Face The Nation: Larry Hogan, Ashley Etienne, Terry Sullivan, and Gina Raimondo

Former Maryland Governor-Republican Larry Hogan joined us on Friday with more about what he thinks about the GOP presidential field. Look, I think there's too many people in the field. You should not be in the race. If you don't make the debate stage, you likely should consider getting out. If you're on the debate stage and you're willing to stand up and challenge the leader, that's at 50 percent, if you're unwilling to challenge Donald Trump, you should get off the stage. You know, Ramaswamy, for example, is up there being a cheerleader and a fill-in for Trump. He shouldn't be running for president. He should—you know, he obviously is trying to apply for a job for Trump. But if you're in there running for vice president or you're trying to be a cabinet secretary or you're trying to become famous or write a book or get on television, you should get the heck out of the race. We need to narrow it down to find a leader who can get the Republican Party back on the right track and that can get us back to winning elections again. It's not going to happen with 11 people in the race. Who specifically? Former Congressman Will Hurd didn't make the debate stage. Should he get out? You know, Will is a great friend. I have tremendous admiration for him. I agree with him on so many issues, but he's not going to be president and he didn't make the debate stage. And I think he contributes a lot to the discussion. He and I see a lot of things eye to eye, but yeah, I don't think that at this point he should be in the race. But I don't want to go through the list of which one should we get out and get in the process. But time's of the essence, Governor. I think it's a decision they have to make. But I'm having conversations. Most of these folks are friends of mine. I'm talking with other leaders in the party who share this concern, this issue that you're getting to. And I think we're going to have to continue to have those discussions and try to give people the best—I'm giving private advice to many of the people running. I think other leaders are going to come together and we're going to have to figure out how can we convince people to put aside their own egos and their own goals to just make sure we do the right thing for the country and the party. How do you force that conversation? It's a difficult one. I've covered politics for years. Most politicians wake up, they look in the mirror, they see a future president. It's tough to have that kind of conversation. It's very, very tough, which is why it hasn't happened yet. But I'm holding out hope that we'll get this figured out. And my total focus at this point is trying to make sure we can get a challenger that's going to win this nomination that's not Donald Trump that can get us back to winning elections again and win the race in November. You said you were going to talk to your friends in the traditional Republican wing of the GOP, a party still dominated by Trump. How would you describe the level of concern? Is it quiet concern, a twiddling of the thumbs right now among donors and traditional Republicans? Or is there real alarm that it's September and Trump's dominating? I think there's real alarm, and it's becoming more and more real. I mean, people were somewhat hopeful that we would be in a different place by now. And now they're starting to come to the realization that, hey, this is—we might actually have Donald Trump as the nominee and Joe Biden as the nominee. And this is something that 70 percent of the people in America do not want. They do not want Donald Trump or Joe Biden. They don't want a rematch, and they don't think these are the two best choices to be running the race. What about a late entry from Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia or Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia? It may not be possible to get on the ballot in Iowa, in South Carolina, in those early states, but could you see a late entry trying to make a play for the convention? Well, it seems like the opposite of what I've been saying. You know, we've got 11 people in the race. We have six of my former gubernatorial colleagues already in the race. I'm not sure whether one or two more is going to fix the problem. I also just don't think it's going to happen. I mean, they're both great governors. I campaigned and helped both of them. But October 15th is the deadline, and all this talk about somebody's going to get in the end of the year or next year, that's not going to happen. It's six weeks away. We'll have more of our conversation with former Governor Larry Hogan after a break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to Face the Nation. Here is more of our conversation with former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, who is an honorary co-chair of the bipartisan group No Labels, which could put together a third-party presidential bid. No Labels is not an effort to try to help Donald Trump and to be a spoiler for Joe Biden. I don't think there's a soul in this organization that's trying to promote Donald Trump. And we don't get into the process and how and why. Basically, you've got to figure out, why are we in this situation? We're in this situation because we have two potential terrible nominees of the two major parties that 70 percent of the people in America don't want. That's what No Labels is about. It's a citizen saying, maybe we have