have been like three years ago. So the idea that we're waiting for the last minute for them to come in in a heightened engagement is a bit troubling to me because time is certainly not on our side. But you know, on the opposite side, we did hear the President last week say that the White House was engaged, So getting some mixed signals on that is a little bit troubling. But you know, the reality is is this was always the downside of tying all these together was
if one thing goes down, everything crumbles. So you know, we've got to hope they can keep all these balls in the air and keep this moving forward. And I think that the White House really has to jump on this. What I see as a gift by Republicans. The immigration issue is a loser for Democrats. They should be jumping on this, get it feel and claim success as soon
as possible. I know that's easier said than done, but I think Biden's got to be out there pushing for a deal of any kind, even incremental on immigration.
Rick, you just heard Langford and Murphy speaking about this. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, had an interview from Guatemala, who's down there over the weekend looking into this issue, and he spoke with punch bowl quote, we cannot ignore the reality of the numbers and where they're coming from. We did not design the border policies for the volume of this nature. Unquote. You're hearing democrats, It sure sounds to me, Rick, indicate that they are
ready to make a deal. Are we closer than we were a week ago?
Yeah, I think we're closer. I mean, you know, everybody was talking about a week before last the death of these negotiations. Oh my god, they laughed and yeah, you know, they didn't finish anything, and they're still talking, and as you portrayed, it sounds like they're saying exactly the same thing I would say a little person.
Deny's take.
I think Biden should get involved, but he needs to talk to his Democrats. They're the ones who are saying no to a deal that Langford's got on the table. And so if Biden's smart, he's making sure that the Democrats in the Senate aren't being too tough in their negotiation. He needs a deal, no matter what that deal is, and he needs it worse than they do, and so I think that that could be a positive to actually
get a deal done. He's not going to have any influence with Republicans, but he could have an impact with Democrats who might be standing in the way of a border deal.
Interesting numbers here on funding for Ukraine, And to your point, Genie, this could be a gift for Joe Biden. It could be a gift in more ways than one. You take the border off the table in a campaign here and you overcome apparently pretty real opposition here at least real skepticism overfunding for Ukraine half of registered voters. This is a University of Michigan Ross School, a business poll. They
did it with the Financial Times. Forty eight percent say the US is spending too much on aid for Ukraine. Sixty that's overall, sixty five percent of Republicans say too much, compared with fifty two percent of Independence and thirty two percent of Democrats. This is clearly an independent and Republican concern. Genie, So is this two gifts the Republican Congress could give Joe Biden?
It is. But those numbers are so important because they underscore what Franklin Roosevelt told all leaders. You have to educate the public. When you are sending millions and billions of dollars somewhere else of people's hard earned money and they are suffering at home, you have an obligation to educate them on why it's in our interest to do that. And that is what needs to happen. It would be a disaster for the US from almost every perspective to walk away from Ukraine right now, and that is got
to be said over and over. You can't say it enough. Otherwise the numbers that you just read will continue, and if Congress did support the funding, there would be questions and it would not look good for President Biden come twenty twenty four when people go to the polls. So educate, educate, educates, got to happen.
Here, Rick, we've got a minute to the news. I just want to give you a chance to weigh in on the conversation that we were having earlier on the situation in Israel. So what extent is the Biden administration do you think or should be helping to call shots, helping to actually influence military strategy right now in Israel as it conducts its raids in Gaza.
Well, I think that they are actively trying to weigh in on the death of civilians. Right There's nothing in it for the United States to use our money and weaponry to kill a lot of civilians in harm's way. There's no question there are collateral damage to this offensive by Israel, and we've been I think a positive force in trying to find ways for the Israelis to avoid those clashes.
That being said, Israel has.
Their battle plan. It's their battle plan, and they're going to execute it as they seem fit. And even though we are a reliable and important ally to them. I think they'll listen, but we can't dictate terms to them.
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.
