Go Advanced Search

Subscribe to this:

iTunes Podcast

Podcasts in These Categories
Find More Titles by
This Author: Jim Lehrer
This Publisher: PBS

Shields and Brooks - NewsHour with Jim Lehrer - PBS Podcast by Jim Lehrer

Shields and Brooks - NewsHour with Jim Lehrer - PBS Podcast

by Jim Lehrer

Product Details

Running Time
12 Min.


Catch the most recent appearances by NewsHour political analysts syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

People Who Liked Shields and Brooks - NewsHour with Jim Lehrer - PBS Podcast Also Liked These Podcasts:
  Truth-Driven Thinking Podcast
by Stephen Gibson

Reviews & Ratings
User Reviews         Rate this title  

Podcast Episodes

If this Podcast isn't working, please let us know by emailing us and we will try to fix it ASAP:

Podcast Feed URL:

 Podcast Website:

Shields and Gerson on Ebola as election issue, Florida’s fan fight

Fri, Oct 17, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: This week saw the government’s response to the threat of Ebola, more campaigning in the final stretch before Election Day, and drama in a key governor’s race over a fan.

To talk about it all, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. David Brooks is away tonight.

Gentlemen, welcome.

Let’s talk about Ebola first.

Mark, we heard the doctor and the head of the nurses association say at the top of the program people shouldn’t be alarmed about Ebola. But is the fear getting out of control in this country?

MARK SHIELDS: The fear is real. The Washington Post/ABC poll, two out of three Americans fear that there could be an Ebola epidemic in the country. Four out of 10 are very worried or somewhat worried that someone, either themselves or someone close to them will contract the disease.

So there’s a real concern. And, as most dangers, it brings out both the best and the worst in people. And I think we’re seeing plenty of that right now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Out of control?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I do think it’s understandable. It’s a scary disease. And there were some fumbles in the initial response.

JUDY WOODRUFF: By the way, I meant the fear. I don’t mean the disease.

MICHAEL GERSON: Right. But the fear, I think, it is not irrational in this case.

It is overdone, to some extent. We do not have an outbreak. We have a few incidents. The outbreak in West Africa, we do not have that. We know how to control it. The procedures have been there since the ’70s. Ebola has been controlled in various outbreaks. And we know the disease itself is not as infectious early as it is late.

So it’s a real threat to health care workers, which we have seen, not so much the general public even in those cases. But there’s one area where we don’t have enough fear. And that’s what’s happening in West Africa, where the CDC is talking about the possibility of 5,000 to 10,000 new infections a week by the end of the year.

You could be — have real threats to the economic, social and political stability of countries in West Africa, which could dramatically spread the disease. If we want panic, that’s where productive panic would be employed.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you do hear officials saying that on a regular basis. We need to keep a focus on what’s going on in West Africa.


The focus right now in this country is election. It’s two-and-a-half weeks away. And the remedy has become cancel all flights from West Africa. That has become the mantra, quite frankly, of Republican and even some Democratic candidates.

MICHAEL GERSON: Which doesn’t solve that problem.

MARK SHIELDS: It doesn’t solve any problem and probably compounds the problem.

What we do see, Judy — and there is a parallel to 9/11, when we saw 343 firefighters walk into the jaws of death and the fires of hell, simply because they were — that was their duty to save fellow human beings who were in those trapped — trapped in those buildings.

And I think Nina Pham has become almost the face of the hero of this.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The first nurse what was diagnosed…

MARK SHIELDS: The nurse who has contracted Ebola herself.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Taking care…

MARK SHIELDS: But, I mean, they assume the risk. This is a critical care nurse. These are health care providers — terrible term, health care provider.

But these are people who actually put themselves on the line to help strangers they don’t know, their knowledge, their careers, themselves, not for money, not for power, but just for humanity. And I think it’s quite — that is the most admirable development in this whole terrible panorama.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A lot of accusations flying around.

Michael, do you see this as an issue in the November election?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think it adds to a vague general air of dysfunction, which probably benefits Republicans. It makes it harder for Democrats to drive their issues. We’re not talking about inequality. We’re talking about Ebola.

