tv With All Due Respect Bloomberg November 19, 2015 5:00pm-6:01pm EST
john: with all due respect to hillary clinton -- [indiscernible] ♪ the red corner tonight, ben carson versus donald trump. ted cruz.o versus in the blue corner, clinton versus sanders. had duelingidates speeches today. clinton spoke about her plan to fight isis and sanders gave an address on democratic socialism. we will talk about both speeches
in depth tonight and ask o'malley what he thinks about this later in the show. let's start with the clinton speech. she spoke at the council of foreign relations calling for a new phase in american efforts to defeat the islamic state by expanding airstrikes and urging congress to pass an official authorization to use military force. deter oral is not to contain isis but to defeat and destroy isis. our strategy should have three elements. iraq, ands in syria, across the middle east. disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing arms and propaganda. harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and
homegrown threats. mark: what are your takeaways? john: the biggest take away is that apparently hillary has finally recovered from that new york times magazine cover in the 1990's where she wore all light. she is running a general election campaign already. that is the speech of somebody who is trying to put in a balance. she was not pandering to the democratic race. she went about as far as any democrat could go about military strength. mark: it was a strong day for her. she and her team distanced herself from the president without seeming disloyal. she showed great performance skills. well know what he is free from attack in talking about this topic, she lay down a bunch of markers that are sound.
john: apart for people who are -- where there is vulnerability.-- there is not a weak spot today where sanders or o'malley will make headway. specific as not as a president has to be and she did not cover -- a lot of .uestions were bagged in terms of showing a general election positioning against enemies, she was strong. very many people on the republican side being as specific. socialist.he hours after she spoke, sanders took the stage at georgetown university to give a speech,
defining his controversial political philosophy. fdr,voked the legacies of and an ok as he made the case for providing economic security for we the people. aboutwe are serious rebuilding the american middle about if we are serious re-invigorating american democracy. a politicalevelop movement which, once again, is prepared to take on and defeat a ruling class whose greed is to destroy our nation. [applause] the john: this will sound familiar to you. in terms of policy and politics, your biggest take away? mark: he has a distinctive and supported by millions of americans. while it will be mocked as communism, he does have a view
that will find some currency and he did a nice job of explaining what he sees democratic socialism as being. john: i think the speech was fine. there was not an element that qualifies as socialism according to my definition. he is not arguing for state industry, while redistribution of wealth. he is basically a far left liberal in the mainstream. i don't understand how the tag of socialist that he embraces actually describes his philosophy. there is either a limited role or no role. john: he is to the right of the french. mark: today he failed -- there was nothing that captured the imagination. it was solid with a lot of history and passion that nothing that would capture the public imagination and say, that will be trouble for hillary clinton. john: there is the political
, de-fanging socialism itself. he can point to the speech and say, socialists may not agree to this is socialism, but this is what i believe. the point where he was close to being the nominee, he could define this as something that is not actually socialism. onk: he has got hillary not the run but a case to make against her on the economic issues that he talked about. i think that the national audience gets bernie sanders as well as they are going to get him. they key for him remains, iowa and new hampshire. can he take this speech and make it part of the home stretch message in those states?