And welcome to our two of Bloomberg Sound On. We're back to Washington now, Kaylee linees at my side as we drive forward here on the fastest show in politics. I just don't know where we're driving. Yeah, we've been like winding up to this week for weeks. We added a border deal, we added a laddered cr We've got all kinds of stuff flying around here. No one has a path on anything apparently, but maybe that's just when news breaks. Kayley, I'm holding out hope.
Well, I guess you can't rule it out right. Something could always happen in the next couple days before they head home for the holidays, assuming that they do as scheduled, head home at the end of this week, even if they haven't gotten much on the to do list done before doing so.
That's right, We're going to talk to Mick mulvaney in just a moment. I'm gonna guess that. You know, he's probably listening to us right now and he thinks we're sounding pretty downbeat. I know Mick will lift our spirits, will he? If Jack Fitzpatrick does not? From Bloomberg Government, Jack, good to see you. This is your time. This is like Christmas morning for someone who covers appropriations. But will there be appropriations to cover? And are we really going
home this week? Or the law makers get a letter in a couple of days saying and you're gonna work through weekend.
I don't know when the holidays start, especially for the Senate. You've had this letter that came out last week from the White House saying your deadline to get a deal for Ukraine funding, which is locked up with these border talks, is the end of the calendar year. They're scheduled to leave December fifteenth. I'd be a little surprised if they
left early. If they left on December fifteenth without a deal for Ukraine, having been told by the White House we absolutely need something this year, and it does not even if today is a good day, tomorrow is a good day in negotiations. It doesn't sound like they could actually pass something through both chambers even if there was a handshake deal.
Now, well, that's what I was going to say, Jack. It's one thing. If the Senate agrees and can get it done, it then has to go to the House and be voted on by enough House Republicans who are many of whom are very resistant to the idea of further Ukraine Ukraine ad and would only like to see HR two essentially when it comes to border policy. So the reconciliation is difficult to see here.
Yeah, the tougher part, I think is the border measures and the pressure that it could put on House Republican LEADLeadership. They've been pushed to say we want all of HR two, even if there are concessions there. You could get Democratic votes in a bipartisan deal that's going to get through the Senate. You can count on anything requiring Democratic support, so you don't need to get two hundred eighteen votes
from Republicans. But the key question in the House is how much pressure does the Freedom Caucus put on Mike Johnson, the News Speaker. Does it get to the point where his stance as the leader of the conference is shakier if he doesn't get a really good deal on border measures. And that's the really tough stuff that there's still plenty of Republicans who are supportive of Ukraine, but it's the it's the quid pro quo that makes it complicated.
The commentary that we're hearing though from both Chris Murphy and James Langford, it's kind of amazing. We cooked it down in the last hour. They're using word for word language that makes you wonder if maybe they're closer than it appears. I'll walk you through it. This is James Langford just a short time ago on CNN Mona Raj. You got him as he was coming up us.
Our majority in the House, we're in a minority in the Senate, and we don't have the White House on it. I mean, you know, we don't have the pole position. May have resolve this. We're not going to resolve every area dealing with border security, but.
We're not going to be able to resolve in every area.
We solve this in the next few weeks, Chris murv Vlatimir Putin is going to have an opening and opening to march through the Ukrainian lines. To make a move on Keys, threatening all of Europe. So this has to be resolved right now, which is why Republicans have to be reasonable. We are not going to solve the entire problem of immigration between now and the end of the year, but we can make a down payment.
They're basically saying the same thing, So are we going to get some form of immigration light here? We're not going to solve the entire problem, but here's what we've got.
That is the focus. There's a lot of there's a real reality check from Senate Republicans, even h with regard to House republicans expectations. House Republicans are saying, we want everything that we passed in our partisan bill on the border. You heard James Langford, you may have heard last week Tom Tillis say they'll get what we send them. But it's still very difficult to get a deal in the Senate.