to try something else. To the point you just made, does that mean a Republican like yourself, in your mold perhaps, or even you, has to be at the top of the No Labels ticket, should there be a No Labels ticket? We've only put together a ticket in the event that it's Trump and Biden. You know, I'm still, again, still trying to work to make sure we can get a good Republican nominee. And this doesn't—it's no longer necessary. But it has to be a good ticket that can actually win. You know, I would only be in it to win it. Nobody's trying to spoil anything. This is about actually receiving a majority of the votes. And I would say the last time we had somewhat of a successful third-party run, it was Ross Perot who dropped out of the race and had all kinds of problems and came back in and still was at about 20 percent. But he was a Republican who ran as an independent and took—you know, most people would argue. I think he drew from both sides. But it didn't, you know, hurt the Democrat, it hurt the Republican. And the Ross Perot experience in 1992, he gets about 19 percent of the popular vote. But it's very difficult to win the White House in a system that's the Electoral College. It's very true. It's, you know, it's something that's never really happened. I mean, but we're at a point where we've never been in America, so we just don't know. And you know that things change. We have eight months to figure this out. We don't know who—where we're going to be as a country. We don't know who the potential candidates might be. But it very well may be the first time in our history where the American public is really hungry for something like this. If people are frustrated with the Democrats and the Republicans, maybe they are looking for an alternative. But No Labels, the group you're the honorary co-chairman of, has not released its list of donors. They are under the cloud of the election law, where they can not be disclosed to the public. Do you believe No Labels, now or at some point in the future, is going to have to offer Americans clarity about who's spending money on No Labels in order to win the public's trust if they want to move forward? Sure. You know, it's a tax-exempt, you know, grassroots citizen organization, just like thousands of others. And that's just what the rules are. They're not a political party. They don't have a candidacy. They're behind. They're not backing anyone. If, in fact, it became a campaign, they obviously would have to follow all the same rules that all the rest of the campaigns do. But right now, there's just an awful lot of attacks and criticism, because they're really worried that this kind of citizen uprising is gaining a lot of traction, and they're really concerned about the two weak nominees that they might be faced with. Well, to your point, there's concern, especially among allies of the White House, that a Democratic independent ticket would pull from Biden. But let's be real. If Trump is going to end up—looks like the nominee come January or February of next year, are you, Larry Hogan, open to being a top, a no-labels ticket as a Republican-type candidate with no labels? It's not something I'm pursuing. I know it's not—we know you're not pursuing it, but is it at least an open door? I'm hoping we don't get to that point. I have not closed the door to that. If I believe that we can actually win the race, we have a strong ticket, that those two major candidates are weak, we might have to try to pull off something that's never been done, which is sort of what I did in Maryland. Do you believe there's actually going to be a no-labels ticket or not next year? I think there's a good likelihood that there could be. I don't know the odds, and there's a lot of things that have to happen. Again, I'm still hopeful that—I'm not sure, sitting here today, that Donald Trump and Joe Biden are the two nominees of the major parties or whether this ever lifts off the ground. But if, in fact, that's the case, I do believe that this group has a chance to get access to the ballot in all 50 states. And if they put together a really great ticket and ran a perfect campaign, that they would actually have a shot to be not just a spoiler, but to be in it to win it. Former Governor Larry Hogan of Maryland, we appreciate you coming by Face the Nation, and we'll be right back. We're joined now by CBS News contributor and Democratic strategist Ashley Etienne and Republican strategist Terry Sullivan. Good morning to both of you. Thanks for being here. Ashley, let's begin with you. We heard from Senator Sanders. He met with President Biden, said the White House, other Democrats need to do more to pay attention to working people across this country. Is there concern inside the Biden administration—you worked inside of it—about their connection with working voters across the country? No. I watched the senator's interview. I mean, he opened up by giving the president a lot of credit for what he's done, negotiating to lower drug costs, record economic growth, set 13 million jobs created, manufacturing is roaring back. So, yeah, I mean, I agree with the senator. You know, we've made a lot of progress under this current president that supported working Americans, but there's still more to be done. There's no question about that. But what I do appreciate is he's acknowledged the president's great work and how he's done it really together with Republicans as well to move a lot of these big bills and big landmark