前白宫幕僚长伊曼纽尔：特朗普5000美元分红是噱头

[music] Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news.

I'm pleased to say joining us now here on Bloomberg TV and radio is Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff, former mayor of Chicago, and of course, former US ambassador to Japan as well. Uh, Ambassador, welcome back uh to Bloomberg TV and radio. I I appreciate the time, sir. I would love first just your reaction to what we heard from the president last night and this notion of a $5,000 dividend paid out to Americans.

If that's what Republicans are promising, what should Democrats be promising?

Well, the Let me back up here. The two things that Democrats and President Trump agree on is that President Trump should make this election about himself. So, there's bipartisanship for you. Uh we want this to be a referendum on Trump and the Republican and their stewardship of the country over the last 12 uh rather last 18 months. And it's clear that uh Donald Trump and the Republicans want this to be a referendum on Donald Trump.

Second, I think the American people are going to see right through this gimmick like they've seen through everything Donald Trump's gimmicks in the past. This uh as we like to say in Chicago, this dog won't hunt. Uh it won't work in convincing people. And what we went to offer is a onetime $5,000. It's actually a permanent tax cut and it's also a permanent uh alleviation to your health care. And that $5,000 doesn't make up for all the cuts the president made in health care costs.

Energy prices, as you well know, uh are about buck 25 more a gallon than they were just a year ago before the president went into a uh aimless and endless war with no purpose and no clear strategy. So, I don't I think the American people, I give them a lot of credit. They're common sense folks. They're going to see right through this gimmick and right through the politics of this. And the good news is you finally have bipartisanship.

This will be a referendum election on Donald Trump.

Well, if you have bipartisanship uh there, it's hard to find it in other uh places. Certainly, the president also talked about picked up on the

I hope you picked up on the cynicism and sarcasm there that it did go over.

Yes, it was it was it was well understood. Uh I I'd like to ask you as well about uh some of the other comments that not just the president but frankly a lot of the speakers on the stage last night and I would imagine we'll get more of the same tonight uh had about Democrats specifically casting them as far-left extremists as socialists or communists even if that obviously is not universally true. Does the rise of DSA either backed or or member candidates h create a major problem for your party in this cycle and the cycles to come?

Look, I mean, you've heard I've said this before. So, one, you have a progressive wing of the party and a pragmatic wing of the party. We'll battle out things like we have. They progressives want Medicare for all. I believe and I've advocated for early retirees buying into Medicare. We'll have a good healthcare debate about how to expand healthcare coverage, which is core to the Democrats. The Democratic Socialists are a separate party.

They're not Democrats. They're an extreme wing. They they had a convention,

but they're winning Democratic primaries is the thing.

No, let's just finish. No. And they're also losing them, which you also have to cover. They are also losing them.

And they are losing them across the country. And the fact is that they had a separate party. You're going to run in November. That's where you should run. Party is not a vehicle for you. You believe in defunding the police. We don't believe that as Democrats. You believe in open borders. We don't believe that as Democrats. We you believe in letting people out of prisons. We believe violent criminals should be behind bars.

We don't believe that. So run in November. We'll see you. Now that's the extreme. What Democrats want to talk about is what Republicans have made mainstream. The corruption that has become normalized in this White House that is robbing the American people. That's the mainstream of the Republican party where you have to pay for the access and you get contracts based on your contribution to the president's account. That's mainstream in the Republican party.

What's also mainstream in the Republican party is a war and an endless war without purpose or design or area. You have a president of the United States who's thought about redistricting. A president of the United States who thought about mail and ballots and how to prevent them. A president of the United States who's thought about dark money in elections. He never spent the time to think like that strategically before he decided to go yes into war in Iran without a strategy for the straighta hermuz.

So what is normalized and become mainstream of the Republican party, let's talk about it. What's extreme which is the DSA, they are not part of the Democratic party and I could not and other Democratic leaders could not be clear about that. So I have no problem talking about that. I've been absolutely clear. It's a separate party. What we need to talk about is what has become mainstream in the Republican party and that's their acceptance of a culture of corruption which is antitheical to everything that capitalism is built on

which is about the rule of law not about corruption around the opinion of one man.

Well, if that's what uh the Republican party stands for at a Republican convention, did a Democratic senator have any business appearing? What did you make of John Federman's video cameo last night? Where does he fit in the Democratic party?

Yeah, look, I didn't make much of it. I mean, going way back, I was a supporter of Connor Lamb in the primary. I thought Connor was a exactly what the party needed to do. There was a lot of other elements of the party that thought Federman was the future. Got all excited like they did about a candidate up in Maine. That is what has happened and he'll have a primary and he'll figure it out. I have no problem around bipartisanship.

I've worked a uh many times like on passing children's health insurance program. I worked with Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy when I was in the White House negotiating so 10 million kids could get healthcare. I did that also around other issues in my tenure. The assault weapon ban where I fought against the uh NRA to pass that with bipartisan support that I don't mind as it relates to a Republican party that is a that is campaigning in a different way and has accepted a culture of corruption as a norm.

We in the rep the Republican party's mainstream has created a normalization around a level of corruption. And I'm from Chicago. I know everything there you need to know around corruption. Have a high bar about it. This is something we have never seen in our country. That has become mainstream and mainlined in the Republican party. As it relates to Senator Federman, he'll have a moment with the Democratic primary voters and decide that.

I think it's not right, but he made that decision. That's on him. And he'll pay the pay or not pay the electoral consequences for that. I think the key thing is to believe in your principles and what you're fighting for. Republicans are fighting against people in Pennsylvania and their healthcare and their access. And that's core to what Democrats believe in. We believe that healthcare should be a piece of mind, not a nightmare.

And that's a big difference between us and the Republican party.

Well, I'd like to look ahead if we can to beyond just this 2026 cycle uh to the differences that may be on display in 2028. Obviously, the primary map for Democrats is going to look a little different in terms of sequencing. We have already seen a number of candidates making it seem at least optically like they are considering running uh in 2028. If you look at Newsome or Buddha Judge, maybe ev

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。