mark: i'm mark halperin. john: i'm john heilemann. with all due respect to all those people floating the idea of chris christie being the new rnc chairman, we have five works for you. >> sit down and shut up. ♪ john: on the show tonight, trump's transition team, and one lean, mean howard dean. but first, it's been 23 days since donald trump became the

first -- making the president-elect -- became the president-elect of the united states area and we have not seen him much until today, when he held his first public event. trump is kicking off his victory lap thank you tour this week, but the first event took place this afternoon and indianapolis, where he basked in the glow of the deal with the carrier air-conditioning company to keep a thousand jobs for moving to mexico next year. in the speech, there was no shortage of self-aggrandizement, but is demeanor was calm, measured, and is tone was optimistic. -- he's tone was often -- his tone was optimistic. mr. trump: i want to let the companies know that we are going to do great things for businesses. your taxes will be at the logan did joe, and your unnecessary

-- will be at the low end, and your unnecessary regulations are going to be gone. it's becoming an industry, the writing of regulations. these companies are not going to be leaving anymore, they are not going to be taking people's hearts. john: trump is headed to cincinnati for the first of a series of victory rallies. mark, what do you think we are going to see from donald trump on the rest of this tour? mark: a very familiar guy, stream of consciousness, self-congratulation, an emphasis on winning, mocking the media. going to see from donald trump on the rest of this tour? mark: a very familiar guy, he did not call her crooked hillary, except that was very similar to a campaign event. it's interesting, you've got such great marks on his election night speech, i did not hear a lot about, either tone or those kinds of lines, but i will say that trump ran as a successful

political brand and him sized -- and emphasized winning. this is it area i think this is it. i think this is the version of president we will get come january. john: if that is right, and on the basis of the indianapolis event, and aims to suggest we will see a lot of campaign-style trump on this tour, it seems to me that it makes clearer than ever been this tour is not just about saying thank you, but it is about amazingly, and everyone is going to cringe when i say it, but it is really the first set of events of the 2020 reelection campaign. donald trump managed to win an election in a way that in some respects was predictable, and in others was totally shocking, but by winning these nitwits states -- these midwest states that have been part of the blue wall, iowa, pennsylvania, michigan,

indiana, in which he won by a lot, 19 points, he understands that if he is going to be reelected, he has to maintain a strong basis for his political support in those places, and this is what we are going to see for the next couple of days, hey, man, the permanent campaign is on, and i am already looking down the road. mark: i say this without a judgment about the merits. and i say this without really knowing the answer. i say this even though donald trump did not raise it. but the question is raised, why didn't the current president do this? i think donald trump implicitly, that was part of the victory lap. john: the answer is the current president did not want to do what is about to happen. the reason this deal happened is, it's about tax policy, not about a bunch of small inducements they got laid out. we heard about indiana's role in this, but this is a larger thing going on with carrier's parent

company. and wanting to stay in good stead in terms of defense contracts and the tax going forward. i don't think barack obama wanted to play the game. mark: so let's talk about the merits of this deal and whether it is in the public interest were not. in exchange for keeping those jobs in indiana, the hoosier state is going to give the company $7 million in incentives over the next few years. the bigger issue, as john just suggested, may be that carrier's parent company wants to have good standing with the incoming trump administration. that conglomerate is a major defense contractor in addition to making air conditioners and a lot of it businesses with the federal government. the firm is also going to benefit from the fact that trump, if he can, is going to try to cut corporate taxes and regulations. if the administration does that, they will benefit. lots of people do not like this deal, including vermont senator bernie sanders.

