tv With All Due Respect Bloomberg September 30, 2015 5:00pm-5:31pm EDT
on day three of kevin mccarthy's role, he made a whopper of a gaffe. where did he make this faux pas of epic proportions? in the lions den of rachel maddow? no, in the plush kitten's bed of sean hannity. >> everybody thought hillary clinton was unbeatable, right? we put together a benghazi special committee. a select committee. what are her numbers today? her numbers are dropping. why? because she's untrustable. no one would know any of that had happened-- hannity: i give you credit for that. john: i bet hillary clinton was just loving that. let's check in on what she had to say. mrs. clinton: i find it deeply distressing. when i hear a statement like that, which demonstrates unequivocally that this was always meant to be a partisan, political exercise, i feel like it does a great disservice and
dishonor. not just the honor. -- not just the memory of the four that we lost, but everyone in the country. john: putting aside this year, an calculable stupidity. on a scale of 1 to godzilla, how good is this for hillary clinton -- and how bad is it for tr enty gowdy and the republican party? mark: it's bad for mccarthy because we both talked about how john boehner was underestimated and underappreciated. being speaker of the house, everything that you say gets scrutiny. mccarthy has never been on the stage. one of the least experienced ever, assuming he becomes speaker. for gowdy, he had four months been carefully preparing the hearings, trying to do what no republican has done for a long time, run on a politically substantive hearing. almost nothing he can do now.
democrats will just say this hearing is all political. john: you had set for a while you thought that he could pull that off. gowdy took it out of his hands by mccarthy. such a long shadow cast across. hillary clinton is going to say the things she said on tv over and over again. there was almost nothing that could break the momentum of this e-mail story, at least until she got to the hearings. now she is on offense, they are on defense. this is a disaster, a disaster for congressional republicans. and for congressional republican candidates that want to see clinton on her heels. mark: mccarthy was not in a hostile place, he was on fox. the other things democrats are going to turn to is not just a saying her hearings are partisan and political, but citing this is what they think they're a compass minerals -- political hearings. huge problem for the republicans. today is the day when does campaign e-mail solicitations for money come to an end, at least for a few days. the three-month fundraising
period closes at midnight. every campaign wants to take in as much as possible. but because they needed the cash to pay for tv at, etc, but they also want bragging rights. the numbers are going to come out over the next few days and weeks. are they more important because of the actual money, or because of a similar some? john: i'm going to give you a mushy mouth answer. it depends on the candidates and the numbers. jeb bush is very well-capitalized in some sense. but if his number is lower than expected, that will be symbolically bad for him. there are other establishment candidate that need the money, but also needed the symbolism of trump the non-bush, non- candidate that doesn't surprisingly well. you can win this battle, and you can win it in terms of dollars and cents. it depends on the circumstances. mark: they all need both. kasich needs the money and the similar some. hillary clinton better hope she has the donor numbers close to sanders.
the person i think that will have the best quarter is ben carson. he is going to have a big net number. he's also going to have the symbolism of lots of small contributors online, which have increased and kept up pace since he made his controversial comments about muslims not being president. john: no doubt people like rubio need both symbolism and money. mark: symbolism, to me, is more important. john: today donald trump hit the money pot -- honey pot. el dorado. yet some great numbers in it usa today university poll that shows him at his lead in the gop primary race, leading any other candidate by double digits. he also had an interview on bill o'reilly, always a big moment for donald trump. the thing that really mattered for him was the fact that he ended up being on the cover of people magazine. seven-page spread, interview
with the trump family, a surefire way to make any president a photo relaxed all-american. mark, i want to know what you think. as we gaze upon the people magazine spread, what does it say about donald trump's plays in the race and american life? mark: trump's press secretary should quit today. dollars of millions of -- this is worth millions of bucks. the text is all positive, the pictures are glowing, just of the whole thing -- it's incredible. it's spectacular. it's worthy of mr. trump and his view of how he should be covered. everybody wants a spread like this in people magazine if you are running for president. here is the guy most well-known, and he gets a seven page gift from time warner that he's going to be happy about. and anybody running about would kill for that kind of coverage. john: i say this with no tone of
criticism around it -- there is nothing normal about donald trump. nothing about the way he lives, about his family, history, nothing that is normal. whether you like him or hate him, he is outside in every regard. you don't get on the cover of a people magazine by being normal. but in a weird way, because of the americana quality of people, there is a way that this normalizes trump in a way that celebrities can be normalized. which is a weird way to be normalized. but this makes them look like every other american celebrity, big-time politician who would end up on people magazine. there is a homogenizing effect. that is good for him. mark: the other thing is that he is getting contextualized by the love of his family. he was introduced by ivanki, his wife, and his kids were there. they have not been very visible. -- they have not been very visible. i talked to her and it afterwards. discover, the photos, the text