But I have to say that people who directly politicize this issue may well, in my view, be demonstrating their unfitness for office, OK? This is not a symbol for other things. This is important in and of itself in a central federal role. We need to learn from mistakes. We need to give the government the ability to learn from mistakes, because they’re in that process, instead of highly politicizing what really is a very serious matter.

I know it’s hard right before an election not to inject this into campaign commercials. And it’s happened on right and left, but I think that’s a serious mistake.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And — but you’re saying that’s happened.

MICHAEL GERSON: It has happened.

MARK SHIELDS: It has. It has happened in a couple of tragic instances.

I do think it’s a case that it will be a factor in this election, Judy, not only for the reasons that Michael cited, but if you think about it, the Democrats have had two really good pieces of news in the last several weeks, the unemployment rate at a new low, people returning to work, and then this week, the deficit the lowest point in seven years.

But it’s totally eclipsed by Ebola and ISIS. And these are two issues, national security and foreign policy, which the Ebola crisis has taken on in many instances, where they have tried to tie it into illegal immigration, some Republicans have, where the Democrats do not score well and Republicans have an advantage.

So I think it is an issue that Republicans are going to drum from here on in.

JUDY WOODRUFF: just quickly to both of you, the president’s choice of Ron Klain, former chief of staff to Vice Presidents Gore and Biden, our guests at the top of the program, infectious disease expert and the head of the nurses association, said they think it’s fine to pick somebody who is a government expert, rather than a public health expert.

What’s your view?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I don’t think I’m in that camp.

This is treating a problem as though it is a messaging and communications or a management problem within the White House. This is a command-and-control problem on the ground in Liberia and other places, where supplies are not getting through, our aid is not getting there.

We need someone in the David Petraeus or Colin Powell camp who has respect in the military, respect in the global health community, emergency response experience. I think that they’re viewing this role in too limited a way, and the need is greater right now.


MARK SHIELDS: I mean, Ron Klain has demonstrated credentials, no question, Vice President Gore, Vice President Biden and in between.

But, to me, it shows how many few really towering figures there are left in American public life. Michael named Colin Powell. but I don’t know. I mean, it seems that the generation has passed. But I think you need a figure of command and who commands respect outside.

Ron Klain, for all he’s done, is not well-known either in the medical world or really in the international world.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, we talked about the election. We — we’re two-and-a-half weeks away, Michael. What does the landscape look like in the Senate? We started out 10 or 12 races watching closely. Where does it stand?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, if you look at the RealClearPolitics summaries, Republicans are now ahead in eight of the top 11 most disputed Senate races.

That doesn’t mean they will win them all. It just means — but they also have momentum in those races, if you look at the polling compared to September. And Democrats are starting to reposition in the House and other places their funding away from aggressive races against Republicans and towards defensive races for incumbents.

That’s a bad sign. So, I think this is going in a Republican direction. The landscape, the field on which this is being played is favorable to Republicans right now for a variety of reasons.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What is your gut telling you?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, I think Democrats now are hoping, quite frankly, that a couple of races they hadn’t expected to be in play will be in play, namely Kansas, which had been a safe Republican seat, South Dakota, which is a safe Republican seat, or acknowledged that there was going to be a safe Republican seat, held by a Democrat, Tim Johnson, now retiring, and in Georgia, where Michelle Nunn is showing strength for that open seat with Saxby Chambliss.

But you have got seven seats being defended by Democrats. Six of them are in states that Mitt Romney carried by 14 percent or more. And these seats were all won by Democrats six years ago, when Barack Obama was getting the highest percentage any Democratic presidential candidate had gotten in the past 50 years.

So they were elected in a good Democratic year. And this doesn’t look like a good Democratic year, so I think they’re putting the champagne back on ice right now at Democratic headquarters.


JUDY WOODRUFF: Not friendly territory…


JUDY WOODRUFF: … for the Democrats.