he is really peeved. published a scathing op-ed in "the washington post" today. he criticized trump for reversing on his campaign promise to slap tariffs on companies that try to flee the country and take jobs overseas. sanders said, instead of a tax, the company will be rewarded with a tax cut. how's that for standing up to corporate greed? we talked about this yesterday. there are more facts known about the agreement. what do you think? john: i'm not a big fan of tariffs, and i was never a big plan to slap on taxes. that is what sanders is referring to. what he said about carrier a few months ago was i'm going to make them pay a tax, and i was talking about slapping tariffs on companies that ship jobs overseas. i'm not a fan of that is public -- public policy. regardless of where you stand on

that, it is 180 degrees out from the deal he has cut with carrier, which is to promise to cut their taxes going forward. i think sanders is right to call out that this is a perfect reversal. as i said before, i'm not for tariffs, but that is what he said he was going to do. and he is doing the opposite. mark: there are lots of flaws with this, and i agree with those that are critical of it and say that if a democratic administration did this, they would be criticized for industrial policy, etc. i will say two things. the notion of a president cheerleading for drops in an improvisational way, i think there is a positive there. others will say other businesses will demand the same thing. i'm not sure that's true. i think there will potential he be a culture of doing the right thing, keeping jobs here, and trying to get a pr benefit from that, even if you don't get the same sized tax inducements and other breaks. john: i never thought i would call you pollyanna-ish.

it's the first time in the history of this show. pollyanna halperin. i never thought it would happen, but here we are. mark: this firm has gotten millions of dollars in free pr today. john: they will also probably get a tax cut worth millions. -- worth billions. anyway, donald trump'courtship with capitol hill is something to be of a political soap opera next year. vice president-elect mike pence met with congressional republicans yesterday, and both sides say they are ginning up some plans for a productive and definitely not same-sex union in the coming months. during a press conference today, house speaker paul ryan addressed questions about one hot button issue, medicare, which he described as "on a path of going bankrupt." ryan also says he is not going the route of privatizing medicare, which is something trump has not shown much interest in. during the campaign. trump begins to flesh out his proposals on immigration and the debt ceiling.

so, mark, is a donald trump and congress a love story or a looming lovers quarrel? mark: i think it is very close. right now there are substantive issues, particularly the debt ceiling, entitlement reform, the deficit -- there is a huge gap between what trump not only talked about, but what he will push for, and what the traditional republican position is. there is a huge issue about whether to cooperate with the democrats to try to get bipartisan support for things. these will become a cropper before too long. but it is trump's party. trump is the coequal branch that is more than coequal. my guess is that eventually paul ryan and mitch mcconnell will have to figure out how to accommodate themselves to ciara. -- to trump. i think this will go relatively smoothly, but we shall see.

john: i think that may be right on those issues where there can be a lot of common ground. like you said, i think mcconnell and ryan will see it as being in the party's political interest to give trump some wins. medicare reform. this is an issue we talked about all year long. part of the reason why all right and and donald not a match made in heaven is they fundamentally believe different things about the biggest challenges the country faces on questions of domestic spending. medicare is the biggest. paul ryan has a long record of saying what he wants to do with medicare. and donald trump wants to do something different. the question is, where do we go on that? it is literally the biggest program and the federal government. mark: and it comes to a head. it is so easy to say, let's repeal the row affordable care act and figure out how to replace it. you have to do it with medicare and medicaid, and i think republicans in congress will be reluctant to say they will get

rid of the affordable care act, but not -- exactly. there are some complexities, but right now it is going fairly smoothly. mike pence right at the center of it. we are going to take a break. and we come back, the former governor of vermont, who also happens to be the former chairman of the democratic party, you say howard, we say dean, after this. ♪

mark: and now our first guest, the former chair of the democratic committee, a job he is trying to go back and claim again.

from burlington vermont, the admin -- the former governor of vermont, the howard dean. dr. dean, thank you for joining us. people get asked all the time, why did hillary clinton lose? i will ask you this, why have democrats lost so many seats in house and senate and state legislatures over the past years? mr. dean: because they have not built a grassroots legislation. -- grassroots organization. think thisticularly is a barack obama problem. every time we have a democratic president, the dnc becomes the way of the reelect until the actual campaign starts. what happens is the committee gets pretty hollowed out. 50-state strategy p much died. there has not been attention for a long time paid to what the republicans have done well, which is school board member city counselors, mayors, that is what really drives the party.