The proposals that have been put forward, according to Chris Murphy from Republicans, are ones that would not get any Democratic support, let alone enough to get sixty votes in the Senate. And you do still have that political pressure on Mike Johnson. There could be a difference between the House Republican stance and the Senate Republican stance that makes it difficult to get something through.
All right, I would say Jack sounded pretty downbeat there as well.
Really optimist.
Yeah, not upbeat, that's for sure, Jack Fitzpatrick of Bloomberg Government, thank you so much.
As always, it's straight though, absolutely neutral beats.
Perhaps should we get the beat from from Mick mulvaney, of course, a former congressman better not neutral himself, as our listeners know, we talk to him every Monday and we give the whole list of the resume. I'll skip that. Are we two down beat or are we appropriately down beat? What's your take here?
I think you're appropriately downbeat?
And keep in mind, and everybody knows this now that Washington is not going by any of the typical playbooks, right, so anybody says, oh, yeah, this is how it's gonna happen, this is how it's going to happen, this is how it's going to happen, just isn't paying attention because we're sort of off the rails when it comes to how Washington is functioning. So the best I think I can do, Keiley is give you some additional data points. Right number one.
The whole idea behind this laddered CR, at least one of the ideas behind the laddered CR was to take the pressure off that traditionally exists before Christmas. Conservatives in the House really really hated it when leadership, even in their own party used the Christmas holidays to pressure them to do something. And I think you saw some creativity for Mike Johnson to move it beyond the funding issues now, beyond Christmas and get it into the new year.
That was done for a reason.
Okay, so factor that into whether or not something's going to get done right now.
Also you put your yourself.
Yes, the House says they want everything, and I get that, but they actually have passed something that not that something in Democrats like they passed something on foreign Aid and I think they defunded the IRS. I don't think they've done it. Then they passed HR two. At least they've passed something the Senate. While they say, look, you know that the House will take what the Senate can pass. What we said them, that's you know, that's that's not wrong.
But that only becomes relevant once the Senate actually passes something.
And as your man pointed, out. The Senate hasn't passed anything yet.
It doesn't show any sort of willingness or at least ability in the next forty hours to pass something. So everything you've just heard is correct. From your guy in the him, I apologize, I can't remember his name. Everything you guys have mentioned is correct, and you take those other pieces and parts, and where do you get.
I still get that nothing happens before Christmas.
There's one other, one other factor the House members that the right wing of the Republican Party is not going to believe the Office of Management and Budget when it says Ukraine is going to run out of money by Christmas. They are going to perceive that, rightly or wrongly, as a manufactured deadline and sort of, oh, here we are again. It's the same old thing about using our vacation to
get so you can discount that. So you put all that together, and I'm fairly downbeating get anything you've done this week. And I don't think they're staying past Saturday.
What do you make of the in person pitch? President Zelenski here tomorrow is going to do the bilateral with Joe Biden in all senators meeting, I'll be curious to see how many Senators show up and at the invitation of Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Then he's got a one on one with Mike Johnson. Mick, I'd love to get your thoughts on both sides of this conversation, because President Zelenski knows what's going on. He knows this is
tied to the border. He's heard the refrain. The White House is keeping him up to speed here, what does he tell the speaker? And maybe it's more important, what does the speaker have to tell him?
Listen, Zelenski's the best salesman they have. There's no question about it. You have to take your head off to the guy. When I met him a couple of times in personalizing in the White House, I was not impressed. I had been thoroughly impressed with the way he's conducted himself since the Russian invasion. So he is their best sales when he's the right person to send here. I'm not sure what he says, Joe, because here's the question.
