MS. TUMULTY: Good morning. I’m Karen Tumulty. I’m a columnist here at The Washington Post, and I write about politics. And I want to thank you for joining us in the latest in our series Coronavirus: Leadership During Crisis. This morning our guest is Governor Chris Sununu, the 82nd governor of the state of New Hampshire. Welcome, Governor, and thank you so much for joining us.

GOV. SUNUNU: Well, thank you for having me. This is great. So excited.

MS. TUMULTY: Yes, I wish--I wish we could be up there in New Hampshire, where, as I recall, spring is lovely, and summer is just absolutely gorgeous. I assume--do you think people will be able to be out there this summer and enjoying summer in New Hampshire in anything that resembles a normal fashion?

GOV. TUMULTY: Oh, yeah. I tell people all the time plan big. Summer's going to be really strong here in New Hampshire. It's going to look a lot like--a lot more like 2019 than 2020. I think there's going to be a lot of cash out in the economy. Tourism's going to be booming. Everyone who wants a vaccine is getting their vaccines right now. Restrictions, the few remaining restrictions that we do have, I don't think they're going to be there at all, frankly. And we're kind of getting back to normal. I think with--we've already had, you know, one of the stronger economies in the country, never mind the Northeast. And I think just there's just this overwhelming swell of people that say, look, I got robbed of a vacation in 2020, I got robbed of a few things. We had to make sacrifices, and the folks in this state did very well, especially across New England. But people want to be out there, and they want to get back to normal, and New Hampshire's going to be the place to do it.

MS. TUMULTY: So, could you talk a little bit about the trends that you're seeing? The numbers are coming down, but you say there is still a ways to go. What do you mean by that?

GOV. SUNUNU: Sure. So, I'm an engineer by trade. I was a civil and an environmental engineer for many years, and so I'm very data driven in terms of what we do. I also look at trends and cycles and systems. So early on, to take a step back, you know, the number of cases that we had last year in the first spring surge, in the second fall surge, those were really critical numbers. And then you match that with hospitalizations and the fatalities, and all those seem to trend together, unfortunately. And obviously, we all experienced the fall surge.

Also recognize New Hampshire, I'm 30 minutes north of Boston, so we're effectively--I call us the tax-free suburb of Boston. But Boston was very hard hit, just a couple hours out of New York. You know, these were the hardest-hit places on the planet at one point. And so, you know, making sure that we did things kind of our way, maybe a little bit different, was going to be very important so we could get those numbers down.

And what we are seeing is a divergence, which is good, which is hospitalizations and fatalities continue to drop. The number of people getting vaccine is skyrocketing. And the number of cases has--you know, went way down and has now kind of leveled off. And I think--I've always predicted--we're--we think we're going to see this kind of leveling off, maybe even a slight increase, potentially for the rest of the year. COVID is something I think all of us are going to have live with and manage through. What the key is, is getting the vaccine to the most vulnerable population, to those who can most be affected by it with severe symptoms or those fatalities, and we've done that very, very well here. And so, you know, we shouldn't be waiting for COVID to go to zero. That's probably just not going to happen. But we have to get it to a point where we can manage it, not overrun the healthcare system, provide appropriate therapeutics. And that's really where we are and where all the trends say we--you know, in the next few weeks I'm not saying we're out of this. We're going to be in COVID for potentially years. But we're out of the crisis mode of it, right? We're out of the--you know, the restrictions and all of those things that have really hindered our everyday lives.

MS. TUMULTY: And yet last week President Biden urged governors not to lift the mask mandates, and the head of the CDC spoke in terms of impending doom. Do you share that assessment on things like mask mandates?

GOV. SUNUNU: I don't share those assessments, but I'll say this. When folks out of Washington are saying those things, remember, they're talking about the entire country, right? A lot of times when you're in an emergency or crisis mode, you're really looking at--I don't want to use the term lowest common denominator, but the areas of highest risk, right? So, the areas that are kind of the most troublesome spots. And so, when it comes to Washington, Washington isn't going to say this part of the country is okay and that state's doing better and that state's not doing as well. They're kind of making blanket assumptions, which is why fundamentally I don't think Washington should be doing much from a top-down perspective. I think when states have the ability and the flexibility to design systems to take care of these crises their own way, that that's where we can be the most successful. So, while I appreciate the sentiments out of Washington--they're looking at three hundred and, you know, fifty million people across the country, here in New Hampshire we've just been very successful. We're one of the fastest states to roll out vaccines, one of the lowest fatality rates in the country, one of the strongest economies. We found that balance. And I think it's a very strong and good balance to get people back to work.