s, humanizes him. there are lots of people who read people magazine who may not are thinking about voting, will be engaged here. at home with the trumps! headline for the ages. john: some people may not even know that he has a son of that age. we turned thep, tables on the man with the most famous table in television -- charlie rose. and of the original beltway boys, after this word from our sponsors. ♪
what a bloody show. we like each other. -- but a buddy show. when you hear obama talking about coming together. we are the people he is been talking about. the beltway boys. >> i'm the fair and balanced one. >> the year was 2008, an history was definitively made. our two guests, known over the years as the beltway boys, which by dc standards is a nice name. the authors of this book -- "jack kemp." how did he change america? >> he was the original exponent of supply-side economics. remember what the 1970's were like. long gas lines, high unemployment, high inflation. nobody knew what to do about it. jack kemp didn't invent supply-side economics, but he advanced it. he got the republican party,
that is to say cutting marginal tax rates, individual tax rates. the top tax rate was 70% before 1981. he convinces the party, and he convinces ronald reagan. ronald reagan picks up on supply-side economics, puts through the first tax cuts, 50-70%, and comparable reproductions for other people. and it set off a boom that lasted 25 years. the boom it made it possible for us to have a big defense budget, which helped topple the soviet union. at the end of the reagan era, democratic capitalism was deemed to be the "end of history." jack kemp deserves a lot of credit for that. mark: he was an nfl quarterback, a congressman from a new york. he eventually gets on a ticket. how did he exercise so much influence as a congressman? >> he was a self-taught in economics. it turns out yet about a formula
than all the keynesians and liberal economists in the 1970's. they didn't know what to do. he had a plan. it was to cut the rates, particularly on the wealthy, because they are the people that can invent to some extent. it was trickle-down economics. but the key thing was it worked so well. it became known as reaganomics. kemp put together a movement. it was really outside of congress. he was more of a presidential figure, even when he was a backbench house member. i see ted cruz now. he's trying to be a guide to do something in the senate, but all he does is yell at the leadership endocyte -- yell at the leadership and say they are lying. john: when i think about it jack kemp, i think two things, one is inclusive and the other is optimistic. he was a bleeding heart conservative, self-styled, before george w. bush.
>> he was the real compassionate conservative. george w. bush sort of forgot about it after he was around a while. john: kemp talked about lifting up minorities, wrapping his arms around the working class of all different ethnicities -- what would jack can't say about the republican party of today? >> he would be deeply unhappy with the republican party of today. it's confining itself to southern old white people, basically. if you wanted the report and party to once again become the party of abraham lincoln. in two senses. linking the emancipator by reaching out for civil rights. he thought that blacks would join the republican party. this was fanciful, if not romantic. [laughter] we affiliated with the republican party if they produced growth and gave jobs. that was half of it. the other half of the lincoln
playbook was that everybody should rise. the idea of america is that everybody has an opportunity to rise, regardless of who they are. basically it was for working people. kemp believe that as well. john: you have a historically large field in the republican party right now. dickstein candidates. is or anybody in that field. -- 16 candidates. is there anybody in that field where you see a glimmer of jack kemp? >> i think you see a little but it of it in jeb bush. not so much the dynamism. you see it in the tax cuts of jeb bush and the donald trump. they are reducing the rates. reducing the rate to 25% of the trump bill, 28% on the bush bill. kemp would have liked that. what he would have hated is what republicans are saying on
immigration. they have become the anti-immigrant party in the last few years. that is why i agree with mort that it's the candidates are good, in our terms, on immigration -- jeb bush, marco rubio, john kasich, are the only ones that when. you need to get 45% of the hispanic vote. mark: a great book. already well-received. available in fine bookshelves everywhere. you can find out about a guy one of the most influential figures in america. thank you both. we will be right back. ♪
♪ john: joining us now is a man, who by any other name, would introduce newsmakers just as sweet. charlie rose, thank you for making the walk from her studio literally right next door. it took you at least 30 seconds. for those of you who don't know, which of those living in a cave of ignorance in the deep center of the earth, charlie rose recently interviewed vladimir putin and david cameron. here is how those interviews went. charlie: he would like to join the u.s. in the fight against isis. that is part of why you are there. others think that while that may you may beyour goal, trying to save the thought administration because they have been losing ground and the war
has not been going well for them. you are there to rescue them. mr. putin: you are right. charlie: are you prepared to in syria?iran mr. putin: i will work with anyone to build a word that is free of isil. charlie: let's start with putin. john: there are not many journalists who have got to sit across from putin. charlie: not only broadcaster from the west that i know of from 7-8 years. john: and extraordinary length. charlie: we spoke for an hour and 45 minutes. then he invited me to have a cup of tea. the tea went into appetizers, appetizers went into dinner. [laughter] there was no vodka. no caviar either, by the way.
