tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg June 22, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with politics. republican karen handel defeated democrat jon ossoff in george's six congressional district yesterday. it was the most expensive house race in history. it drew national attention. many viewed it as a referendum on president trump and his agenda. for democrats, ossoff's loss raises question about the party's tragedy and doubts about its leadership. they strengthened efforts to push an agenda forward and the president is all smiles.
joining me from washington to talk about the results of this race and what it means for both parties, al hunt and phil rucker of "the washington post." i am pleased to have both of them on this program. tell me what this means for the republicans, president trump. >> for the republicans they escaped what would have been a devastating defeat. democrats are demoralized not because they thought they should win this race, but because they thought they were going to win the contest. it sent shockwaves to the political system. it would energize their base, bring in more money, and set panic among the republicans, and congress might even affect passage of the health care bill in the senate and various members will be debating how much we distance ourselves from trump? it did not happen. it was a lost opportunity for democrats. i'm not sure it says the republicans are in much better shape than they were two days ago but they certainly dodged a , bullet in georgia. charlie: it was a lost opportunity because one, they had a lot of money. >> both sides had a lot of
money. money wasn't a factor. i suspect democrats will be able to raise almost as much money as they want. perhaps they would have raised more if they had won. if they had picked 25 districts, on november 20 after the presidential defeat the most , likely, the most competitive they could take back in 2018, this probably wouldn't have been on the list. it was in the next year and it's a kind of district, republican leaning but highly educated they want to win back the house win , some of these seats. charlie: what kind of candidate did ossoff present himself to be? was he as good as necessary to compete in a republican peak? >> he was a fairly ineffective candidate he seemed like a poor district, which was a highly educated and suburban, chamber of commerce, moderate republicans. havef did not seem to
natural roots in the area. he was easily tagged as an associate of nancy pelosi and the liberal national democrats, and i think the way he ran his campaign was troubling for democrats because there was a huge opportunity. this is a district that only went for trump by one percentage point back last fall and we have five months of horrible headlines in the news about the trump presidency and administration. the republicans should have been vulnerable here and the democrats were not able to take advantage of it. charlie: that raises a basic question, can democrats run on an anti-trump campaign or do they need to point out to a progressive thing they're in favor of? do they need an active agenda as to what they believe in, not just simply that, they are against trump? >> you're exactly right. being just anti-trump is not enough. they need to have fresh ideas,
fresh thinking, fresh leaders, a fresh face. the democratic party of hillary clinton and nancy pelosi and barack obama is basically over now and the democrats need to do some soul-searching. they are trying to do that. there are leaders in the country trying to reinvigorate this party. to come up with new ideas. but it has to be more of an agenda than simply #resist. the resistance movement to trump will not be enough. charlie: who are those leaders out there trying to figure out where the democratic party goes? >> i agree with phil. you can't just run an anti-trump campaign. i'm not sure that's what ossoff did. he had deficiencies as a candidate. showe democrat polls, they trump dropping nine points in the last two months. he was not popular in his district. karen handel didn't campaign with trump. she had him in for a fundraiser. i do not think this tells you very much about trump. it made to you that republicans can win when they don't face a good candidate and it doesn't matter if trump is an albatross.