Look, I've got 3.3 percent unemployment, and we're managing COVID very well on the other page of it. So in in finding that balance, I would just say states know their dynamics, they know their populations, they know where the trends are within those populations for the COVID, for the vaccine distribution, how fast it is getting it out. I'm just a big believer that states can always at a more localized level manage better.

And then you take it--right?--all the way down to cities and towns. I'm a big believer in that as well, local control, because citizens have more input. And when citizens have more input in the progress, I think the leadership has a better understanding of the flexibilities they can and cannot provide. Washington is just so removed. That's just the fundamental nature of it. It's just so removed from what's happening on the ground that while I appreciate those sentiments, it really doesn't pertain to New Hampshire.

MS. TUMULTY: You know, so much has been politicized during this--during this pandemic, things that really shouldn't have been politicized, like whether or not you wear a mask. And the latest hot button is the so-called vaccine passports that just this morning in Texas Governor Abbot signed an executive order saying businesses couldn't order them. Why do you think--why do you think this is happening now, and how do you feel about it? Because you do have to--in most school systems, for instance--of children to go to school, with few exceptions, have to be vaccinated.

GOV. SUNUNU: Let's remember. This is still an experimental vaccine. This is not a fully approved vaccine. None of these are, and probably won't be for some time. So just that alone tells me that we shouldn't be mandating anything. As soon as you get into the vaccine passport, the have and the have nots, that type of disparity, you're going to create a lot of problems in society, frankly, who--let me see your vaccine card to get into here and what not. So, I'm very hesitant about any of that. We want everyone to get the vaccine. We have one of the highest uptakes of vaccine in the country. We're very proud of that, here in New Hampshire. But at the end of the day, it is an individual's choice.

Now can private businesses have certain restrictions and mandates on their employees and potentially even their customers? Yes, I think a lot of that still has to play out in the courts, frankly. I think there's a lot of questions. The reason this is coming up is because we're doing so well, I think, as a country getting this vaccine out. It started late last year. It's going much faster than a lot of folks thought. And so, we're kind of getting to the end of the road here where, you know, by the end of May everyone should at least have their first shot, if not fully vaccinated. And so, it's that next question of, well, what's okay and what isn't. But at the end of the day, these passports, carrying your card around to prove that you've been vaccinated, I think you're asking for a lot of problems there. And with an experimental vaccine at that, it just--it's ripe with--I think you're going to get pushback not just from the Republicans or Democrats or--from everybody. And so, I just think it's not the right path for us at this time.

MS. TUMULTY: And so obviously at the top of I think just about everyone's priority list here is getting the schools reopened. And there's been some controversy between you and the teachers in your state because of the way you prioritized vaccine distribution, putting first responders and the elderly first in line. Could you talk a little bit about your own decision making as you were trying to figure out in this rollout how it was going to work?

GOV. SUNUNU: You bet. The decision, actually, we made it very simple. Those with a limited amount of vaccine being delivered to states, those at highest risk come first. It really boils down just to that. If you are an individual that are at a higher risk of another individual, we're going to try to get you the vaccine, or your option to get the vaccine first. So that's long-term care. That's healthcare workers--right?--because they take care of that vulnerable population. First responders, because they're also part of that care. And so that's really where we started, with those individuals. Then we went to the--you know, the 65 and up, and then 50 and up, and we just keep parsing it out by age group from there. You know, we got letters--we got letters from the Broadcaster Association of America saying broadcasters should be vaccinated first. We obviously got letters from the teachers' union, from the meatpacking association, from the auto dealers. I mean, everybody sent letters about why their employees should be first, why they're essential, and all of that. When you start picking and choosing people solely based on employment but not based on risk, you really get into, again, picking winners and losers and politics and all that sort of nonsense.

The only other group other than healthcare workers and first responders that we did prioritize was teachers. We made them our group 2A group. There's about 50,000 teachers here in New Hampshire. I think we got them all within--into our system in about two weeks. It worked really, really well. But again, you know, the question I had to put forth was, look, should a 30-year-old healthy teacher get a vaccine before a 65-year-old grandmother that has been waiting patiently for a year? Well, no, that doesn't make much sense. The grandmother has to go first. She is clearly of higher risk.