those of the states he needs to win. today in washington, house representatives passed a bill that would make it harder for syrian and iraqi refugees to enter the u.s. the legislation calls for stricter background checks for those who want to come to the country as well as in certification from the department of homeland security before any refugees are accepted . the white house has threatened to veto. the bill faces skepticism from some corners of both parties. leader hastic predicted that your legislation will never reach the president's desk. does this skirmish between republicans on the hill in the white house matter in the end? john: it is unlikely to. the senate will probably take up
the legislation until after thanksgiving. this will be a case of the house hot in the senate cooling things down. republicans and democrats who -- the otherlawed side of things giving, you can imagine this whole thing fading away. mark: the white house did a briefing which cooled things down. when you have these hot situations where emotions are running amok, the administration needs to its mother -- needs to smother -- i think this thing will cool down. this fight will not matter that much. john: the worst time to make legislation is in the wake of a crisis where people are panicked -- and trying to score cheap political points. it happens all the time. be bettery could not
trump leads the republican pack. he is followed by carson at 20%. compareasked people to a pair of candidates side-by-side. let's start with a matchup between the co-front runners. two candidates on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to personality and temperament. take a look at this clip of dr. carson at liberty university. >> the problems that we have in -- they aredo not problems that affect all of us. and we have to recognize that one of the goals of those who want to fundamentally change our nation is to pull already nation apart. if you key people at each forget whatats, we
is truly important. what is truly important is our unity and we have a lot more that unites us than the things and we mustus remember this is the united states of america. clip and you that , carson whipping trump. i want to get to trump in a second. "care about people like you?" matter? mark: a lot of voters we have talked to think trump really does care about them. this is the key to carson's success. people think he is caring. he is getting surprising support
from independents and some democrats. this is an area where trump needs to improve. evangelicals, it matters to them to. let's move on because there is a lot of talk about. let's look at donald trump speaking in virginia. >> we have seen our country where we don't win anymore and we are going to start winning so much, we are going to win left and right, we are going to win everything, we have unbelievable people in this country and nothing is going to stop us from starting to win again. happeningt what's with foreign countries, you look at how they are taking our jobs, how they're taking our base, how they're taking everything we you, including our many, look at what is going on with the foreign -- no matter what
country you're talking about -- they beat the united states. it is not going to happen anymore. it's not. that is a typically emphatic donald trump. that kind of performance in forms voters who say that when it comes to getting things done, 73% say trump is better. this is consistent throughout this poll. on issues of soft personality, carson wins. trump in every area where , trump winsinvolved by a large margin and what does that tell you? mark: this is why carson and most national polls. while carson has a lot of appealing traits, trump is more appealing on more things that matter to voters.
dealing with vladimir putin, addressing immigration, getting things done. trump leads in all of those. it will be hard for carson to come back on those traits. john: one more, though. a result we did not know, who would be better at dealing with congress? . am somewhat surprised ben carson, 62%. i think that republican voters still think that a conciliatory attitude is better than getting tough with congress. mark: surprising but i'm not sure how much that will help him. we also wanted to compare the rising candidates, marco rubio and ted cruz. does better than ted cruz in almost every category including one comparison on, who has the values to lead?
listen to marco rubio speaking last weekend. >> you cannot have strong people without strong values. nobody is born with strong values. your values are taught to you and then they are reinforced. replacernment cannot that. government can tell you what is legal. he cannot always tell you what is right. right and wrong, good and bad, that is learned from values instilled in you by your family. too many of our leaders have forgotten that. rubio beats ted cruz there by 10 points. rubio does better in a range of issues, you can see all of this on bloombergpolitics.com. he is the aspirational candidate. he is more of a critic and more caustic. rubio is more optimistic and
aspitional. a few areas where ted cruz is holding his own, immigration. here is an example of ted cruz talking on that. laughingmocrats are because if republicans joined democrats as the party of amnesty, we will lose. john: cruz also does better in combating terrorism. where do you think ted cruz news to improve? mark: it tells you that this is why ted cruz has focused so much
on immigration. it is a place where rubio is vulnerable and it comes through during these poll numbers. we have a face-off that people are talking about. this foreign policy stuff, ted cruz a lot of confidence but rubio is seen as better on foreign policy. no reason why he cannot close the gap on dealing with vladimir putin. the trick for ted cruz, you always want to play to your strengths. where does he go? does he keep playing on his strings -- strengths? down thosell break clinton and sanders and speeches that we talked about earlier with ambassador wendy sherman. ♪ mark: with us to talk about
clinton's foreign-policy speech, wendy sherman. she is a supporter of clinton's campaign and she joins us from boston. thank you for joining us. have worked with both obama and clinton. , how do today's speech you think americans should anticipate a president clinton differing from barack obama on national security issues? iti think that clinton said right today, we have moved into a new phase in by the time she is president, we will be in another phase. what voters have to look for our one of the qualities you want? the strength was to talk about the need for resolve.