as for those leaders, they need new faces. the problem is that neither pelosi nor schumer has done a terrific job of putting forth some of the more attractive younger members they have, and i think they've got to start doing that. the michael bennets in the senate, if you will. ofre are all kinds congressman who were attractive congresswomen. ,the faces of loc and steny hoyer and chuck schumer, great politicians -- that's not the face of the future. charlie: at the same time, should donald trump -- should he say to himself this morning, i keep telling you, i keep playing to my base and my base is strong. so we will get through whatever our problems are, we will get through them and we will build an agenda. we have perhaps something coming out of the house and senate on health care we will get to tax , reform and infrastructure, all of those things. but things are not as bad as it seems because i don't have any strong legislative victories to
point to. >> that is exactly what the president is thinking and saying today. i talked to a number of white house officials today who say that same point. they say look this is proof, , this is evidence the country doesn't really care about russia and doesn't care about the things people in the beltway are obsessing about in the media. i think that is a flawed analysis. i think there are vulnerabilities for president trump in the country. his approval rating nationally is very poor, historically low for the president and there is a real resistance to his leadership style and some of the decisions he has made in office. and i think to satisfy his base and keep them galvanized and energized, he's going to have to accomplish something. my colleague was out in the country all last week in different states talking to trump supporters and voters. again and again she was hearing that people want to see him govern, they want to see him get things done. so far there is no big-ticket
item and he needs to have that in order to keep them -- charlie: can he make the argument, look, i would have a lot more done if i wasn't distracted by all these investigations and all this stuff for which there is no evidence yet presented that i or anybody on my team colluded with any russians anywhere? >> yes, that is exactly is feeling about it. he feels that this russia cloud, that is the word he has used stands in the way of his agenda. ,it is blocking him from being able to achieve great things as president. but he's going to have to find a way to muscle through it and compartmentalize what is happening with russia. i mean russia, comey, everything that prevents him from the legislative agenda which they are trying to move or -- move on here in health care, tax reform later this summer and infrastructure down the road. charlie: how do you see that? >> i think he makes a good
almost all of this cloud, if you point. can self-inflicted a cloud, he has done that. the russian issue will be there. i'm sorry, there's a highly respected, incredibly effective special counsel. what he finds, he will find. trump can say what he wants to say. what they have to do is put together coalitions of republicans to be able to pass health care and any kind of tax reform. i don't think there is any chance in the world of passing real tax reform this year. and health care is dicey. they might get it through the senate. how they get conservatives and moderates to agree on a house-senate final version, i don't know. i think russia becomes an excuse rather than an impediment for trump. charlie: thank you, phil. thank you very much. >> thank you, charlie. charlie: we will be right back. stay with us. ♪ charlie: we turn now to north
korea. 22-year-old american student otto warmbier died monday, less than a week since being brought home. he had been in a coma in the week up to his death. u.s. officials were quick to condemn north korea's treatment of warmbier. secretary of state rex tillerson said, the u.s. holds north korea accountable for his treatment and unjust imprisonment. while senator john mccain calls warmbier's death and murder by the kim jong-un regime. this comes at a time of escalating tension in u.s.-north korea relations. yesterday, president trump's tweeted that china's effort to help out with north korea is not -- has not worked out. joining me from washington, david singer national security , correspondent from "the new york times." and from florida, a former ambassador to south korea and currently the dean of international studies at the
university of denver. i'm pleased to have both of them. let me begin with this. what has this done, in a serious, real way to the ongoing , relationship or lack of relationship and the tension between north korea and the united states? and do we expect the united states because of the depth of this young man to take measures , that it had not been prepared to do before? chris? >> i'm not sure this horrible incident is going to affect the overall lack of a u.s.-north korean relationship. the lack of that relationship is caused by north korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons. they've shown zero interest in negotiations. they've shown zero interest in any serious discussion about a discussion about nuclear weapons. instead, they've wanted to talk to us as one nuclear power to another, a nonstarter, if you will. in the meantime the u.s. has , worked very diligently with
china. doesn't have much to show for it to be sure, but i think that is -- has further exacerbated the u.s.-north korea relationship. even if they had returned otto warmbier in good condition, i don't think that would have had any affect. and certainly this is obviously not going to lead to any improvement. quite to the contrary, there's a sense in the trump administration that there is nothing that can be done with north korea. i think you will see them doubling down on china, notwithstanding with the president's tweet. charlie: david? david: i think they will double down. i read the tweet a little bit differently than chris did. i read it that the president who had said to me in an interview last year that he thought the chinese had complete control over the north koreans, is now coming to the conclusion that every one of his four predecessors came to, which is the chinese control may not be
complete and even if it was, they're unwilling to use it because they don't want to destabilize north korea and have a collapse of north korea on their border and perhaps absorbed by the south and have a u.s. ally on their border. the warmbier tragedy i think adds a little bit more to the emotional impact here. remember when the president decided two months ago to bomb syria, even if he did it only for an evening and only in one facility, he did it in part because of the emotional impact of seeing children who had been suffering so and ultimately killed by the syrian chemical weapons. similarly i think the conversation he had with the warmbier family the other day may well have a significant impact on his thinking. we don't know enough about the degree to which the president is driven by these kinds of
incidents. but the early indications are, they do have an impact on him. charlie: chris, what would make a difference to them, if anything, other than a military strike? chris: it is not at all clear that there is any more of a military option today than there was yesterday. a military option is extremely problematic given the 20 million or so south koreans who are in harm's way. any kind of direct action of that kind by the u.s. would have to involve some kind of consultative process with this new south korean government. i think it's going to be a very delicate game working with this new government. the south korean president would be in town in washington next week. but i think it's going to require a lot of tact and a real deft approach, which i am not sure the trump administration has been able to display.