But once we got through that elderly population that made up about 97 percent of our fatalities in New Hampshire, then we did teachers, because we wanted to make sure that they felt comfortable getting back. A lot of it isn't just the risk level, it's the comfort of getting back into the classroom, and we appreciate that. And by doing that, we were able to move them through the system. Most teachers have all at least had their first shot, if not fully vaccinated, and we're pushing to get kids back to school by April 19th, not just a couple days a week but five days a week back to normal--whatever normal is--you know, with some guidelines in there. And we think most schools can adhere to those guidelines. But, you know, getting kids back to five days a week, it's so important. I mean, that's really the--other than the fatalities of COVID, the second biggest victim of the COVID crisis is these kids, the mental health aspects, the socialization, the issues of child abuse that has gone undetected and unseen across this country. It's really--it's really severe. And so that's where we're putting a lot of our efforts. Getting those kids into the classroom is one of the best steps we can take to help rectify those situations.

MS. TUMULTY: Well, we have a question here from one of your New Hampshire constituents. And Thea Lahti--I hope I'm not butchering the pronunciation of Thea Lahti's name--she asks why did you ease COVID-19 restrictions when public health officials were announcing the surge of the more contagious variant that could be anticipated across the United States?

GOV. SUNUNU: So, again, when you look--when you look at the variants that are out there, there's no evidence to say that the vaccines are not working on the variants, right? So, we're starting to get the vaccine out very, very quickly. We understand it could be more contagious. But under that guise, we would be trying to get COVID to--you know, would be managing this to get COVID to nothing, to not have COVID here, which would be great, but we know that's not really practical. We know there's still going to be transmission of the virus. One--a couple of these variants could be more contagious. If you just keep playing the game of waiting for all the variants to go away, that's probably not going to happen, either. I mean, I think it's likely to assume that over the next few we're going to see more variants come to bear. At some point you have to make the decision, based on risk, with the vaccine being available, with working on the variants. Technically, there's no additional risk. There's more risk of transmission, but there's not necessarily a higher risk of fatality or overrunning the healthcare system, which is why all these restrictions were put in in the first place. The restrictions weren't put in place to get rid of COVID. They were put in place to make sure that what we saw in Italy, in China, in other parts of Europe early on back in February and March of last year, people were literally dying in their homes. We saw that. It was tragic. We don't want that here. We don't want to overrun our system. We want to have the appropriate services for those individuals, which is why we made the restrictions, did everything we could to reduce the transmission. But again, with the variants, they're alarming, and we watch them very, very closely. But they are not the end all, be all of just stopping the process of moving forward and getting back to normal.

MS. TUMULTY: Now, one of the things, too, that has happened is the passage of this gigantic $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package out of Washington.

GOV. SUNUNU: A lot of money.

MS. TUMULTY: A lot of money. It had a lot in there about getting vaccines out, about opening schools, a lot of economic relief to families that have really been struggling under all of this. And I have seen figures that suggest that New Hampshire, on a per capita basis, was one of the states that got the highest amount of relief under this bill. But you said that if you had been in the Senate, you would have voted against it. Can you explain why?

GOV. SUNUNU: Well, a couple things. If I was in the Senate, I would have fixed it. I think that's the difference. It just took one senator to stand up and say, look, the way they have changed the formula--and they kind of came in with a last-minute change on the formula that said we're not going to do it like the previous bills and give dollars out per capita. We're going to adjust the formula. And while, for example, New Hampshire saw a 20 percent increase over the CARES Act money we got--that's great--California saw a 270 percent increase over the CARES Act money they got. They didn't have any revenue losses--just like we didn't. We managed very well. We didn't have any revenue losses. But they get--they get that type of increase. New York, New Jersey, these states got billions of dollars more above and beyond what they would have gotten under the original formula, and my citizens have to pay for it. That's not fair. That's not fundamentally fair. It was a change of the formula. And so, we--all I said was, could some--one Senator on the Democrat side stand up and say I think we just need to be a little more about this? This is a crisis. This is a stimulus bill, effectively. I mean, there was some good money in there. The $1,400 checks were great. Some assistance for unemployment was really, really good. Some of the stuff that came in for vaccine and testing, that was great. You know, there wasn't a whole lot in there that had to do with COVID, but what was in there was very, very helpful. We're very appreciative.