we haven't really invested in that. we do have a branch of the democratic legislative council, but we don't fund it. some strong we organization has to be done. mark: that's a pretty long list. you like straight talk. you like accountability. name two of the people who share part of the blame for the dynamics you described. mr. dean: not going there. next. appreciate the ask. no. mark: if you are not willing to say, this person did not do it right, how is there any accountability? if it were a republican who made mistakes, you would say this republican messed us up. why won't you name names in your own party? mr. dean: because i am in the business of trying to keep the party together. one of the things i want to avoid is the fight between the centers and clinton supporters -- between the bernie sanders

supporters and the hillary clinton supporters over this chairmanship nomination. everybody has people they are going to blame. what is the point of my getting in that game? john: a smart guy ready pretty -- wrote a pretty interesting story in "the new york times" yesterday that talked about areas where the democratic party could conceivably, if it wanted to and thought it was part of the solution to revitalize, moved to the center, particularly on cultural issues that might be problematic for the party where identity politics have run out against some of the realities of the white working-class voters that donald trump appealed to. do you think that is what the party needs to do to try to make inroads with that constituency that used to be a co-part of the -- that used to be a core part of the democratic coalition? mr. dean: no. first of all, we need to stop talking about white working-class people and start talking about working-class people. if you don't like identity politics, we need to stop talking about white

working-class people. all colors face problems. we need to be a broad party that deals with people on economic grounds, which means that all working-class people who got screwed in the last 20 years. evidently, they are going to get screwed again by trump. for him to invest 7 million dollars in taxpayers' money for 800 jobs while another 500 went to mexico, that's a great pr deal in the first months or so after he has been elected president, but no governor in the country of either party knows that that's sustainable. i think we need to organize better, and we've got to reach out on economic grounds and show that we are the party of people who are going to help people like that who are struggling. john: you did an interview the other day with canadian ctv news where you referred to steve bannon as a nazi?

i am wondering if you genuinely believe he is a nazi. mr. dean: that's not a word i'd use without thinking about it carefully. so let's look at breitbart news. they are anti-semitic. they have been blunt about that. they are certainly misogynistic. they have been very blunt about that. they have not stood up for the -- they are white supremacists. they have been very blunt about that. i think that's a fair word to describe that kind of attitude. i don't think it along to the white house. john: those are critical comments, and i lot of them are saying something different. you are saying steve bannon is a nazi, so i want to make sure that's what you actually believe. mr. dean: steve bannon ran breitbart news. he was the one who published it. it was his baby after breitbart himself passed away. he is responsible for the content, and i think he owes america on apology and explanation.

mark: dr. dean, i wanted to move to a different topic, but i've got to ask you again. you used the phrase reportedly before in an interview. are you standing by at? is he a nazi in your view, or not? mr. dean: he is all the things i just said, and i do not back off from any of it. mark: in the coming months, a lot of democrats would like to see new young people emerge as faces of the party, leaders of the party. who are two or three young democrats who you think cap the -- who you think have the stature, the knowledge, the vision to become part of the mosaic face of the democratic party? dr. dean: so far there are three of them running for the dnc. not including me, because i am old. i like the idea of new blood. so far, the only candidate who fits the bill is jamie harrison. i don't think we can have a two-chair dnc.