I would ask, Okay, you ran out of you ran out of ammunition, and we sent you that and it did work. He ran out of money to run your government, and we sent you that and that's not working. Now you're running out of men. We're not going to send you any meant people. You're running out of men and women to fight this battle. We're not doing that. So your what is your plan? What comes next? Other than
us writing you a blank check? And I know that's a derogatory term in some people's mind, and it certainly isn't mind. But what is the plan other than just asking us for more of the saying that hasn't worked so far. That's a really tough question to ask in
a really tough question for him to answer. So again, he's the right person to do it, but there could be some very frank and very difficult conversations for him, the toughest questions he's had since he's been coming to Washington over the last two years.
But make is this really about the plan or is this about the alternative, which is Russia getting its way in Ukraine. Isn't that much greater risk than maybe some money being used ineffectively?
Yes and no, I.
Guess the question is it's really hard to go home and tell people we spent another X number of dollars on Ukraine. They don't really have a plan, but we don't know what else to do. And by the way, we didn't get anything on the border. That doesn't sell well. In fact, that doesn't sell well, and even in some Democrat districts. Keep in mind, this whole border thing has morphed Cayley a little bit. I'm not trying to oversell this. I'm not trying to pick aside us. I'm biased, I'm
a Republican and I get all that. But keep in mind, the border is now a topic that is crossing party lines. When you have the Democrat mayors in New York and Chicago and Washington, D C. And even secondary and tertiary cities complaining about border policies, it starts to sort of bleed over. It's no longer just a right wing conservative thing that pops up, say in a Republican primary. It's going to start to impact those swim districts. So it's really hard to go back and say, oh, yeah, we
gave Ukraine money. We don't know what we gave it to him for what we did. To say we're doing something and we didn't do anything on the border that that's not a very tenable position for a lot of folks, not just Republicans.
Well, so what needs to happen? When you hear Chris Murphy speaking open mindedly, the White House says it's open to refining asylum law, maybe enhancing the deportation process. Dick Durbin speaking today with the Tip Sheets this morning from Guatemala, he says, we cannot ignore the reality of the numbers and where they're coming from any longer. Mick, that feels like we're closer, not further away. Don't you think, Oh, it's a great point.
And so let's let's let's let's move the chest pieces as to how do you get to a deal? Okay, the Senate passes something, anything right right now?
Again, until the Senate passes anything, this is sort.
Of your your you know, you're well, you're not making much progress, and use a derogatory sort of analogy, but you're not doing anything productive until the Senate passes something. The Senate passes somebody that puts a lot of pressure on the House. Uh, and maybe that's when you start to have those conversations. But okay, boys and girls, we can't get all of HR two, but we can get a sodom reform. We can get some maybe return to Mexico. I don't know, pick something out of it. We're not
going to get everything. That's where that language that you just heard James Langford use about we're not going to get everything.
Keeping in mind, James, though.
A good House member is now a senator runs every six years, not every two. But yet that dynamic starts to come into focus. So if you want to imagine how you get to an end result here, the Senate has to pass something, they go back to the House and they sort of meet in the middle. That's how you get something done. I just don't see that happening by Christmas.
Yeah, it's definitely tough when we're speaking in terms of just days here. But nick to the point of what we've heard consistently from Senator Langford among them is the idea that HR two passed the House with absolutely no Democratic support. So, to paraphrase his words, essentially that it's unfair for the Senate to expect to get enough Democrats on board to pass something similarly, is that a reality that just frankly doesn't really matter to this House of Representatives.
No, again, that's the negotiating language you're going to use right, and again there's going to be people in the House who don't want to negotiate on anything. Keep in mind, Matt Gates has already proved he's not there to try and solve any problem. So take the crazy folks out
of the equation in the House. Again, does that raise an issue about Mike Johnson's viability, Yes, it does, But let's just focus on this issue at hand, that if you are a conservative, a normal conservative republic, and you're sort of the deciding votes and whether or not something can pass on a bipartisan basis in the House.
Are you listening to James?
Yeah?
I think you probably are you? Okay, Look, we get something here. We haven't got anything on immigration, especially on the Biden administration. We're having any really good legislation on immigration a long time. That could be I could sell that as a win in my conservative red district back in South Carolina.