i think it's going to be very difficult working with the south koreans. and at the same time, i think when the trump administration looks at north korea, they are not really sure that they have much to work with there. what could move the north koreans is hard to say. and deepnk a prolonged and clear bilateral understanding between the u.s. and china will eventually get their attention. whether that's on a track that would move as fast as north korea's nuclear aspirations is hard to say. i think when the north koreans get the point that the chinese really are serious and that the chinese and the u.s. are consulting on ways to directly impede and retard that program, i think that would start to get their attention. but this requires a real full-court press sort of all hands on deck approach for the chinese. there again i think this administration has difficulties with that kind of sustained effort.
they simply do not have enough of a team to do that. rex tillerson is drawn in six different directions. he really doesn't have people to draw on. i think they are going to find this issue that they kind of d as one of their number one issues, would indeed be that. and they can be looking at a north korea deliverable weapon within a matter of their first term. >> i think this is an administration that right now views itself as having been unlucky enough to be sitting in office at the very moment the north koreans were about to go merge two technologies they had been working on for many years. one of those is shrinking a nuclear weapon to the size that can fit on the top of the head of a missile. the other is getting that missile out and shooting it as far as the continental united states, just showing they have the capability.
and the thinking is that everything changes at that moment because you are then vulnerable to such a weapon. there is an america first element to that because the japanese and south koreans have been vulnerable to north korean missiles that probably can have nuclear weapons on them for some number of years. but clearly president trump has said he cannot tolerate this, and president obama before him said he could not tolerate this. so what did obama do? he refused to negotiate with the north koreans, but we did accelerate, as we discussed in previous shows, a cyber program that was aimed at trying to sabotage their missile launches. between 2014 and last fall, that looked pretty successful. in the past couple of months and during mr. trump's time in office, the north koreans have
been more successful now it conducting tests. mostly with new solid fuel rockets. if the american program is still active, and we believe it is, it has been less successful so far. if i had to bet on that end of it, you will see president trump reach for the cyber option, even more aggressively. is the only thing he can do, shy of a direct attack that has all the effects and all the downsides that chris just described. charlie: on the other side, as a diplomat is there anything you , can offer him, not punish him, the carrot and stick thing here, that might make him amenable to a denuclearization argument? >> it's important to keep on the table our commitment to
negotiations of a nuclear-free korean peninsula. i think even the trump administration agreed to do that. nothing has been taken off the table. that is important to stay. as we work much more assiduously with the chinese, not so much on looking for ways to coax the north koreans back to the table, but rather looking for ways to retard the program, whether cyberattacks or whatever, the space between peace and war. i think we have to do both. i think we need to signal to the north koreans that we will be receptive to an approach, provided they understand that they can't just come to talks and say, we are a nuclear power, now we are going to deal with you as the soviet union dealt with you. i think the problem is north , korea has failed to make any kind of commitment, or at least kim jong-un has not made any type of commitment. i think his father was interested in a negotiated
solution if not committed to it. ,but he certainly cared what china thought. what is quite striking about this new north korean regime is they don't seem to care what the chinese think. i think the chinese are going to have to get their attention and be far more aggressive than they have been. the problem there is, i don't think there's consensus within china on going ahead with that. are chinese that would love to throw the north koreans under the bus and do so immediately. but there are many more chinese who believe that somehow the demise of north korea would mean a victory for the united states and a defeat for china in the eyes of many chinese. i'd like to mention one other point about this idea that north korea could reach out and hit the u.s. with an icbm, a nuclear icbm. i think this does have profound implications for japan and south korea because the purpose of