we tried that. it did not work well. i don't think we can have a sitting congressperson as chair of the dnc. that did not work well. i want to see younger people run the dnc. i don't have to be the chair. but it's got to be done right. this is a mechanical job. we don't focus on the mechanics and go around during and not of the time, doing the groundwork, we are not going to be better off than we are now. mark: should the dnc continue to raise money from wall street interests? dr. dean: we should raise money from anybody who we can raise money from. john: there is a story up on cnn today about keith ellison that talks about something we have known about that has been part of the public record for a while, which is his long defense of the nation of islam and defending louis farrakhan, in particular against accusations of anti-semitism. do you think it is problematic

at all, this history that ellison has in terms of defending farrakhan in the nation of islam? dr. dean: i like keith a lot. i campaigned with him when he first got elected, because i thought it was important that he be in congress representing american muslims, which he has done a good job of. i think people evolved, and the remarks he made in 2010 may not be appropriate today. i don't think you can defend louis farrakhan. but i think keith is an honorable, decent person who is not an anti-semite, and i don't make a big deal out of those marks. people change, they learned, they grow. hopefully we will see change from donald trump. john: howard dean, thank you. mark: dr. dean, thank you very much. when we come back, we will talk to kurt andersen about the election of the guy he has not

always gotten along with, donald trump. ♪

♪ john: welcome back. at our next guest has been writing about donald trump for decades. he is an author and host of a radio show. he has written for "the new yorker" and "time" magazine. he is also the founder of the legendary spy magazine, which donald trump what's called a piece of garbage. we are joined by cody anderson. great to have you here. i know you are horrified by trump's election, but are you totally surprised? kurt: i'm not as totally

surprised as many people, because i did not think it was as beyond possibility as everyone else did. i think that when he decided to run, i was already in the middle of a book, essentially arguing that america had evolved over the last hundreds of years to a place where anything like donald trump could happen. the lack of care for them. -- lack of care for empirical reality, offers instance, sort up -- sort of teed us up for some of my donald trump. john: forget about the campaign donald trump, because it seems to me that the campaign donald trump and that donald trump are different. there are some things that are similar, other things that are different. what kind of donald trump do you expect now? kurt: the thing that always struck me and amazed me about

donald trump was his need for attention, this pathological need for as much attention as possible for whatever reason under any circumstances. for the president of the united states, that's about as much attention as you can get. so will he now become a happy and fulfilled person? i don't think so, because i think he also has a large hole in his soul that will not be sewed up by the constant attention. so what can we expect? i think we can expect a guy who does not know what he is doing. apart from, he is used to attention and used to deference. presidents get both of those. but he is not used to governing, not used to the consensus, listening to different opinions and figuring that out. he is not used to having tens of

hundreds of thousands of people working for him. as a new york businessperson, he ran a pretty tight ship in terms of people not leaking, talking publicly about dirty laundry. that can't happen. it is going to be a very different thing for him. john: you still maintain that he has unusually short fingers, right? kurt: yes, and that he says bigly. john: stick around. if you are in washington, d.c., you can listen to us on the radio. we will be back. ♪

♪ mark: we are back with the host with the most, the host of 360 radio, kurt andersen.

as you have dealt with hillary clinton clinton supporters, democrats, where are they impressionistic leave regarding adjusting to the notion of president trump? kurt: well, like all trauma and horror, there is a half-life, and i think that people are coming to grips with it. there are interesting arguments going on among the liberal elite in which i spend a lot of time over, ok, should we keep calling every trump voter a racist or not? those kinds of discussions and debates. but there is also, i will say, a great eagerness among hillary voters, among democrats, among liberals, and not just young ones, to become engaged politically in a way that people have not been beyond sharing things on facebook.

creating new entities and joining old entities. that seems like a real thing to me, that people are signing up for the resistance, quote unquote. mark: andy you agree with me, he cares about what elites in new york think about him. he wants kurt andersen to think trump's awesome, right? kurt: he does care about what he elites think, and they have never accepted him. to me, one of the stories of donald trump for the last 30 or 40 years in new york city is this rich-and-tunnel borough guy who, despite his wealth, despite