We haven’t talked much in the last weeks about the governor’s races. But there are, what, about 10 of them, we are told, could change parties. One of them — and they’re getting a lot of attention now that we’re getting close.

One in particular, Michael, is the Florida governor’s race, which there was a debate a couple of nights ago between the incumbent Republican Governor Rick Scott and his challenger, former Republican, now Democrat, Charlie Crist. And it was a debate. And it was all about a fan that Governor — former Governor Crist wanted under his lectern up on stage.

That’s become a big story.

MICHAEL GERSON: Yes. No, it’s…

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we have got a picture of the fan.


MICHAEL GERSON: OK. There it is.


JUDY WOODRUFF: And the fact that Governor Scott, it took him six or seven minutes to show up.

MARK SHIELDS: Seven minutes, yes.

MICHAEL GERSON: I think that Governor Scott was in the right when it came to the rules, and the organizers pointed that out, but it really doesn’t matter.

Any candidate who is complaining about the rules doesn’t really look good. You don’t want to look rattled in a debate. It’s kind of the James Bond rule. You want to look cool under fire in these things. And it didn’t really work out for him. But if this decides the Florida governor’s race, God help us.

MARK SHIELDS: Charlie Crist is not only a former Republican governor, former Wake Forest quarterback, a — looks like he always came off the pages of “Gentleman’s Quarterly,” never a hair out of place. Looks like a million bucks.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Of course, I think the two of you always look…


JUDY WOODRUFF: “Gentleman’s Quarterly.”

MARK SHIELDS: This is a strikingly handsome man, and he stays cool and has always — he’s been very open about this through his entire career. In fact, it’s in his own memoir, he writes about it.

He stayed cool in that torrid…

JUDY WOODRUFF: Florida heat.

MARK SHIELDS: … tropical state of Florida by having a fan with him under the lectern.


MARK SHIELDS: It’s not like he’s got somebody giving him answers or something.


MARK SHIELDS: And so Rick Scott, I thought, looked not only petty, but small, and not concerned with the people of Florida, but whether Charlie — Charlie Crist had a fan.

I thought, quite frankly, it was fantastic.


MARK SHIELDS: And I think something…

JUDY WOODRUFF: You didn’t say that.

MARK SHIELDS: I did say that. And I apologize for it.

It’s fan-damentally…


JUDY WOODRUFF: Fan-damentally.

MARK SHIELDS: Fan-damentally.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, I mean, is there — just quickly, in 30 seconds, is there a lesson about American politics in all of this?

MICHAEL GERSON: Yes. I think Americans like people to keep the rules, but they hate when people complain about others not keeping the rules.

MARK SHIELDS: I think that’s true.

But I would also say this, that one great thing about debates is they are the one time in campaigns where things are unstructured and unpredicted.

MICHAEL GERSON: Yes. That’s true.

MARK SHIELDS: And I thought this revealed something about Rick Scott which wasn’t compelling or appealing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, there’s — this is always unstructured and it’s always terrific.


JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark Shields, Michael Gerson, thank you both.


The post Shields and Gerson on Ebola as election issue, Florida’s fan fight appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on same-sex marriage sea change, politics of Ebola prevention

Fri, Oct 10, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: This week saw the Supreme Court make news on same-sex marriage and voting rights and the politicians respond to the first case of Ebola in the United States.

For that and more, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, Mark, the Supreme Court made waves this week in a way by not making waves. They said, we’re not going to get involved, we’re not going to interfere with these courts that have — around the country have said they’re going to put a stop to these bans on same-sex marriage.

In fact, just in the last few hours, the Supreme Court issued another statement like this on North Carolina.

MARK SHIELDS: That’s right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you make of all this?

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, I have never seen an issue, the velocity of change so intense in my life.

Just to review the bidding, 2004 presidential campaign, the Republicans backing President George W. Bush put the ballot in question in 11 states outlawing same-sex marriage. It passed overwhelmingly. The key was Ohio. And the intent and the objective was simple, to generate larger turnout, voter turnout, in more rural and conservative areas.