that technology is not to somehow thwart a u.s. attack on north korea, which we all know is not going to happen unless they attack us -- the purpose is to somehow create a situation where the u.s. does not live up to its treaty obligations with south korea for fear that north korea for fear -- with south korea for fear that north korea will unleash a nuclear attack on the u.s. sounds far-fetched, but with the u.s. be prepared to lose an urban center in the western part of the u.s. with the satisfaction of having obliterated north korea? not sure that's really going to do. i think any president would be this one and the one who follows would certainly have a quandary about whether the u.s. should be engaged in helping south korea, when in fact the penalty of it could be a north korean nuclear attack against the united states. so the u.s. will probably be looking at these treaty commitments and if it isn't, at
the new film from miguel arteta and mike white. is a working-class immigrant that attends the dinner of a wealthy clients. the two quickly spar over many issues, including immigration, capitalism, and the environment. it is called the first term at a comedy that is an explicit and provocative allegory in the age of trump. therefore, here is a look at the trailer. [video clip] b this is my dear friend, eatriz. she is a healer. this woman is a saint. birds fly out of the sky and land on her shoulder. >> can i get another bourbon? >> no, this is beatriz. she's staying for dinner. >> you were hovering. i figured you were part of the
staff. >> doug is famous, he has been on the news. >> i don't know why, i think i know you. >> ever dance in vegas? >> thank you for having us at your stunning home. i could not be more pleased with how smoothly that it has -- this is gone. if any of those efforts were illegal, i do not know you, neither was i here tonight. >> thank you for having me. when i first came to the united states a long time ago -- >> did you come legally? >> yes. >> this tenderloin is amazing. >> so is the fish, so buttery. >> you own a hotel? >> i always had a desire to be a healer. >> good job. you are working. you are contributing. >> we are going to south africa in a few days. it is true what they say. >> i don't consider it murder. it is a regional dance of man and beast. the struggle for survival. >> are you for real? i don't think it's funny. i think it's sick.
>> you think this is hard, try healing. >> sounds like you have a pretty tough job. >> i think that fate brought us together. >> for what? >> i don't know. revenge, maybe. you think you can hide behind these gates and everything will be all right? >> the world doesn't need your feelings. it needs jobs. he needs money. it needs what i do. >> the world doesn't need you. >> doug is a great philanthropist. >> shut up. >> you are done. >> thank you very much. >> what were you thinking? my relationship with that guy paid for this house. >> i kind of feel like i don't even know you. >> you don't know me. ♪ >> this can't possibly end well. [ end video clip] charlie: joining me now, the two stars of the film, salma hayek
lithgow.nd john john, what do we have here? john: it's the story of a dinner. a dinner for six very wealthy people. by a couple turns the plot there's a seventh guest, and , that is salma, a mexican immigrant, legally immigrated to the states. she is a massage healer. in the course of this film, salma's character and mine become antagonists while the others kind of look on in the -- look on in befuddlement. it goes from being very wry and comic to being very complex. it goes from being a comedy of manners to a film about much, much larger things. charlie: and it takes place entirely over the course of the dinner. john: in one set, one costume for each of us. brilliantly written.
-- brilliantly written by john white and miguel arteta. the two of them work together often, and they presented it to salma as nothing but an idea. salma said yes, and here we are. charlie: why did you say yes? salma: i would have said yes to anything. it was one of those, you had me at hello. i'm a huge fan of them. i almost worked with him once before in a movie he wrote and was going to direct and it didn't happen. then i hired him for "ugly betty " as a director. finally mike one day had this idea, and they called me over. they came to the house and said, we want to do a film together. we have this idea we want you to be in it. i said, what is it? what's it about? it's about a dinner. i thought for sure i'm the cook, you know. i said, what do i play?