legislation forward. Terry, you managed Senator Marco Rubio's 2016 presidential campaign. You know what it means to run against former President Trump. You did it. It wasn't easy for Senator Rubio and your campaign, every Republican struggle. When you watched Ambassador Haley this morning, you watched Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in recent weeks, what do you see in the Republican race right now? Is there actually an opportunity for Haley to get some traction, or are they stuck in the single digits? Yeah, you're right. I have experience losing to Donald Trump, so I know what it's like. You know what? At the moment, this is what we're watching all of these candidates do. Unfortunately, they've got to engage Trump. Hope is not a strategy. Last time, in 2016, there was a lot of hope that you can be the last one. There's no way Trump can get over 50, and there's all these different things. I think with Haley and a lot of them, they've got to be able to go after the guy in first place. He's the de facto nominee. He's the de facto incumbent. If you don't engage him and take him on, he's going to skate to victory. What about impeachment? We talked a little bit about it with Ambassador Haley, because Representative Taylor Greene of Georgia is talking about moving forward quickly with an impeachment of President Biden. Inside of the White House, you've worked with President Biden. You've worked with Vice President Harris. Are they preparing for a fall impeachment season? Well, more importantly, I ran the impeachment war room for Speaker Pelosi, the first impeachment war room. And I will tell you, the greatest difference is there's no evidence here. There was actually evidence when we moved to impeach Donald Trump, if you recall. He actually gave us the evidence, the recording of his phone call with Zelensky asking for dirt on Joe Biden. So that's—I mean, we have to take a step back and really approach impeachment with a level of sobriety and seriousness. But how do they see it this time around, the Democrats, as they come for Biden? I mean, my recommendation to the president would be to treat it as a sideshow that that actually is at this point. There is no evidence. They've had five years to drudge up some evidence on Hunter Biden, and all they found is a gun charge and tax evasion with no relationship to President Biden. So the point is, I mean, I wouldn't get overly exercised or excited about an impeachment inquiry that's baseless and has no evidence and no foundation. But here's—can I just say one more thing? The problem that we have is this politics of retribution, right? The American people don't want it. You know, this would be the greatest—if they move forward with an impeachment inquiry, it would be the greatest devastation not just to their majority, but even to their speakership in 2024. So how do the House Republicans see it? You've worked for congressional Republicans for a long time, Terry. Is Speaker McCarthy and others—are they going to go along with this push to impeach Biden? And politically, how do they really see it? Yeah, look, I think he's—the speaker is sober enough to realize this is not a great long-term political play, but he's got to appease the base within his caucus. And that's an issue here. And we've seen it on both sides. Look, these impeachments don't help—dating back to Clinton—do not help the party that is doing the impeaching. Historically speaking, the beneficiary of it is the president who's getting impeached. And so I would caution Republicans on this. Going after Trump—I mean, going after Biden seems like a really poor decision politically. And we talked at the beginning of the program about Senator Mitch McConnell. He's facing questions about his health. His doctor says he's fine to serve. Inside the White House, how are they handling the age question when it comes to President Biden? Well, with a lot of humor. I mean, they've handled this issue quite a bit. It's not a new issue to them. They're very clear about the issue. But, you know, I've worked for two—two of my bosses, both Speaker Pelosi and Biden, are 80 years old. And I've seen—you know, I watched firsthand how Speaker Pelosi handled Donald Trump masterfully, you know. And I've seen Joe Biden up close. And again, you're talking about an unprecedented record of bipartisan legislation, big things for the American people, that he's gotten done. So for me, age is nothing but a number. And it's very personal. What you're seeing with McConnell is a serious issue. And I do believe his staff is really doing him a disservice. They need to figure out what's going on. It's serious in a way that we've—it's not as serious with Biden nor with Pelosi and others. Terry, you've worked for some conservative senators over the years, like the former senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint. You know that conservative Senate world. Are they going to see this as an opening? For now, those like Senator Rick Scott are being pretty hands-off, but are they going to try to nudge McConnell out in the coming weeks? Yeah, look, no is the short answer. We've had very old United States senators since the first United States senators. This is nothing new. And it's not even really an age issue, if the argument is—I mean, look at Fetterman. So you've got it on both sides of the aisle. You've got older—Senator Feinstein, you've got this. Look, they're not inclined to push out one of their own on