It worked in Ohio, and George W. Bush was reelected by the votes in Ohio. 2008, every Democratic presidential candidate went on record that he or she was only for same-sex marriage — marriage between one man and one woman. As 2012 approached, Joe Biden, the vice president, got in trouble by embracing for the first time same-sex marriage.

But the numbers are just daunting. Among young Republicans — this is a Pew Research poll — 61 percent of Republicans, young Republicans under the age of 30 are in favor of same-sex marriage.


MARK SHIELDS: And, I mean, it’s just — the issue, it’s left — the train’s left the station and it’s just been a sea change in difference of opinion.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s a dizzying change. The courts are just backing out of the picture.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. And you got to — I sort of applaud the minimalism here.

Sometimes, you just let the country have its way, and you don’t try to determine the shape of the country. You sort of modestly step back and let the country figure out what it believes. And I think they’re doing absolutely the right thing in just withdrawing and not getting too involved.

And I think, frankly, they have learned the lesson — and Ruth Bader Ginsburg has apparently told people they have learned the lesson the problem with Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade had — there was an issue that was evolving, and it’s evolving. And then the court laid down a brick wall, and they polarized that debate. They froze the debate.

And whatever — wherever you stand on that issue, that decision distorted discussion of abortions ever since. And so by staying out of the way, they’re letting the country have its discussion.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And so this means the court, Mark, will — that it’s spoken and we are not going to hear about — we are not going to hear about the issue?

MARK SHIELDS: I think we will hear it.

I think a debate, candidate debates, I think they will — in 2014, it will be a question. The question is, in 2016, in the Republican nominating process, because there are firm believers, true believers, I mean, people who believe devoutly and passionately that marriage is only between one man and one woman and that somehow it’s compromising what they consider the sacrament and institution of marriage.

And they are very active, many of them, in the Republican nominating process. And I think there will be one or more candidates who takes that position.

DAVID BROOKS: You’re already beginning to see signs of that. Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, who is thinking of running, he sort of said, OK, it’s over. He was like happy to brush it off, like, OK, we don’t want to deal with that.

And I think that’s the view of a lot of candidates. They just don’t want to deal with it. Let — but then Ted Cruz came out and he was much more opposed. So, I do think…


MARK SHIELDS: Mike Huckabee.

DAVID BROOKS: And Huckabee, Huckabee really strong, really, really strongly.


DAVID BROOKS: And so we can expect to see, especially in states like Iowa, it to be an issue. And I will be fascinated to see how — if — Jeb Bush, if he runs, Chris Christie, it will be fascinating to see how they dance this through.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Just quickly, one other issue the court rule on, or made itself — declared itself on this week, Mark, was voter identification. They basically said that they blocked — they blocked a tighter voter I.D. law in the state of Wisconsin.

So are we — do you have a sense that this makes a difference, that other states will be reluctant to pass these laws because of what the court does?

MARK SHIELDS: I’m not sure. This is such an aberration from American history, if you think of it. Only white male property owners over the age of 21 could vote when this country began. It eventually expanded to all males and even nonwhites and then eventually to women.

And, you know, then in 1965, Judy, the Voting Rights Act came and said that the federal government has a responsibility to make sure that everybody can vote. And 96 percent of Republican senators voted for the Voting Rights Act, only 73 percent of Democrats.

I mean, it was a great Lincoln issue. And what happened in 2010, when the Republicans swept all these statehouses and state legislatures, they did two things in shorthand. They made it easier to buy a gun and tougher to vote. And this week, the Government Accountability Office, nonpartisan research, found that, in a study of voter I.D. laws, that it actually lowered the turnout in Tennessee and Kansas, two states studied, among minority voters and younger voters.

And I hate to say it, but that was the objective of those people who pushed it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What effect do you see on the…


DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I confess I was persuaded by that study.

I had assumed, looking especially at the national election results, that it had this backfiring effect, that the voter I.D. laws had so mobilized especially African-American voters that they had swamped, that it was actually harmful. And I think a lot of people believed that after the 2012 — or 2012, 2008 election.