that is what president obama has been about. clinton is going to take us into the next phase of what is going to be a long-term strategy. we have to defeat isil in the short-term but there are lots of terrorists out there and it will be a subsequent groups that will arrive in so we have got to work with our partners around the world to go at this in a concerted weight and i think she laid out that strategy today. john: you have or get a lot of places around the world. hillary clinton said we need to have a stronger coalition with local regional powers. what are the challenges to there hast happen? been very limited success in the ability to get that done. >> we have to build local capabilities and that doesn't happen overnight. if you look at where we are in you watch that press conference
in new york last night when the mayor and the police commissioner said, we have the best system, we have the resolve and the capacity. in our enormous change intelligence system, and our law enforcement system. europe has not been able to do that. we have oceans which makes it a little bit easier for us but we have to share those capabilities, we have to train people. there are many people who want to help to bring peace to the middle east but they don't have the capabilities that they need. they don't know how to fight. these kinds of wars, they haven't fought in that kind of the way for a very long time. share those capabilities, share intelligence, build networks, go after not only defeating isil the we have to go over the infrastructure of these terrorist networks and we have
to make sure that our defenses at home are as strong as they can be. mark: can you clear this up? does clinton support significant number of american troops on the ground in syria? >> what i heard her say today and what i believe that she believes is that we should rely largely for boots on the ground to be syrians themselves and the neighbors who have stakes in the region. i think the air campaign, we are clearly going to lead. we hope others will engage in a more robust way. we would like to work harder with turkey to close their border. she talked about no-fly zones which will take a lot of tactical ability to ensure. and humanitarian safe zones for the people of syria. we have 12 million syrians who are homeless right now. you on thecould stop
no-fly zone, if they are such a good idea, why does an president obama support them? >> secretary clinton said it is tough to do but she thinks the conversation should be underway here the obama administration has had conversations with our partners to think about whether there is a way to do this that is safe -- mark: but they are having conversations about it. she supports it today. what is the difference? why does an president obama come out for it? >> because he wants to make sure that it is doable. clinton herself said that we have to continue this conversation, we have to put the specifics in place. we have to make sure that it is doable and doing so would put pressure on russia and iran to come to a political resolution here quite frankly, the military can ultimately, along with
takestructure in defense, care of isil but there will continue to be civil war in syria unless there is a political transition and as she assad -- assadow has killed more syrian people than iso-has appeared we have -- sil. syrian people then i mark: thank you so much for joining us. when we come back, martin o'malley joins us right here. ♪ ♪
(the lion sleeps tonight.) woman snoring take the roar out of snore. yet another innovation only at a sleep number store. well, it all started with my free credit score from credit sesame.com. they gave me so much more than a free credit score. credit sesame's money management tools and personalized offers saved me tons of money and helped me reach my goals. i just signed up with their free app. what's my credit score? your credit score is 650. that's magic! no, that's credit sesame.com you get so much more than a free credit score so do more with your score at credit sesame.com for maryland, the bully of baltimore, martin o'malley. thank you for stopping by.
we are living now in the post-paris world. >> i think we need to do several things and we need to do them all at once. number one, and i think the president and john kerry are working on this, we have the opportunity to assemble a broad coalition and to do it even through the united nations up they council to battle rhythm on the pressure on iso-. isil. pressure on there is a role for our nation's governors and for congress to play, improving homeland security information sharing and all of the things that going to homeland security in this new age of warfare. afraid,hen a nation is of the ever strikes, one
things we are in danger of losing is our ideals as a people in we cannot allow that to become a casualty against western democracy. i believe that we have a humanitarian role to play here and we should accept our share of syrian refugees, the people that are fleeing the danger. john: name one way in which your approach is different than clinton's? mayor andground as an governor gives me a lot more experience on the homeland -- john: in terms of what you advocate be done, how do you differ? as somebody who has been in government, didn't secretary of secretary clinton has to
answer why it was that we haven't been able to better anticipate the secondary effects . why is it that we did not have intelligence on the ground? perhaps we should of thought to a three times before thinking that a change of regime would be better for the people of the region to my foreign policy would be decidedly less of a military adventurist and more of approach.vernment that is how we would differ. there have been some french airstrikes but i don't think we have a full sense of how france plans to respond in dealing with isis. how would you like them to respond? >> i would like to see a short-term political settlement that allows us, perhaps through the un security council -- mark: i'm talking about, immediately. how would you like to see
france's military response? >> the french are doing with they feel they need to do. longer-term, they require a coalition -- mark: and i want to talk about all of that the what would you like to see the french military response be beyond the airstrikes? >> i in a privy to the human intelligence on the ground that in going after isil, you have to ,o it in a surgical way understanding where their leadership and communications are. i couldn't tell you without that information whether their airstrikes are getting the right targets are not and i don't pretend to tell you that i could, mark. what we need to do as a nation and as a community is nations is to coordinate the special ops operations that are actually targeted, that have better intelligence on the ground and .oes after leadership
and also, cuts off the funding which i believe our government is starting to do and doing a much better job in terms of striking the oil fields and the convoys in the like. when it's to happen right now is for the world to come together in coalition and we have a role to play there. i am glad secretary clinton has come around to believing that america has a role to play which, for some bizarre reason, she said this was on our fight in that today, but we do have a role to play and we cannot confront this in the world as a human family with that the united states playing a leadership role. that is what we need to do. i think we are best at the special ops, air support, and other nations in the region -- turks and others -- will have to step up in terms of the ground elements. are you ruling out the idea of american troops on the ground? >> i supported the president on the special ops advisors a couple weeks ago and i believe that we can play a role.