But when it comes to all these other dollars coming out, we lost about 250 million compared to what we normally would have gotten. These other states got billions. The citizens of New Hampshire shouldn't be bailing out Mario--Andrew Cuomo--not Mario, god bless his soul--but Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsome, especially in states that didn't have revenue loss. So, it just didn't make fundamental sense, and so that's where I--it wasn't that--so much that, you know, we should shoot down the bill. It just took one person to fix it. And I'm a big believer you can always find a path to fixing something, to making it better, to making it more equitable.

MS. TUMULTY: So, we've new passed the one-year mark where I think just about every aspect of daily life has really changed for all of us. And we've talked to a number of governors about what they have learned along the way. And I was wondering if you could reflect on that. I mean, what did you see going into this a year ago? What do you know now that you wish you had understood then? And is there anything that you think you could have done better?

GOV. SUNUNU: Well, you know, when I reflect on the year, I'll tell you, when--people, I think, heard this quite a bit, and it's very true. Every governor had to basically write their own playbook for a game that had never been played. We were I'll use the word scrambling, right? We--a lot of folks in state government, you know, went remote. You know, here in New Hampshire you have one of the smallest gubernatorial staffs in the country. We run very tight. We're accessible. And you know, we really had a core group of about five or 10 of us working with emergency services to figure it all out.

I think that the most important lesson I learned through the process was the value of transparency. So very early on, because it was a crisis, I made the decision that we were going to be super transparent about everything we did. Every day I was going to do a press conference. I was never going to cut a press conference off before everyone in the press asked everything they wanted to ask. And to this day, I do that. I've never left a press conference with more questions to be asked. I always wait, anything else, anything else--because two reasons.

Number one, transparency is the foundation of public trust. And in a crisis, public trust is what you need. And when we saw we're all in this together, you can say it. But the best way to do it is to truly be out there. And by getting all those questions from the press--you know, sometimes for an hour, an hour and a half a day, it allowed me to understand what some of the anxieties were, right? Because in a crisis, you have to understand the anxieties to put the right priorities forward to address those solutions. You have to have empathy with what's going on out there. What are those individuals facing on a daily basis about their kids not going to school, potentially losing their job, the health issues surrounding the crisis, vulnerability of the elderly?

So, you have to really connect with that. And the best way to do it in a time when we're not allowed to connect really with anybody was through those press conferences. I went on live TV, and I take live questions off Facebook on a moment's notice with no--with no kind of preparation, because I wanted to know what was out there. That was a hugely valuable tool in the process.

One thing I think early on we had to rely on the federal government and FEMA to come through for PPE and things like that, that was not good. That did--that system just did not work very well. There were a lot of promises made. In a crisis, you have to set the appropriate expectations, and meet or exceed them. You should do that all times in life. But the worst thing you should do is to say we're going to do X and then fall short of it. You don't--you don't win any points and impress anybody with making grandiose announcements. You do it by coming through with results. And so that's--we wanted to be very results-oriented here.

Early on, I had to really scramble and use a lot of my private connections here in New Hampshire and overseas. We became one of the best states in the country to bring in PPE. We got really, really good at it. But that was through not relying on big government. If anything, we were doing our best not to make sure the federal government was confiscating our PPE coming across the border, because that was an issue at the time.

But we created a great partnership with FedEx, Dean Kamen, an entrepreneur and inventor and a business owner here in New Hampshire and some of the folks overseas to get PPE--and at such a rate, frankly, that even the federal VA starting buying their PPE from the state of New Hampshire. We didn't have the same barriers that they had. They couldn't supply PPE to the VAs all across the country. So, we got to the point where we bring it in, they buy it from us, we do it again, and again, and again. And we've done dozens and dozens of flights. And then that PPE, when it lands in New Hampshire, then gets distributed all across the country to our veterans, we're very proud to be able to do that. So being innovative outside of the government sphere was a hugely valuable asset to us. And I think there's really great lessons to be learned there.

And again, you know, as we come out of the crisis, I think there's still a lot of lessons to be learned. We're trying to come out, flexing open our economy, flexing open opportunity. I call it at the speed of consumer confidence, right? We could just rip everything off and say, okay we're done with all--vaccinations are coming out, we're done with everything in terms of restrictions. But that isn't the speed at which the--I think the citizenry is looking to come out of this crisis. They still have their anxieties. You have to appreciate that, and you have to work with that in a lot of different ways. So, you know, how we flex open is a lot of times based on not just the realities of the virus but also the feedback we're getting.