But the GAO support — study suggests that it actually did suppress votes. The other thing the GAO study said, which I think is the key to a lot of this — and I oppose these laws — is that the assertion that there’s a lot of fraud out there is just not true. There’s scattered fraud. But the idea that there is systemic fraud that you need the picture I.D.s to combat is just not out there.

Nobody has ever been able to find it. And so it does lead to the worst assertions of why the people — these laws are being passed.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Senate races, three-and-a-half weeks left, Mark. Maybe some surprises developing in South Dakota, some other places? What do you see?

MARK SHIELDS: Right from the outset, all the conventional wisdom has been, three Democratic states — seats that are going to. The Republicans are going to win West Virginia. Jay Rockefeller is retiring. Max Baucus left Montana. The Republicans are going to win. And South Dakota with Tim Johnson retiring.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It was the mantra.

MARK SHIELDS: That was it.

And now, all of a sudden, South Dakota is a race. An aberrational independent candidate, Larry Pressler, 40 years ago elected to the House from South Dakota two terms, then three terms in the Senate, and a Vietnam veteran. No money. But he’s scrambled that race.

And so all of a sudden, Rick Weiland, the Democrat, thinks he has got a chance. Democrats are putting in — and Mike Rounds, the Republican governor, former governor, who was coasting to — coasting to election and coronation, finds himself in a race, and it’s a real fight.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It may be interesting after all on election night.

DAVID BROOKS: It may be.


DAVID BROOKS: I still have — I still have it in my bones that it’s going to be a tide for the Republicans.

And I look at it — and first, in the South Dakota race, what Pressler is doing is amazing, and so it should be saluted. It’s great for anybody who follows politics.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The comeback. If there’s comeback.

DAVID BROOKS: If there’s a comeback.

It should be said, though, they haven’t really turned their guns on him yet. And so it gets worse for him as he — it doesn’t mean he don’t survive it, but it gets harder for him from here on out, because now he’s a big player and they’re going to turn their guns on him.

I still — I still think that we’re in a race like 2006, where you have an unpopular president which, at the end of the day, the people who decide late, they tend to decide against the president’s party. And the candidates who have approval ratings of under 45 percent, which is a lot of people, even Kay Hagan, they tend to not do well, because the late deciders tend to go against the president and tend to benefit the other property.

In 2006, Democrats was the unpopular — Democrats had a late surge. It feels parallel to me that, that the Republicans may have a surge.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You feel it could be the so-called wave?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I don’t know how big the wave. There’s a lot of breakers there.

So, I still think it feels like that, just because you look at the president’s approval number and you look at a lot of the Democrats, even the incumbents, they’re 40, 42, 45 in approval, and historically those candidates have not risen to 50 by Election Day.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What’s your gut telling you?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it’s a depressing year.

It’s as dreary and dismal a campaign as I have ever seen. In 1994, even Democrats had to acknowledge that the Republicans had a Contract with America. Even in 2006, when the Democrats swept back in, there was a six for ’06.

I have no idea what the Republicans want to do if they win or what the Democrats, other than minimum wage and equal pay, that they — so it’s an election, Judy, not about, we want to win. We want the other guy to lose. Beating the opposition is somehow more important.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Look at the commercials.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, really.

DAVID BROOKS: And it’s identical. It’s the Democrats saying right-wing extremists, the Republicans saying, oh, you like Obama. And that is the — that’s it, nationwide, nationwide, nationwide. So, it’s paint by numbers. There’s very little creativity.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Very, very quickly, some conservatives have been saying this week that the administration has dropped the ball on the fight against Ebola to keep it out of the country, there’s not enough being done. Could this become a political issue between now and Election Day, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Obviously, I think some Republicans are trying to raise it in certain campaigns.

You know, I think it’s tough to make the case. I think the president and the government is doing far more. Contrast it with what we did on AIDS just a generation ago. Should we be doing more? It’s kind of tough when you cut the National Institute of Health budget on infectious diseases, and it requires cooperation and collaboration with other countries.

We have cut by a quarter, the Republicans have, since 2010 the contribution to the World Health Organization. But it’s — there’s no question there’s a concern and an anxiety in the country.