i believe that one of the lessons we should learn from conflictt 15 years of is putting large numbers of american soldiers on the ground often has the opposite effect of increasing the recruitment of potential for the enemy. i don't believe that the answer here is going to be sending in the third division of marines. is going to be working in coalition with others and possibly close air support. in terms of that aspect of that aspect of the theater -- but there are broader issues that have to happen. we are living in a new age of warfare, security, and way,ligence are the old large institutions and armies, and the new way is going to be networked security, intelligence, response, in collaboration with other democracies. what makes anybody think that large numbers of saudi troops would go in on the ground and fight isis? >> the shape of the coalition
remains to be determined but isis has a destabilizing influence throughout the region and world and poses a threat to all of the countries of that region. could the number of refugees that are living in lebanon, jordan, turkey. mark: it means they have good reasons to do it but i am skeptical that any american president could get saudi troops to go into syria. >> that is what diplomacy is all about. i share your skepticism and at the same time, events change and where there is the opportunity to bring people together to focus on the true enemy and perhaps the russians have reached that point. lots of people are skeptical that russia can be part of a larger coalition but with the downing of their airliner, perhaps they will.
john: let me ask you about domestic politics. you announced that you will accept federal matching funding. the first candidate to do that since john edwards, or john mccain. i think he did. is that a sign of financial desperation? i have never been a big money candidate here. and whatre going to do we always intended to do is make our case in iowa and new hampshire in history has shown that the results are often very different on caucus night than they are the november before. we have a great staff on the ground. we announced a number of new endorsements including tom henderson. we have a lot of traction on the ground. this funding will guarantee that
we can make our case to people in iowa and then it becomes a different dynamic. no other challenger has had this opportunity. i'm one of only three candidates . hillary clinton, and someone who is involved in the mess of our sandersional situation, , who is a nice voice for change but never really accomplished any change, and then there is me. i have the executive experience. i am not part of the polarized gridlock of washington. that difference is going to become apparent. john: we are pleased you are here. we are out of time. thank you for doing this. more analysis on those clinton and sanders speeches when we come back. ♪ mark: more now on hillary
clinton's national security speech. here to talk more about it is jennifer epstein. first, let's take an extended look at some of what she said. terrorists tollow intimidate us into abandoning our values and our humanitarian obligation. turning away orphans, applying a religious test, discriminating against muslims, slamming the door on every refugee, that is just not who we are. .e are better than that
and remember, many of these refugees are fleeing the same terrorists who threaten us. it would be a cruel irony if isis can force families from their homes and then also prevent them from ever finding new ones. easeould be doing more to this crisis, not less. we should lead the international community in organized a donor conference and supporting aretries like jordan, who sheltering the majority of refugees fleeing syria. when new york was attacked on 9/11, we had a republican president, republican governor, and republican mayor, and i worked with all of them. we pulled together and put partisanship aside to read on our city and protect our country. this is a time for american leadership. no other country can rally the world to defeat isis and win the
generational struggle against radical jihadist and. only the united states can mobilize action on a global scale and that is exactly what we needed. the entire world must be part of this fight. there has been a lot of talk lately about coalitions. everybody seems to want one but there is not nearly as much talk is what it takes to make a the heat andk in pressure of an international crisis. i know how hard this is because we have done it before. and: is hillary clinton embracing the obama foreign-policy record are running from it? jennifer: she is doing a bit of both. she is doing a dance that we could have expected her to do. she doesn't want to be seen in the headlines. in the q&a that she did, she specifically said when asked
about headlines, said that this could be a challenge or her -- said that, of course i disagree with him. just as i disagree with him during the administration. she use it to make a point about wanted to do more. we are going to see here just kind of reminding people that she is more hawkish and aggressive and that would be the approach she would take versus what president obama seems to be advocating for. do you think the clinton campaign is prepared -- john: do you think the clinton campaign is prepared to own these crises? that attack?for jennifer: i think they are ready for it. they certainly saw david brock out there today, writing a post going through her record and all
of the ways she worked on the refugee issue and i think that they do have defenses available but it is kind of like the wall street issue here that was a big issue a couple days ago. that -- that there are vulnerabilities in there that no matter how much they push back they are going to be there. i think that her team will say, she is the only one that can even operate on this sphere at this level in this arena so of course there are things that are not going to work out well and kind of got into a little bit when she was asked about donald trump's criticisms of her saying something like the situation in libya still playing out -- it's not over -- and i think that that is the way that they will try to defend a lot of these things is to just say, you know, all of these conflicts that she is involved in are still very much ruling on and yes, there are problems but there has also been lots of progress that has been made.