I think we're just weeks away from really opening everything up here in New Hampshire because everybody in the state that wants a vaccine has the opportunity to get it. It's coming out so fast. I think by the end of April we're at the point where pretty much everyone has received their first shot. So, we're just, you know, being able to move very, very quickly. But I always go back to transparency, openness, public trust. Those are those foundations that you need in place before you can make some of the really tough decisions that governors have to make.

MS. TUMULTY: Well, Governor Sununu, could we talk about the next big initiative coming out of Washington, which is this massive infrastructure bill that the Biden administration has proposed, defining infrastructure, of course, much more broadly than we've seen it in the past, not just bridges and highways but things like, you know, elder care. What is your--

GOV. SUNUNU: Washington has a tendency to do that. They have a tendency to change definitions when it suits their needs.

MS. TUMULTY: Well, so tell me. I mean, what do you think of what you have seen of this bill so far? And what do you give its chances?

GOV. SUNUNU: Look, we haven't spent a single dollar, nor do we know all the rules of how to spend a single dollar of the 1.9 trillion they just passed, which was an enormous bill. Now we're already talking about another 2 trillion. How do we know where the needs are? Look, I'm not against doing an infrastructure bill by any means, but let's think of the timing here. The best thing to do is move forward with the 1.9 trillion. There's a lot of infrastructure money there, capital dollars and one-time spending that states all across the country are going to be allowed to spend, and that's great. Let's spend those dollars, find out where the gaps are, find out where the need is before we put another 2 trillion on the table when we haven't truly defined the needs for the next 10 years. I think this 1.9 trillion is going to go a long ways.

If that 1.9 trillion was only for COVID relief and things like that, that would be one thing. But it's not. I mean, most of that--very, very little of that bill was actually for COVID relief. A lot of it was for this one-time infrastructure-type spending.

So you should spend those dollars, get those projects in place, see where inflation takes us, see where the debt is, see where all these other variables kind of--let the dust settle, so to say, and then come back next year or the year after, I think, and say okay, now let's go for another piece and we'll directly the dollars in that piece exactly where this first bill didn't meet certain needs, because the first bill does have a lot of stipulations--it can't be spent here, it can't be spent there. Let's make sure we know where those gaps are and see where the dust settles after the entire COVID pandemic. We haven't even spent a dollar of this first bill.

So, I was very proud. A few months ago, the Cato Institute said I was the most fiscally responsible governor in the country, and I was very proud of that. So, I'd like Washington to take a little bit of that fiscal responsibility and say let's figure out where the dollars are going to go and where the need is before we just start throwing more money to get some political wins. Somebody has to pay for this. And our kids--and I've got kids, I've got young kids--they're going to be paying for it for generations. So, if we're going to do that and ask them--that generation to take that burden on, let's do it in a way where we're really making sure we know where those gaps are.

MS. TUMULTY: And speaking of being fiscally responsible, how--you know, traditionally infrastructure bills are paid for with things like user fees. How should infrastructure--this bill does it with increasing corporate taxes, increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans. How do you think infrastructure should be financed? I mean, there's also--you know, it's traditionally been financed by debt, by municipal bonds.

GOV. SUNUNU: Sure. So, let's be very careful. I think states and cities and municipalities generally do a good job of finding how to--how to invest in those infrastructure projects. In New Hampshire we have a balanced budget. We have surpluses every year. Washington has never, as far as I can remember for the last 25 years, found a way to pay for anything that they--that they propose. Our debt keeps building up.

So, let's first get--have this discussion--let's stop fooling ourselves that Washington is going to be responsible and pay back all of this money. They have no sense of fiscal responsibility or balanced budgets or long-term planning. So, yes, they may increase taxes here and there to quote "pay for some of it," but that money doesn't go into some infrastructure lockbox and every dollar that comes in in that corporate tax only goes against the debt service that we're going to borrow against to pay this $2 trillion.

So, I understand that they--when they spend money, they try to raise taxes, they use it to justify raising taxes, but if they were balancing their budgets on a yearly basis like we were, that would be a different story. If they had long-term strategic planning like a lot of states do, like we do, that would be a different story. but they don't. They've been colossally fiscally irresponsible--both Republicans and Democrats, by the way--no one party can take--can be more self-righteous than the other. At least over the last 20 years, the spending's been out of control. We've had infrastructure bills. The debt keeps going up. We've had the war. We've had crises. The debt keeps going up.