DAVID BROOKS: Substantively, one person’s died on our shores from Ebola, but it plays into the larger argument that we have lost control of the borders, and that we’re insecure.

And that’s terrorism and immigration. Ebola is just like a way to remind people of terrorism and immigration. So, I think they’re playing it for that reason. Whether there’s really an actual health scare about Ebola in this country, I find it hard to believe that it wouldn’t be legitimate.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, in just the few minutes that we have left, I want to shift gears slightly.

There was a memorial service today for James Brady. He was President Reagan’s White House press secretary. He was an ardent gun control person. He died in August, 33 years after being shot in the head during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan.

A number of Washington hands who knew and worked with Jim Brady — I was honored to be among them — paid tribute to Jim this morning.

BILL PLANTE, CBS News: I asked him if he was still bitter.

He paused. “Well,” he said, “it’s not classy to be bitter. And I try to be classy, as you know.”


BILL PLANTE: “Is it very much of an effort?” I asked.

He answered, “Yes.” But he made that effort valiantly for 33 years.

VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: What is interesting about Jim, he turned it all into action.

He not only reached out to survivors of gun violence, but he reached out to the disabled with a message of encouragement and hope on the road to recovery. And the reason why it mattered so much to them — and you could see it in their eyes — it mattered because they knew he knew. They knew he understood. And he literally helped heal. And he gave hope.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, David, you are too young. You weren’t around back during the Reagan administration.


JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, you and I — you and I were around, to be gentle about it.


MARK SHIELDS: You were in the sixth grade, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Thoughts about Jim Brady. He was a special guy.

MARK SHIELDS: Jim Brady was a very special guy.

In 1974, there was a saloon in Washington called The Class Reunion, where Republicans and Democrats and politicians and journalists used to meet and laugh and tell stories. And Jim Brady was sort of the unofficial mayor of that place. He was great company.

But what I remember about him — Joe Biden is absolutely right. Joe Biden knew him well because he was the press secretary for Joe Biden’s Republican colleague from Delaware Bill Roth.

But in the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan was factually challenged occasionally. He said at one point trees cause more pollution than automobiles. And…

JUDY WOODRUFF: Brady repeated that.

MARK SHIELDS: Jim Brady was his press secretary on the train — on the plane. They’re flying over a small forest fire. And Jim points out the window and says, look, killer trees, killer trees.

He just was marvelously humorous. He was thrown off the plane. But he was so good…

JUDY WOODRUFF: By the campaign.

MARK SHIELDS: By the campaign hierarchy. This was irreverent.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But he was back in a few days.

MARK SHIELDS: He was back in a few days because was indispensable. He was good. He was a noble and good and wonderful man.

JUDY WOODRUFF: One of the best press secretaries in the White House ever.


JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark Shields, David Brooks

The post Shields and Brooks on same-sex marriage sea change, politics of Ebola prevention appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on Secret Service failures, Ebola readiness

Fri, Oct 03, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: Unemployment at the lowest level of President Obama’s time in office, the resignation of a Secret Service director, and the one-year anniversary of the rollout of healthcare.gov, it’s all in another busy week in politics.

And here to analyze it, as always, are Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, welcome.

And I have to say first, before I ask you about any so many other stories, that was a really discouraging report on the schools in Philadelphia.


Well, I’m sure people — spending obviously in places like that is moderately high, but if you have got 62 kids sitting on a window sill, none of us would send our kid if we had a choice to a school like that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s right.

Well, I want to — we were going to talk about unemployment. We’re going to. But this Ebola story, Mark and David, has everybody’s attention. The White House today saying it’s a national security priority as important as any threat we’re facing.

How confident should the American people be that this country is prepared, equipped to deal with this threat?

DAVID BROOKS: Obviously, I’m not a health expert, but I would say people should be reasonably confident.

I only say that because, if you look in Africa, in the countries where it hits, it’s a perfect indicator of the quality of the health care infrastructure system. If you have got countries like Liberia, Sierra Leone, there, they have no infrastructure, they have no system in place.