crisis consuming the campaign or have they been able to focus on other things? jennifer: it has taken up a lot of their attention. it is something they rapidly put together. she is going to be in tennessee tomorrow. on is trying to get back economic issues, education before thanksgiving. thank you very much. next, our conversation with gina mccarthy. ♪ john: yesterday we spoke with
the administrator of the epa, gina mccarthy. our conversation oscillated between politics and policy. we present you with the cliff's notes version. is there a way to leave office where the divisions on policy and rhetoric are lower than they are now? becausee now understand of the impacts of climate they are defacing, they are recognizing that climate change is happening here and internationally in that action is necessary. in the pastfled us has been that the solutions have not been readily available and marketable. that is no longer the case. they are not complete solutions but you cannot disagree that there are states in the west that are choosing solar because it is less expensive than fossil
field. you cannot ignore the fact that the solar industry is the fastest growing jobs sector. we have solutions. all we are asking us to take a reasonable approach that looking at those solutions that make sense from an economic and environmental perspective and let them play out. let us say that this is where we know the present is in the future needs to head. planetou look around the and you can point to examples and say, this is the direct result. the other side does not agree with you. can you think of a historical parallel into you find it frustrating that the terms of -- butare not in control rather, whether it requires action? we haveof the science relied on for generations remains in question by some.
ofon't want to get to some the more modern ones because i don't want to get 25,000 phone calls as a leaf, but let me say -- mark: how do you feel about them? >> we need to recognize that there are going to be deniers. deniers are afraid of the consequences. we need to get beyond that. we want to show that actions work, that they do not destroy the economy. you listen to these candidates talk about energy and the environment, is there one or more from whom you here signs that you feel that they are enlightened, somewhere in the ballpark of being decent on these issues? >> i listened to the debate and i have listened to them all my life. i don't make my decisions on the basis -- at least not my decisions that epa -- on the basis of who is going to win an
election. i make my decisions based on the science and the law and that is what i'm doing. [indiscernible] somebody becomes president, they have to take these things with the seriousness it deserves. there is a history of us moving forward under the cleaner act and a history of us winning time and time again and you are not seeing large initiatives go down because of republican has gone into the presidency are because congress has decided to take it up. yesterday iste something i'm going to take -- pay attention to. [indiscernible] john: what does it mean to you? the think i have to look at folks that voted against and i have to -- we have to continue to do a better job at explaining to them what epa is doing and everything else, protecting their k's future. i have worked for many more republicans than democrats.
there is a way of talking about the environment that makes it to be protecting your kid's future as long as we are reasonable and rational than looking at economic consequences and we are aligning those with a bright environmental future. this was an interesting event that we did yesterday with mccarthy. what were your impressions of her? i had never met her until yesterday. mark: she is a good advocate for her position that i think whether purposeful or not, i think she reflected a seeming lack of appreciation for the other side. we asked her about the vote in the senate. i think a part of the problem that the administration has is that this is an area where they have not been able to find consensus.
i did not hear from her very much and she suggested that she had a strategy for that beyond dealing with people that already agree with her. ofn: from the perspective the environment, i think there was a certain amount of underestimation of the scale of the challenge of the strategy to bring the world along because this is a global issue. there was discussion that when we asked her specifically about what looks like success in paris for climate talks, the outcome she came -- she gave was abstract. mark: she is a confident and strong advocate. john: in a strong communicator, for sure. we'll be right back. ♪ mark: we are on the television
killed in a predawn raid yesterday. president hollande has given the green light for increased airstrikes. the french extended the state of emergency declared after the attack. u.s. and iraqi intelligence say the islamic state is pursuing chemical weapons. the french are already stockpiling and distributing antidotes as a precaution. travelhtening the free policy. pasts been limited in the two mostly non-eu citizens. president obama those to veto a republican proposal to tighten screening of refugees from syria and iraq. the vote total was over