john: let me ask you this question -- you looked into his eyes, like george w. bush, who said he saw his soul -- what is he like? charlie: he's the man who was a leader of a country that he loves. he calls it the fatherland. affected by the collapse of the soviet empire. he said as much. he called the greater disaster of the 20th century. he is not out to restore the soviet empire. in my judgment of what he said to me. to try to make sure that russia is heard and respected and that it plays a role. i think in syria, he has lots of objectives. one, russian interest. two, i think he believes that he wants to get into the battle against isil, he believes, is necessary to join with the state
there to do that. others share that in the short term. they want to transition assad out. that is what he is about. he is about russia. mark: you're an observant man. leaving aside what he said in the interview, what is he like? what was he like other host? what are his human traits like? charlie: i had met him once before in june in st. petersburg. --soon as that was over because there was a large conference and i had to talk in the midst of a lot of people and it wasn't what i wanted -- i continued to stay in communication. mark: you were texting back and forth? [laughter] charlie: not him, but people around him text back and forth. on a clear that i would love to do something. yes. wenally said, " will do it when you get to the
nothing else." then they said, "change of plans, you have to come to moscow." i was going to do it for cbs news morning. the most interesting was 60 minutes because of the wide exposure. but is he warm? he smiled. he was amused. compared to other heads-- in terms of the context when i saw him, yes. in terms of what he does, which i don't necessarily know all the details about, no. they think to him, you have been more authoritative than you have ever been. they point to a climate where political opponents are killed, journalists are imprisoned and killed. the talk about corruption and power corrupting. mark: i was talking to the executive producers on one of
your many shows who talk to me about how much preparation you do. how amazing it is to watch you when there is a big high-stakes interview like this and how much you did for this one. just open up that process a little bit. what do you do to get ready when you are doing an interview like this one? charlie: first, i have to do it myself. i can have someone else do it for me, even though i have a remarkable group of people on my show and my 60 minutes show. it is essential for me to have it in my head, and for me to decide on what the arc conversation will be. where i will begin and where i will shift. they said, we really want to talk about what he's going to say at the u.n. rather than asking the first question, which i assume would be, why are you in syria? i changed it to say, what are you going to say to the u.n.? he's interested in talking about what he's going to say to the u.n. the first thing he says to me,
i'm going to make a speech on monday. i'm not going to tell you on 60 minutes when i'm going to say on monday. that's why i'm here. mark: what interests you about the u.s. residential election right now? charlie: two things that really interest me. the idea of how strong hillary clinton is or is not. two, what's going to happen with respect to that. on the republican side, i'm fascinated by whether donald trump has peaked. and what factors have led to that. clearly, donald trump was on the same graham on 60 minutes -- on the same program on 60 minutes, interviewed by my colleague very well. the ratings from that interview-- but at the same time, it was a great premier for 60 minutes. my sense is, the message is not as fresh as it has been.
he can probably change that by introducing, as he did with tax reform, and that creates a whole another debate. but has he peaked or not? i don't know. john: one of the things that is true of all of your interests is that you are interested in people of all walks of life who are at the top of their game. people excellent at what they do. charlie: and wanting to know how they got there. john: and what the commonalities are. is there anybody on the democratic or republican side that you think is that the top of their game? charlie: i think rubio is adequate place. on the other hand, he had some policy positions that have not been fully explored that might prove troubling for a general constituency. you're ready to get rid of me, are you? only because our program is about to end, unlike yours which lasts one hour. charlie: i get to interview