either side, clearly. When you look at the elections, we're always talking about 2024, but I'm paying attention to 2023, these off-year elections as well. You're going to have legislative elections in Virginia—Glenn Youngkin, the governor, the Republicans out there talking about them a lot—elections in Kentucky, Mississippi, elsewhere this fall. What are you paying attention to, because they're often a good read on what's going to happen the next year? Well, I'm paying attention to the issues that voters are—that are driving voter turnout. That's what's going to be important to me. Is it going to be abortion? Is it democracy, the fragility of American democracy? Is it the economy? What's going to turn out voters, but specifically these independent voters that are going to make the difference? What do you think is going to really get them out this fall? Well, I think it's going to be abortion. I think it's going to be democracy. It's those two issues. Is that an issue from 2022? Absolutely. And that's what the president and his campaign are banking on. They're going to make those issues central to his argument, one we know for a fact—well, according to polls, 70 percent of independents don't want a candidate who's anti-abortion. And when it comes to democracy, half the country believes that Donald Trump is guilty of having cheated the election. So those are going to be two issues that they're going to keep very central to the argument, because it drives Democratic base, but it also drives independent, moderate Republican voters. And that's what's going to make the difference in all of these elections. Ashley's point about democracy brings up the question of former President Trump facing four criminal investigations, indictments. How is that going to affect not just the Republican race—and we've talked about that a ton—but how could it affect the general election next year? Yeah, who the heck knows? I mean, let's be honest, nothing about Donald Trump's campaigns have ever been conventional or easy to predict. So I do think that we're in unknown territory here. And just as, you know, oddly enough, half of America thought that being indicted was going to tank his campaign, the other half thought that it was going to be a rallying cry. It turns out it's the latter at the moment. I mean, since he's been indicted for the first time in New York, his polling numbers have gone up on The Real Clear Politics every— They're not sustained, though. But they've gone up. You get a bump, but you don't get—you have to sustain the numbers. You know, we're political people. It's all about betraying and sustaining the numbers. We could keep this conversation going all morning. We might just do that. For now, we'll be back in a moment. President Biden said last week there were positive signs in the August jobs report as wages outpaced inflation and the number of jobs added to the economy exceeded expectations. On Friday, we spoke with Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who just returned from her visit to China, and began by asking her why CBS News polling shows the administration's economic efforts are not resonating with some Americans. I think the reality is that inflation still exists, and it is, you know, something that people see on a daily basis when they go to the grocery store or pay their rent or pay their mortgage. And we have to know that. You know, that's still a challenge for folks. That being said, if you look at where we are today compared to when the president took office, it's an unbelievable story of progress. The economy – we're among the strongest economies in the world. We all went through COVID, right? Europe did, China did, Asia did, yet we have emerged the fastest and the strongest. So I don't want to minimize what Americans are feeling, and that's why we get up and go to work every day, but this economy by any measure is doing incredibly well and much better than anyone could have predicted, I think, three years ago when we started. The White House is working with Congress to hammer out an agreement on a short-term funding measure to avoid an October 1st partial federal government shutdown. When you talk to business leaders right now, are they worried about this deadline and what a shutdown could mean for the U.S. economy? Yes, they are worried. They are very worried. They are, I think in some cases, frustrated that this is how government operates. You know, what businesses need to be successful is predictability. You know, predictability, some semblance of, you know, regular order. And so these sorts of disruptions that are mainly driven by politics, it's a challenge for the economy and have the potential to set us back. So I do hope that there will be a speedy resolution. Secretary, you are the first commerce secretary in five years to be on the ground in China in recent days. What progress, if any, do you think you made on the ground there? I think we made a great deal of progress. In terms of concrete deliverables, I was able to open three specific lines of communication with the Chinese, which is a huge step forward. We haven't really had any contact in more than five years. So we agreed to share information about export controls. We agreed to open a dialogue on commercial issues, which is so important because China has not treated U.S. business fairly. And so we've got to put those issues on the table. And we agreed to have exchange around trade secrets, another area where