it all, has not ever been able to crack the elite. he feels that contempt and will continue to feel that contempt. indeed, the fact that voters in michigan, indiana, and alabama felt his feeling of that content contempt of the elite is one of the reasons he thought, oh, he's like me except he's got a billion dollars and a hot wife. mark: but do you think it's possible when he is negotiating with republican conservatives in congress that he will think, well, this might be good for a working class voter in indiana, but maureen dowd will not like it one bit? kurt: it depends on the audience at the moment, and who he is trying to get over at a certain moment. the "new york times" meeting is going -- was really telling. i think you are going to like what i do on the first amendment, with climate change. we will see how passing and glancing that is, or if that's just what he had to say that our in order for it to not be

uncomfortable, or if you want a more meaningful affirmation from the elite, which he will get your yet if he were smart enough, he would not have to do that much to make plenty of people say, well, i was surprised. they would say, i'm surprised. he really did do this big infrastructure thing and did not do this crazy constitution busting thing. it would not require much move to the center precincts for him to get the credit that he has always craved. john: what do you think about what people think about hillary clinton at this point? if i would be enraged at the clinton campaign and the ways in which they failed at some basic fundamental political tasks, like the idea that hillary clinton never visited wisconsin. this was an inevitably defendable opponent, and she

managed to somehow screw up and lose states like michigan, wisconsin, iowa. i don't detect as much rage about that as i expect or expected. kurt: and she lost pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin by a total of 80,000 votes. if she wins those three states, she would be president. so yeah, although beyond a certain group of professional work was a professional democrats, really? how much time are you going to spend thinking, oh, they get out the vote was bad? it's over. it's like saying, oh, we got in this accident and i lost my legs and i'm paralyzed, but we could have -- the trauma is too great to get into the weeds of incrimination.

-- the weeds of recrimination. john: so if you are a democrat, you are not going to blame hillary clinton, but you want to join the resistance. presumably you also want to rehabilitate the democratic party and figure out why the democratic party -- i assume there are a lot of liberals out there whose attitude is, this is what i should be doing. we should have a party that can win back statehouses, the senate, and the presidency, none of which we currently control. what is that thinking, or are they all turned off? in your experience, our people turning away from the democratic party? kurt: again, i never would have put democrat high in the list of things i consider myself. john: but you hang out with a lot of democrats. kurt: i do. i think the love for barack obama, which is continuing, i think has made a lot of people feel like obama-ites, which is a

preferable brand to be a democrat -- to being a democrat. sure, i knew some enthusiasts for hillary, but not many. i think a lot of them felt that i am a immigrant to a degree so i will vote for hillary but , leave me out of that. and young people, my millennial children, they are appalled and freaked out by president donald trump, but they are not taking necessarily, i'm going to go in and change the democratic party. there were -- they were also bernie sanders primary supporters, and remain so. so that battle between essentially the socialist part of the democratic party and the mnuchin part of the democratic party, the regular centrist wall street part, will be ongoing.

but it is not the same way that the republican trump days base rejected the republican establishment, but it is analogous. there's not the anger, but there is not the "i am jazzed to fix it." mark: thank you. we will be talking about donald trump's thank you tour, right after this. ♪

♪ mark: some was i news on the trump transition today. very big names are now being floated for some very big positions. they're considering joe manchin to potentially be energy secretary. meanwhile, chris christie is said to be kind of poking around for the republican national committee chair job. sarah palin is apparently under consideration, amongst several other positions, for the veterans' affairs department job. john, to these make any sense? john: the one that makes most sense is joe manchin for the energy department. it would be a good part on -- a good job on trump's part to reach out to a democrat. joe manchin is much more centrist and conservative than most of the democratic party. those other two choices, though, sarah palin for the department of veterans affairs, is a laughable choice, not just because she is not a veteran, but the size of the bureaucratic

challenge of running the department is so big that putting sarah palin in that job seems even more ludicrous than putting chris christie at the top of the rnc, given how many republicans don't like chris christie. mark: even if he married her up with a deputy secretary that was very detail oriented, that job requires such intense focus right now, it is not really make sense to do it. there is also talk tonight that perhaps the secretary of state slot is being expanded in terms of who is being looked at. i thought yesterday that trump was pretty much coming down between romney and bob corker, but now it appears it is possibly being expanded, and it has really become the biggest mystery of where trump is headed. john: we have also seen reporting this afternoon about james mattis, retired general who has been considered the