he said nothing. he would not tell me. two weeks later, on the day of my birthday -- he hasn't written anything. he gave me the script. what prompted him was the idea of the dentist that killed cecil the lion. we were outraged because we all love animals. and he thought, what would i do if i wrote -- went to a party and realized i am sitting down with this guy? when i act normally, like nothing happened -- what would i do? that's where it all began. charlie: to know you is to know you like the battle of ideas. it is true. salma: anyone that knows me for
a long time. john: it was written for her and inspired by her in many ways. although, she somewhat represents both mike white and miguel arteta, too. charlie: in terms of their values and how they see the world? john: yes. on the other hand, they are not sternly judgmental of the other characters. that's what makes it such a provocative film. charlie: they also make you interesting in a way. it's not just a buffoon who got rich. john: it was very interesting the way miguel directed my character. from what we've already told you, your reflexive response would be, doug, the alpha guest at this dinner, is the villain. but he goes way beyond this almost immediately. charlie: what did he do to go beyond that? john: the first time i talked to him about the character on the
phone, he talked about doug strutt with great affection. charlie: and who believes he's doing good because he provides jobs and pays taxes. john: he thinks he is right he , doesn't think of himself as the villain, so why should we? salma: paying taxes and creating jobs is a wonderful thing. it is important. as long as you are transparent about it. but i think it is done with a lot of respect for both sides. the arguments are equally eloquent and smart on both sides. charlie: there written well. salma: they are written well, they are so well performed. he is so charismatic. there is something charismatic and intelligent and warm and smart about this guy. john: the interesting thing is a
real connection does, as contentious as it is, a real connection between to grow between the two of them. charlie: what's the connection? john: we are at least engaging. neither of us is afraid of arguing our case. everybody else in the room is, but we are not. we are actually both very powerful characters. it's quite gripping to see a movie in which two characters from these two completely different and almost opposite worlds actually engage. you don't see that in movies. you don't see it in plays, you don't see it in real life. charlie: were you thinking of anybody when you modeled this character? john: that's a leading question. he's a billionaire real estate developer. you just say that word. these days you think of one person. charlie: donald trump. john: but, your viewers don't need to be told donald trump is not the only billionaire real estate developer in the world. is far more
different than similar to donald trump. on the other hand, at this particular historical moment, you cannot look at this film and not think of the things that you and i and all of us are thinking about all day long. charlie: the issues under just -- discussion every day. we made the film in august and september of last year. none of us were thinking there'd ngesuch a political sea cha coming. november 8 came along and suddenly the movie was the same, but the perception of it we knew was going to be completely different. suddenly a much more urgent film. charlie: she's empathetic. she's an outsider, in a sense. more than just outside the party, but an outsider in terms of -- salma: i think it depends who's looking at it. charlie: and who's inside. salma: exactly.
for the other people she's an , outsider. she doesn't feel so separate from everyone. she's not even having a complex to the fact that they are beautiful and rich and well dressed and powerful. she's not dressed like them and she doesn't come from the same social circles. she doesn't come in with a chip in the shoulder. john: she is guileless, very direct. interestingly enough, she does not have as much sense of humor as doug strutt does. our interaction together, she takes everything literally and seriously. i try to toss. for me, it completely works to dismiss everything, to make fun of everything serious. charlie: we have to tell why she's at the party. salma: she's at the party because she comes to give a
massage to this woman, and i have treated her daughter when she had cancer. so they feel in debt to me. the daughter is now out to college. she feels like i'm part of the family. it's a woman that she wants to feel like she's a really good person, doing the political right thing, but not for real, just for her to feel good about it. and that's why a lot of people identify with this one. then my car breaks down and there's no way out and i live very far away. so she ends up -- john: staying for dinner. charlie: we have a central idea. you have to have this go somewhere. where does it go, or is it just an evening of the relationship between two interesting characters?
john: very slowly and incrementally, the tension just ratchets up. salma: and there's a lot of tension. that is one of the most brilliant things about miguel. john: and there is a lot of alcohol. alcohol fuels all the best drama. charlie: so where does it go? tension. john: we can't tell you where. salma: it starts in tension. it continues tension. my character starts having an existential crisis and a meltdown. eventually there's a little bit of marijuana. her reactions -- you don't know what they are going to do, especially my character, are very unusual. wouldn't you say that, john? and they can be anything.