Nick, I've got to ask you about your former boss before you go away, because this dictator thing seems to be getting real. But then again, I don't know. Well, look, it seemed like we're normalizing the dictator thing. Now this is Donald Trump in New York over the weekend, Following his interview with Sean.
Hann Baker today in The New York Times, he said that I want to be a dictator.
I didn't say that.
I said I want to.
Be a dictator for one day. But the New York Times said, and you know why I wanted to be a dictator because I want a wall, right, I want a wall, and I want to drill rell drill.
All right.
Well, wow, we won't get into whether he's built the wall, which he says, but is he doing this dictator thing just to get the media in a lather?
Oh yeah, absolutely, that's exactly he's trolling.
That's exactly. He's done that before, you know, and he'll do it again.
He'll start talking about running in twenty twenty four and then again in twenty twenty eight. He knows how to play the media. He knows how to drive a media cycle. This is what he does. But you know, that's the first time I've heard that audio. I've seen it in print and so forth. But Joe, the thinking you out at me there, he sounds really really tired. That is that's not that's not the typical theories of the weather.
We got a cold, or he's that doesn't sound that doesn't sound like Donald Trump to me.
So and by the way, skip ahead. He also said something over the weekend. He went back to the Access Hollywood tape for the talking about a general.
Yeah, I heard that. Oh, if there was only time to play all of this with Mick mulvaney. I'm gonna call you when they come after me. Mick. 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.
Last week for Congress to get anything done, at least that's what they say this Monday. We'll see if the schedule changes later in the week. You know, if we get some progress on a border deal, for instance, we could be working for the weekend and maybe into next week. Maybe we do creep up on Christmas. Anything is possible here in the Capitol. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington alongside
Kaylee Lines. As we read the tea leaves on a possible border deal here Kaylee, knowing that President Zelenski will be here tomorrow. Yep, he's of course coming for the big ass the last to ditch ask on Ukraine funding. But that can't move until there is a deal on the border. And interesting to hear from Chris Murphy over the weekend, the Democratic lead negotiator that without any real progress happening on Capitol Hill, maybe it's time for the White House to start leaning in.
Yeah, there's kind of three parties involved in these negotiations, really, they're Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, and then the White House wish initiated this emergency funding request in the first place, including not only funding for Ukraine, but funding for the border as well. Money not necessarily policy changes, however, and I think that is wherein lies the rub when it's real policy changes that Republicans in Congress are looking for, and.
The reporting at the end of last week, it sure seemed like we were getting closer to something. The White House says it's open to refining asylum law, open to enhancing the deportation program. That's like halfway to a deal.
It seems to me halfway though, Yeah, well it is not all the way. Maybe it's the second half of the journey that proves a little bit harder. Let's add a voice to this conversation, someone who has worked closely with a presidential campaign. Keeping in mind President Biden is not just in the White House. He wants to stay there yep, throughout twenty twenty five and beyond.
Be a massive issue on the campaign.
Yeah, period, a big challenge for him.
Lonnie Chen's joining us now, he of course is a former policy advisor on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Now at the Hoover Institution and a lecture at Stanford Law. Lonnie, thank you so much for joining us. If you are not just the Biden White House, but the Biden campaign, how important is it to get border policy right and to do it quickly?
It's crucial. I mean, if you look at all of the recent polling about this presidential campaign, we know that there are two issues that are really animating voters above all else. One is the economy, the state of the economy as it tends to be in every election, and the second is immigration. It's really border security. And so for President Biden and for his team, the ability to get a deal done on border security gives him the potential to at least close the margin on this issue.
The pull we saw from the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, for example, tells us that former President Trump has a significant advantage over President Biden when it comes
to public perceptions about handling border security and immigration. So this kind of a deal, if the President were to be able to strike something that enhances border security that he can use to market during his campaign, would be a significant point of advantage and something I know the Biden campaign cares deeply about.