businesses need to deserve to know that their trade secrets will be protected in China. You said on the trip that, quote, increasingly I hear from American business that China is uninvestable because it becomes too risky. So what exactly did you get in terms of those assurances from the Chinese that would really give confidence to American business leaders? They said that they would talk to American businesses and begin to address these issues. For example, one of the complaints I hear frequently from U.S. business, by the way, business who are used to doing business in difficult parts of the world, they say that China's regulations are not at all transparent. They'll raid a business in March and not explain what went on for many months. They will arrest folks but not provide due process or tell you what happened. And so when I expressed these concerns, I was heard. I wasn't given any promises. But one thing that I think we can take a bit of heart in is it's in China's interest, it's in their economic interest to have foreign direct investment and to make sure, you know, they had a very good economy when they were market-oriented and reform-minded. Do you trust the Chinese at this point? After all of your conversations, after digesting what happened on your trip, do you trust them? Trust is probably not the word I would use. We need to see action. And until we see action, there can be no trust. And they hacked into your own email account, so that might have hurt the ability to have a trustworthy relationship. Exactly. And I said that. You know, hacking my account erodes trust, undermining American workers by oversubsidizing certain industries erodes trust, treating American businesses unfairly on the ground erodes trust. When you were over there, did you get insights, if any, about whether the Chinese economy is slowing down, and how concerning would that be for the United States? I think there's no question that it is slowing down, and certainly they're having real, real significant challenges in the real estate sector, which they readily acknowledged when I was there. But again, to my mind, the facts are quite clear in this regard. When China was more market-oriented, open, you know, a little bit more transparent, their economy did very well. And more recently, as they have closed down and become more arbitrary in the way they administer regulations, the economy's quite challenged. So time will tell. And I'm often out on the campaign trail, Secretary, and I know you stay out of politics, but one thing I'm hearing from so many Republicans across the country, especially governors, they want to block Chinese companies from making investments and buying farmland in the United States. Does the Biden administration, and do you, support Chinese companies making investments and buying farmland in the United States? We have to be very, very careful. We have to screen every investment and make a decision as to whether it hurts our national security or not. Not every investment from China into America harms our national security, but many do. And so it's a case-by-case basis, looking into the facts and being as tough as we need to be, but also being, you know, realistic and not hyperbolic. Just being, like I say, practical. It's time to be practical, pragmatic, and serious about managing every aspect of this relationship. ROBERT COSTA. Secretary Raimondo, we appreciate you taking the time. Thank you. SECRETARY RAIMONDO. Thank you. Have a great Labor Day weekend. You can watch the full interview on our website, FaceTheNation.com. We'll be right back. As millions of students stream back to school, there is concern over the mounting learning loss many children experience during the COVID pandemic. Mark Strassman reports. Across America, the three-year pandemic erased decades of incremental gains in public schools and widened gaps between top and bottom performers. I hope that results like these are that wake-up call, right? My kids, our kids weren't in school. Harvard professor Andrew Ho is talking about widespread learning losses. In one study, today's third through eighth graders need roughly four months more instruction in math and reading to catch up to pre-pandemic students. The declines that we saw because of the pandemic won't just automatically undo themselves. Another post-pandemic issue, a doubling of chronic absenteeism in some states. After years of remote learning, millions of parents and kids see little point in going to school. Of particular concern... how to make sure that extra inequality that the pandemic caused doesn't become permanent. For many schools, it's shaping up as a daunting exercise in catching up. Pressure on teachers, pressure on schools, because there's no way kids can learn if there's no one to teach them. We are starting the school year with classrooms that do not have assigned teachers. It is a very real crisis. You can post a job and no one will apply. In 2021, the Biden administration gave school districts another $122 billion. 20% of that was earmarked for helping students recover academically. Among the spending, in-person and online tutoring. But experts say real gains will only come by working harder, faster, longer. The challenge right now is how to make that more appealing and to give the public a sense of urgency that we don't seem to currently have. That was Mark Strassman reporting. And that's it for us today. Thanks for watching. For Face the Nation, I'm Robert Costa.