if somebody asked me yesterday if there was somebody completely extreme right, would they hate the film? they wouldn't. because they would think it is a dinner about this great guy who had dinner with this crazy, insane mexican. like we were sneaking into the country, sneaking into the dinner and destroyed the dinner too. charlie: when he first meets her, he thinks she works for the staff. john: that is how we meet. salma: he said, i thought your staff. charlie: because you were hovering around. john: it's the most exciting dialogue. salma: and also sexism. that is why they say it's the first movie of the trump era. racism, sexism. classism. john: and the dinner itself, the big set piece in the middle of
the movie, is an incredible study in social awkwardness. charlie: you get into the conflict reasonably quick. john: their pacing is wonderful. it just builds and builds. charlie: he seems to say things quite innocently. for her, it is offensive. salma: no, that would be a cliche. he says things quite cynically is too smart to be offended by it. and to full of love and compassion. so, they think she's stupid. they get more comfortable. she doesn't react to any personal insult. charlie: she does not take it personally. salma: no she doesn't even judge , him. she does not have a sense of humor, but a sense of joy and easy-goingness.
it's when she starts realizing what he represents, not for her, for the world, that she starts questioning things. john: i just have to complement salma, for such a fantastic and bold performance. it's completely unlike her and yet so like her. charlie: you got great reviews too. i'll do it. this is a quote -- lithgow frees him, a titan who can afford to be polite because he knows he will crush you anyway. this actor understands power from the inside, does not just acted -- act it. he choose it and savers it. you said, my dear, i think the one thing about this film, it promotes conversation between the two americas because i want to understand how people think they are very different than we think.
salma: for me, the most scary part about the situation we're in, personally, real life, the america we're in, is my own inability to completely make sense of a part of america that is considerable in size. and i don't quite understand the logical mentality very well. and this is scary to me, that i don't understand. charlie: what don't you understand? the politics? the class distinctions? salma: i don't understand the philosophy. and it represents in many ways. for example, we didn't know that racism was so strong until recently. the land of the free, the land
of hope, the land that celebrates individualism. charlie: i think individualism was strong all along. salma: to this degree? charlie: i do. yes. and especially the people who were the victims of racism, i think they knew it. it's more apparent now because of the presidential cameras and it's no longer hidden. salma: you have a candidate that is building a campaign on calling out the haters. john: and building a wall. salma: an imaginary wall, that is not logical, and that is not going to be built. john: in an atmosphere like this, it's inevitable that talking about this movie -- you just can't watch this movie without it stirring those feelings, those thoughts, those arguments.
salma: it's not just politics. john: but it makes you look at politics from a completely different interactions of people, and what people really need to hear. charlie: i hope this conversation makes people want to go see the movie. that would be a very good result. salma: spiritual inequality. this is one of the main themes of the film. believe it or not. charlie: good to see you. thank you. john: wonderful as always, charlie. charlie: we will be right back. stay with us. ♪ charlie: dan auerbach is here,
the nine time grammy award-winning musician who is known as of the black keys. one halfis also an award-winning producer of a garage bands. he returns with his first solo album in eight years. it is called, "weighing on a song." the album has been called a love letter to the city of nashville. here is dan performing right -- performing the track right here in our studio. ♪ >> ♪ i've been thinking i've been strumming i have been picking and i have been strumming waiting waiting on a song i can almost hear one coming
you can look up at the stars bow your head and count the cars you'll still be waiting waiting on a song might be a bluebird or a crow between two posts you'll still be waiting waiting on a song blow on trees you have to pick them out the breeze you fall down on your knees and pray one comes along when those railroad gates come down
you gotta stop and turn around you'll be waiting waiting on a song you'll be waiting song ♪ on a charlie: i'm pleased to have dan auerbach at this table for the first time. welcome. dan: thanks for having me. charlie: it is our pleasure. you say you put everything you know about music in this album. dan: it's almost like i spent my whole life preparing to make this record in a weird way. , just listening to the records i did in putting together the studio, than i meet all these great musicians in nashville and all of a sudden they are congregating at the studio. this record came out of settling in to nashville and living it.