Preexisting Ebola, they just don’t have the doctors, the pharmaceuticals, the beds. And, there, it spread. But if you look at the countries where they actually have got an infrastructure in place and a command-and-control structure like Nigeria and Ivory Coast, they have done a reasonably good job.

And I have to assume that since we have probably one of the best infrastructures in the world, we will not look like Liberia. We will look like Nigeria or better.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s a balancing act, though, isn’t it, for the administration?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, it is.

The acknowledge it is important. And I just think that the group today was reassuring. I thought it projected competence. Tony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health just is sort of the embodiment of the professional public servant in the best sense.

And I thought what he said was reassuring and confidence-building. And there’s reason to be confident in the health care leadership, I believe.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, at one point, we heard him say, we’re going to have to keep saying these things day after day and make sure everybody understands that.

MARK SHIELDS: That’s right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, so, again, we want to talk about today’s unemployment numbers.

David, for the first time in — I guess since 2008, the unemployment rate is under 6 percent. The White House is saying over 10 million jobs added under President Obama. He said today job growth on pace for its strongest, I guess, record of growth since the 1990s.

Should he be getting more credit?

DAVID BROOKS: No, not exactly.


DAVID BROOKS: You know, there’s this — I do not think presidents have much to do with the cyclical ups and downs of the economy.

There are extraordinary moments when president do have something to do with it. And the stimulus package, whether you like it or not, clearly had an impact and probably ameliorated the effect of the recession. But I don’t think over the normal course of time, presidents have an immediate effect on month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter or even year-to-year cyclical stuff that goes on.

There’s just so much stuff going on in the economy. First of all, not a lot has happened in Washington to create jobs or destroy jobs. We have sort of been stagnant here legislatively.

Secondly, the thing that the president spoke about so much in his Northwestern University speech was the great surge in the energy sector, the great surge first in the production of natural gas through fracking, and then the manufacturing jobs that’s created.

Well, that’s not been that’s really championed by his administration or Washington in particular. That’s something that just happened and surprised everybody through immense technological advance and our ability to get natural gas and oil out of the ground.

So that’s in the private sector. And so I don’t think this is sort of a Washington-organized thing. We have an economy that functions as an economy.

MARK SHIELDS: The late American Ambassador Dwight Morrow once said, the party that takes credit for the sunshine shouldn’t be surprised when it gets blamed for the rain.

And I think there’s great truth to that in our politics. Anybody who watched Ken Burns’ 14 hours on the Roosevelts would be I think hard-pressed to say that presidents don’t make an enormous business, that without either Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt, this country and this economy would have been meaner, coarser, more oligarchical, less compassionate, and less prosperous society.

From week to week, Barack Obama has been blamed for what he inherited. I think there’s no question. I agree with David completely that the action to confront the economic crisis, the financial crisis that he inherited saved this economy. And the fact that the United States economy has created more jobs than all of Europe and the developed world and Japan since that time is an accomplishment.

But, at the same time, the widely grown prosperity that he cited, the economy growing, is not likely shared. Between 2010 and 2013, 90 percent of Americans saw their actual income go down, the bottom 90 percent.

MARK SHIELDS: The top 10 percent, that was all the growth, Judy.

The median family income is lower by actual dollars than it was in 1989. So this is something that started long before Barack Obama got there. But that’s the reason I think people feel bad. You can look at the big numbers and they look terrific, but when you — when people — Peter Hart, who is a Democratic pollster, compares it to, you have three inches of water in your cellar, and somebody comes along and says, well, look, there’s only an inch-and-a-half there now, so isn’t it better?

Well, you have still got water in your cellar. And that’s the feeling about the economy right now, that people see a greater concentration of wealth and their own situation not improving.

JUDY WOODRUFF: We heard this from Barry Bluestone, the economist Paul Solman talked to.


And it might be worth teasing out — I think Mark and I agree on this — or maybe disagree less than is obvious — which is that there are structural factors in the economy which the government clearly controls. If the progressive era hadn’t happened, if the New Deal hadn’t happened, clearly, this whole structure of the American economy would be different.