So, you know, I think we just need to be careful about paying it back. So, when it comes to an infrastructure bill, in New Hampshire--I'll just use our example--the dollars come in are the dollars that go out, right? And if we have to adjust a fee or something like that--we don't have sales tax, we don't have income tax, we always find a way to manage without increasing taxes. I've never increased a tax in my history in three terms as governor. We just keep cutting them, yet we still have surpluses. See, when you cut taxes, you'll be more business friendly, the economy grows, you'll be more internationally competitive. On a national scale, the economy grows the right way, a more sustainable way, you can actually build more revenue by cutting taxes if you have the other pieces of balance in place.

Unfortunately, Washington doesn't really have that. So, it's a mess. It's just a big fiscal mess. And I wish somebody would stand up and say let's first get our fiscal house in order before we start trying to convince ourselves where the tax rate needs to be to pay this back. There's no sense that any of it's going to be paid back, frankly.

MS. TUMULTY: So, Governor Sununu, we just have a tiny bit of time left here. But what I would like to ask you--

GOV. SUNUNU: I could go all day. I'll come back for the afternoon session.

MS. TUMULTY: We would--actually, we'd love to have you back. But, you know, the name Sununu is one that is synonymous with Republican politics, I think, in New Hampshire and nationally. Your dad was a governor and White House chief of staff. Your brother was a senator. Could you reflect a little bit on sort of where the Republican Party finds itself at this moment when it does feel like it is very much defined by a Donald Trump, a defeated ex-President? What do you see in your party going forward, and what do you really feel that your party needs to do going forward? I mean, it has not won the popular vote in a national election--it's only won it once since 1988.

GOV. SUNUNU: So, parties are never defined by individuals, right? Donald Trump doesn't define the Republican Party. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden don't define the Democrat party right now, right? So, parties are really defined by their philosophies, their principles. And in the heat of elections--and kind of the months leading into and sometimes the months after, as we're seeing right now--there's a lot of emotion around the politics and folks that want to galvanize around who's running or who won or who lost. But over time I think both parties--and I'll talk specifically to the Republicans--they really come back to those fundamentals--low taxes, limited government, local control, fiscal responsibility--right?--individual responsibility.

The COVID crisis has thrown a lot of that up into the air. The tumultuous and the overpoliticization of what we saw in 2020 has thrown a lot of that--a lot of that into the air. But over time, I think things get back to those core values. Democrats have their core values and platform values. It doesn't mean as individuals that we--I don't--I've read the Republican platform. I don't subscribe to a hundred percent that's in there. I--you know, I think there's a lot of Democrats that don't subscribe to a hundred percent that's in the Democrat platform--but those core things. And I'll go back--I know it's a little cliché, but I'll ring true to the words of Ronald Reagan, that, you know, the 80 percent core that Republicans can galvanize around that can really all agree on, the vast majority can agree on, that's what keeps us Republicans. And then we can have the tough debates over the 20 percent.

But, you know, I supported President Trump. He didn't win. We're moving on. There will be other new candidates that come forward, whether on a local level--and look, I'm from New Hampshire. I'm a big believer that your planning board and your selectman are just as important as who's the president of the United States, frankly, because they can have just as big of an impact on your life as anybody. The quality of your schools, the quality of your town, the quality of, you know, your everyday living.

So, you know, up and down, this isn't just a top-ticket issue for Republicans or Democrats. You really have to look at that spectrum. I think we do it really well here in New Hampshire with our 400 members and our legislatures, effectively a giant volunteer legislature. But it's not about individuals. It's about those core values, sticking to them, and really getting your party to rally around those things. And it's okay to have the debate on the other 20 percent. That's fine. But when you come out of it, you know, as a party, I think you need to galvanize around those things that you agree on, Republican and Democrat alike.

MS. TUMULTY: Well, thank you so much, Governor Sununu, for being with us here today. And we do hope you will return soon.

GOV. SUNUNU: Thank you so much.

MS. TUMULTY: And thanks to all of you for watching. Please tune in to today at 3:00 for the next installment of Oscar® Spotlight. This series is moderated by my colleague Ann Hornaday, and it’s about the documentary “Time.” It examines the toll incarceration takes on a family. And you can always head to WashingtonPostLive.com to register and find more information about upcoming programs. See you soon.

[End recorded session.]