charlie: longtime since your last solo album. dan: it's been a long time. i had success with the black keys and we went on the road. we hit it hard, and we never stopped. so i mean, the black keys, we took a break last summer and we have been touring from us for years solid straight. ,charlie: plus eight grammys. how is it different for you in terms of going solo, or being half of the black keys? dan: i guess for me, when i'm working alone on something, it changes every time i go in the studio. it's whoever i'm working with that day. when you're in a band, it's just you two, and you have to work together, kind of as usual. charlie: you are a master of many trades. you are a producer you have your
, own label. you do it all. dan: yeah, but it's all connected. it's all sort of the same thing. when i was producing records and giving them to labels, i was handing in the finished product, finding the photographer, finding someone to put the album artwork together. making records is the thing i have loved to do since i was a , kid. charlie: you wrote them with another. dan: we got together. it was about last summer. i decided to take a break from touring. i needed to be at home. i lived in nashville almost eight years and i never spend much time there because i was on the road so much. charlie: it's become one of america's most favorite cities. dan: it's become one of mine too. i got to settle in and not leave and settle into the way of life, and check out some of the songwriting i had always heard about but never done before.
charlie: your music video "shine on me," your interview. dan: someone you might find familiar. you. ♪ charlie: i should take that as a compliment, shouldn't i? dan: absolutely. charlie: why did you do that and what did you want to explore? dan: it's an animated video. the director, it was his idea. he sent me the treatment and i loved it. i loved his artwork. he put it together and it was so great. charlie: where do you want the music to go from here? dan: music is who i am. i played music growing up with my family. music is just what i do. it doesn't really need to go anywhere. charlie: does it tell you rather than you telling it? dan: every day is different.
every day i go in it is something new. it's that creative process that i'm so addicted to. that's a beautiful thing about it. charlie: is any part of the process harder than others? dan: touring is very difficult for me, personally. being on the road all the time, being away from your family kind of turns into groundhog day. charlie: how do you and john write? dan: everyone has a guitar. someone has an idea starts the , ball rolling. if you have chemistry and if the gods are smiling on you, you come up with something. charlie: let's talk about the song you did, "waiting on a song." what's the origin of it? dan: john said, i have an idea. i said, what you have? he starts strumming. three chords. john writes all the greatest songs ever with just chords. three he said, i've been thinking, i've been humming, i've been picking, strumming,
waiting on a song. i said that is good, i like it a lot. then he said i have been hitching, i've been thumbing. and then i said i can almost , hear one coming. then we kept going. we finished it up that day. charlie: for you, the creative spark comes from living your life. dan: yeah, i got hooked on that guitar and that music early on. it was the thing. when you see all the musicians on the back of that thing, that's all those guys. there is duane eddy jean , chrisman and bobby wood. that's kenny malone. there are just so many great people. all those guys, they made some of my favorite records of all time. they participated on this record. almost all of them played music with their families growing up. pretty much every single one of them grew up in a musical family. charlie: i didn't. that is one of the great regrets of my life. i grew up with books, but not with music. dan: i think it is something
with these guys, we feel at home when we are playing music together. i think it is because we grew up doing that. charlie: who's had the most influence on you? dan: my uncle, he tommy hanson sing. he sang bluegrass songs and we sang together. me and my uncle jim. charlie: you said living in nashville has changed the way i feel about music in the way i recorded. dan: i feel that way. i've never felt more inspired, being in the studio. i just can't wait to get there. and i really feel like i met -- all these guys, some of these guys are in their 70's. they meet me at the studio at 9:00 a.m. sometimes we will be there until 2:00 in the morning and then they will be in at 9:30 the next day. charlie: you share one thing, the love of music. dan: it is the addiction to the creative process. we are all there for the same reason because we know what it , feels like to catch that special moment. because you can be so sure about a song, the greatest song it's , so good. then you go and record it, and
it sucks. you never know. you have to be there. you have to try. it is never a given. charlie: it can be perfect on paper but until you are hearing and singing it -- dan: until it comes back through those speakers in a way that makes you feel good inside, you have to keep trying. but we are addicted to that. we've had some success with songs. when you get it, there's no greater rush. charlie: congratulations. great to have you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ >> ♪ i'm going to look good all dressed up for my own funeral i am sure she will look beautiful i am going to stand by my girl don't think i won't
from washington. you're watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with a check of your first word news. president trump says the obamacare era is over. he criticized his predecessor's signature legislative achievement at a meeting. president trump: obamacare is a disaster, totally dead. we are putting in a plan today that is going to be negotiated. we would love to have some democrat support. but they are obstructionist, they won't support. we won't get one, no matter how good it is. we will hopefully get something done, something with heart, and very meaningful. alisa: democratic leaders are slamming the bill, arguing