Arguably a gift we've heard argued before on this program for Joe Biden that Republicans are giving him a reason to take the border off the table in this campaign while also taking care of our allies in Ukraine Israel. Seems to be a little bit less of a lift in Congress. But Lani, I've got another poll for you, and it's from the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business with the Financial Times. They put this together specifically
on the matter of funding for Ukraine. Forty eight percent of registered voters half essentially say the US is spending too much on aid for Ukraine. Sixty five percent of Republicans feel that way, and that's compared with only thirty two percent of Democrats. So would you describe Republicans as the party of No when it comes to Ukraine?
Well, Joe, I would say that theirs skepticism broadly. The poll points out, you know, there's a substantial number of Democrats who also have doubts. I do think amongst Republicans those doubts are stronger, There's no question about it. I would say the lack of what appears to be outcomes for all the spending so far, I think that troubles some Republican voters. I think, frankly, the lack of some
transparency around on where this money is going. I think the administration could afford to be a little bit more forthcoming, probably about at least how they've spent the money. I know that there are various controls in place, and that's important, but fundamentally, when voters see a lot of money going out the door, don't necessarily see what's happening. We appear
to be at virtual stalemate in Ukraine now. I think there are concerns about where that money's going, and those are going to be particularly acute amongst Republicans, and therefore no surprise that increasingly you're hearing voices in the Congress amongst Republicans say that there need to be more conditions placed on this money, that there has to be a little bit more accountability, and maybe some even saying that the flow of funds needs to slow down or stop.
Well, so, when we think about foreign policies, maybe something that doesn't necessarily have as much weight when it comes to the mind of the US voter. Is it so much the domestic politics that matter, or the consideration of the international politics at play, the message it sends. If the US says you know what you care, you're on your own from here on out.
I think the international politics are part of a scene setting. They're not necessarily going to be dispositive for voters. I don't think there's been any real recent evidence that we've seen presidential campaigns hinge on issues of national security directly, perhaps since two thousand and four, shortly after the nine
to eleven attacks on New York and the Pentagon. But I would say that for voters, the foreign policy issues formulate help them to formulate their views of candidates and whether a candidate is strong or weak, whether a candidate is vital or not. I think these kinds of issues clearly issues that have affected President Biden's approval ratings, for example, are impacted by his perceived lack of good handling in
the foreign policy sphere. And the most recent polling we have on this from over the weekend again suggests that a lot of Americans don't believe the president has handled the situation in Ukraine particularly well. They don't believe he's handled the situation the Middle East particularly well, even though
there's nothing to directly blame him for. In many cases, I think that there is this sense that how people view his presidency generally leaks into their views of foreign policy and vice versa.
You know what it's like to be thirty five days out from Iowa and I one of your thoughts on this. An Sealzer poll today. This is the Hawkeye State survey NBC News. Des Moines register fifty one percent for Donald Trump, the highest leads, the highest level ever recorded at this point in a competitive Republican caucus. The next stop down the line here is Ron de Santis at nineteen, then Nikki Hayley at sixteen. Are we all done here?
Well, we're not done till voters actually vote. But obviously, the indications from what are probably the most credible poll. Ann Selzer's poll is the most credible poll we have tended to have historically in Iowa tells us that in that state, at least former President Trump has a commanding lead, And you know, I think, really the big question is does he hold that magnitude lead. If he holds that magnitude lead through the Iowa caucauses, this is going to
be a pretty short nominating contest, I think. But let's say, for example, the former president wins Iowa but only by eight or nine points, or there's a strong second place finish from Nikki Haley, who, as you see in that poll right now, is running a close third. I think that those are the conditions that could create an interesting
nominating contest. But if that result holds, if the former president continues to be in a commanding position, if he's up thirty points, there's really not much conversation to be had. So I think a lot of this is going to depend on what actually happens. And bear this in mind as well, Joe Iowa is very good at picking winners of Iowa, not necessarily of the entire presidential nominating cycle. You know, we saw Rick Santorum barely edge out Mitt
Romney when I worked on that campaign twenty twelve. We saw Ted Cruz do well in twenty sixteen. So it's very hard for us to put, I think too much stock in what happens in Iowa, except to say that it has an impact on what happens in New Hampshire, South Carolina and subsequently.