front-runner has the potential head of the pentagon. that was floated from a couple of new sources. as you of new sources. the trump campaign knocked it down and said that no decision has been made. it seems like he is the front-runner for that job. mattis is obviously very conservative, but many of the military think he is eminently qualified for the job. the question is whether he would be on an almost inevitable collision course with the nsc and what general flynn, having two hardheaded, controversial, highly opinionated generals, one inside the white house and one at the pentagon, that seems to be a recipe for trouble, for sure, if that's where we end up going. mark: one of the things people are wondering is what kind of

national security advisor is flynn going to be? most people think he will be in the kissinger model. how flynn will therefore interact with all the other people in the national security slot, not just defense and state but also cia, dni, etc.. and what is mike pence is role? -- mike pence's role? what is president trump's role going to be as well. john: mathis has very strong opinions. one of his virtues that people say he has is that he is a straight talker. he is willing to express controversial views to anybody. he would be a strong leader in the pentagon. we have seen turf war between the head of the nsc and predictably the pentagon in the past. even those two guys, both generals with strong points of view who express them freely, that would be one of the first very big bureaucratic tangles you would see in the administration, and maybe the most consequential.

mark: with donald trump in ohio tonight on the victory tour, we will talk about what it all means after these words from our sponsors. ♪

♪ john: we are joined with metta a gold from "the washington post." i have so many questions for you, but let's start with the questions of what you thought about yesterdays trump statements with relation to how he may or may not trying to disentangle himself from his bid -- from his business ventures. we talked about it yesterday on the show. what are your thoughts?

guest: it does not actually answer any questions about whether he will be able to effectively while himself off from these potential conflicts of interest. he already indicated he was going to hand over the management of the trump organization to his children, but that does not change his ownership or the fact that his name is emblazoned on all these hotels and resorts. i think the devil is in the details. it's very interesting to see the normally-state office of governmental ethics overtaken by a strange tweet storm yesterday suggesting that he needed to divest himself of all of his holdings, which i think we are very unlikely to see. john: it seems to me we are headed on a collision course, where basically every ethics specialist, republican and democrat, all kind of agree that the only way to deal with this conflict of interest thing is to liquidate all his businesses and put his money in a blind trust. it seems he is not interested in

either. so if you are on a collision course, what happens if trump takes some half-measures? matea: i think unless there is a potential measure in place to flag complex and avoid some of these landmines, every single time there is a policy issue before the new president that intersects with his business interests, but -- it is going to be a story and he will have to answer questions about it. i know they realize this, and they are deep in conversation and planning of trying to deal with it. several have suggested that he should appoint some kind of independent overseer who could flag potential conflicts. but this is unprecedented. we have never had a president with these kinds of holdings in the united states and abroad. i think it will dock him every step of the way.

mark: speaking of precedent, washington is filled with staff lobbyists and hired guns for corporations across america. how do you think they are viewing what is happening when with carrier -- what is happening with carrier, and the implications of that? matea: we have done some reporting about this today. there is no question that trump's decision to personally get involved in this case and also pledged to crack down on companies and punish them with consequences if they tried to move their operations overseas has really engendered a lot of worry in the corporate suites, and i think what is really an arming businesses that are otherwise pretty happy about the cabinet appointment's he is this sense of uncertainty. are they going to be targeted next? are they going to come under pressure for trying to outsource jobs? i think there is a lot of consternation in the is this community about how this is going to play out.

mark: is it clear which lobbyists and lobbying firms are now, based on some perceived closeness to trump, are now after byhly sought corporate interests? matea: obviously, anyone who has worked for the vice president-elect mike pence is in high demand. we have also seen staffers who worked for jeff sessions coming aboard as lobbyists. anyone who has a connection to the new cabinet is going to be sought after. we are also going to see, despite the trump transition's pledge to keep lobbyists far from the administration, we are going to see a lot of those folks playing a big role. they simply have to do register as lobbyists. -- de-register as lobbyists. john: there is a lot about the goldman sachs heaviness of what seems to be shaping up in the administration, especially of gary cohen is up running the office of management and budget. a lot of squawking about this.