Well, but it's not just Iowa where the former president has a commanding lead. It just perhaps is most commanding in the Hawkeye state. Lonnie, you were talking a moment ago about how foreign policy and showing strength in that regard as something that maybe voters find appealing in candidates. Just how real of a chance do you think NICKI Haley has, Knowing that she does have that foreign policy experience and she's been flexing it quite a lot on the debate Stage's former ambassador to the Unan.
I think she presents a lot of really unique talents, and I think in this race has has a lot of unique points of view that could be very helpful to her. Now the question will be can she get enough oxygen to last through South Carolina, her home state, when she has the potential to do quite well. I think in New Hampshire, where you have a primary for president where non Republicans can vote, that's sort of a
unique thing about in New Hampshire. That's why Chris Christy is developing his infrastructure there, It's why Nikki Haley has invested so much time there. Really, what it's going to take is for her to not just burnish those foreign policy credentials, but be able to talk clearly about why
she's the better choice. And all the polling reveals that while Donald Trump does beat Joe Biden, if you look at the head to head nationally as well as in key states, if Nicki Haley were the Republican nominee, it wouldn't even be particularly close. So Nicky Haley, at least from the data, appears to be the strongest Republican candidate.
She's got to keep making that point and driving that home through I when New Hampshire, in these early states, if she wants to have any chance at knocking off someone who's a prohibitive favorite.
Sounds to me like we're going to know around South Carolina, and that's not far away a third or fourth contest on the list here who the Republican nominee is going to be? Lonnie, do you agree with that or are we going to start having sugar plums in our heads about a contested convention like we do every four years.
You know, it's gonna be very hard for us to determine how contested this will be until, as you say, we get past the first couple of states, and let's not forget there will be a tremendous number of delegates on the line and Super Tuesday the first Tuesday in March, including California, which has i think it lasts count almost two hundred delegates to be awarded in that contest. And so there are a lot of things yet to develop.
But certainly, if Donald Trump does as we expect he will do in these first three states, if he sweeps these first three states states, it's very, very challenging to see how this contest goes on much farther than than Super Tuesday.
Lonnie.
Joe's brought it up a few times so far this show, but the Dictator comments that the former president seems only to have doubled down on Frankly, he just wants to be a dictator on day one. Is that a play for more media attention or do you think that's real?
Well, you know, Mitt Romney over the weekend, you know, when Meet the Press together, described a dess as a human gumball machine. And I think that that's kind of an interesting and probably apt comparison when you're talking about
about the former president. Yeah, I think that he has a way of taking these comments and driving them amongst his voters, his constituency, to to continue to demonstrate the degree to which he believes that the so called mainstream media is out of step with with his voters, with his supporters, and so I, like others, don't necessarily put a whole lot of stock in it. Look, this is not the kind of thing you want at presidential candidate saying,
I understand that. But at the end of the day, for the former president, it is part of his persona, It is part of who he is, It is part of who he projects, and I don't think he sees it as particularly problematic, which is why you know, you haven't seen him try to even walk it back, and contrary to that, actually double down on these comments. And so I don't think he perceives it as a problem.
I think he believes that it is a demonstration of strength, and to our conversation earlier, strength is something that matters a lot in these not just primary elections, but elections more broadly.
At the Hoover Institution of course. A veteran of the Mitt Romney campaign, Lonnie Chen, it's great to see you joining us live from New York here on Bloomberg sound On. Thanks for sharing the insights as always, Lennie, and don't be a stranger. 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.