a lot pointing out the hypocrisy of it, the way donald trump attacked hillary clinton for her connections to wall street. will anything, that, or does trump have a free hand to dip as deeply as he wants into the goldman pool? matea: i think it will be very interesting to see how he is received at these victory rallies. this is the first time we have a chance to see has reporters respond to him since he has made some of these decisions. i don't know how much the intricacy of the names being floated has sunk in with some people, but there has been a lot of focus on the fact that trump's will be filled with -- that trump's cabinet will be filled with billionaires, with donors, with people who come from wall street, so i don't think it is a coincidence that they wanted to triumph the carrier deal and really give a nod to his pledge to working people. it is a balancing act. these are people he knows and trusts and wants to put in these positions, but it also seems to

cut against the rhetoric he used repeatedly on the campaign trail. against the rhetoric he used repeatedly on the campaign trail attacking hillary clinton. john: we talked earlier on the show about trump in congress -- trump and congress, potential areas where there could be trouble ahead. give us a sense of, when you look down the road, where the biggest stumbling blocks are when trump works with republicans. put aside the democrats for now. matea: i think immigration will be something to watch. there is a lot of anxiety about whether there will be forced to try to craft a bill that will address the broad policy goals he has laid out. those are the details a lot of congressional leaders don't want to get into, when it comes to a wall. and corporate tax reform is something there is a lot of optimism about. paul ryan said it today. he deflected on the question about carrier and said, well, i don't know all the details, but what we are pushing is a broad corporate tax reform that will

be a boon to all businesses. i think that's where we will see a lot of action and perhaps avoidance from the hot button issues that got attention during the campaign. mark: at this point, what are your unanswered questions about how trump is organizing his government? matea: i am very curious about what kind of access people have who weren't part of the inner circle. he is clearly bringing in people to meet with him who were not part of the campaign were are even democrats. how much of those conversations are shaping his thinking? it is interesting how struck he was by his conversation with romney, and whether he gets picked as secretary of state will be very telling, but i think there will be a little bit of a battle between people who have been at his side for a long time, and some of the newer voices coming in. john: the great matea gold.

it was delightful as always. we will be right back with a special word about tomorrow's program. ♪

♪ john: mark, i bet you were not aware that today is our 525th episode of "with all due respect." you might be more aware of what tomorrow is. tomorrow is not only our 526th, but it is -- it's also our -- go on, say it. mark: who are you talking to, me? john: yeah. last scheduled

show. we will have a very special episode scheduled for you. you won't want to miss it. john: we've got jeff goldblum, jeff daniels. mark: shush. we have a lot of special surprises. say farewell to the north american viewing audience. john: the montages will kill you. you will laugh and you will cry. meanwhile, you can visit bloombergpolitics.com to read about donald trump's potential business conflict. "bloomberg technology" is up next. until our last daily show, i will say to you, me, and mark, sayonara. ♪

♪ i am rishaad salamat. haidi: i am haidi lun. this is "bloomberg markets: asia." ♪ rishaad: asian stocks on the slide along with the dollar as the trump rally runs out of steam. haidi: the president elect repeats his valve to make america great again. launderingngapore

breaches. china will waive capital gains taxes for foreign investors when the hong kong-shenzhen stock exchange opens next week. straight to the markets. juliette: an interesting comment from james woods saying this buying spree looks exhausted. we are seeing some weakness in asian markets today. tech stocks under pressure, similar to the u.s. the australian market giving up gains we saw yesterday, the asx 200 down .6%. down .7%, also under pressure, casino players being sold off again today. the yen continues to extend its rebound against the dollar.