Then there are cyclical factors. And we’re, like, now in a job upsurge, a real job upsurge. And that’s more cyclical. But at some points in American history, it seems the structural factors are more germane, they’re more important, they’re more biting.

In the industrial period, they were deeply biting when industrialization came in. Right now, the wage stagnation, the lack of job security, the widening inequality, those are structural problems that are deeply biting. And you do need government to address that sort of thing. And so it’s worth parsing out these two interconnected parts of the economy, the cyclical piece and the structural piece.

And the hurt right now is because of a bad structure.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But the bottom line is, you may celebrate for a few seconds, but essentially you can’t really be pleased about this, Mark, until the prosperity is more widely distributed.


And I think David makes a good point. But, Judy, after World War II and the golden era of America, 90 percent of the economic growth — 80 — 90 percent of it was shared by wage increases of the workers. Now, that has just ended. That really — it slowed down.

Right now, just one little statistic that absolutely threw me from the Federal Reserve, when Ronald Reagan was president, the great right-winger, the great conservative, the top 3 percent controlled 44 percent of the wealth of the country. In Barack Obama’s second term, a man who has been called a socialist by his critics and his enemies, the top 3 percent control 54 percent of the nation’s wealth.

The other 90 — lower 90 percent have only less than a quarter, when they had a third just 28, 30 years ago. So it is — it is the rich getting richer and everybody else not and being worse off. And so that is what the president is fighting, even with the good news economically.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, if this is socialism, what does capitalism look like?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, this is capitalism when you have got a high technological turnover.

President Obama has been 40 percent on his handling of the economy basically for a year. And that is just stuck there. I should point out, I looked at the French numbers. Hollande, the president of France, he is at like 9 percent. So these structural problems are hitting politicians all across the developed world.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I wanted to ask whether this is going to have any effect on the elections. It sounds like you’re saying it doesn’t help the Democrats.

Health care law celebrated the anniversary of its — of the exchanges being created this week. Is it as big an issue, is it as damaging for Democrats as Republicans said it was? You can roll all this together. And I want to save time for the Secret Service, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: It’s unpopular.

It has been unpopular since the rollout and all of the problems attendant to it. It has never regained popularity. But those who are against it are against it. And it’s not an organizing principle of the election of 2014, as, for example, opposition to the war of Iraq was in 2006, which generated turnout and resulted in the Democrats winning control of the Congress.

I think the positions are pretty hardened on health care. And I think the problem is, it’s being — the elections are being determined in red states, where health care is even less popular.

DAVID BROOKS: Nationally, at 38 percent approval; 51 percent disapprove.

I happen to think the law is doing better than I thought it would, but, politically, not a winner.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Doing better than you thought it was?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think people are enrolled.

And — and I’m not sure if this is because of the law, but costs really are going down. Health care inflation is declining.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Secret Service, a torrent of stories over the last few days about breaches at the White House, over the fence. A man ran all the way into the — deep into the White House, a shooting there we didn’t know about, a man on an elevator with the president. The head of the Secret Service has resigned.

What are we to make of this agency that is supposed to be protecting the most important people in our government? And who’s responsible?


I first thought it was an overreaction when the guy goes over the fence and gets into the East Room. But what’s bothered me and I think bothered people on Capitol Hill and around town was the horrible management of information afterwards, not confessing, not behaving like a confident, professional agency, but behaving like an incompetent agency where you have got a lot to hide.

And when you behave that way, people are going to begin to doubt you. And that’s more or less what happened.

MARK SHIELDS: On March 30, 1981, Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy took a bullet intended for President Ronald Reagan by an assassin.

Secret Service agent Jerry Parr pushed the president in the limousine, ordered to drive to the White House, saved his life. Larry Buendorf put his thumb in a gun aimed at President Gerald Ford in Sacramento. This is the Secret Service that most of us have been privileged to know who have been around this town.

These are heroic people. This sounds like something out of “American Pie” in the behavior or spring break. And the performance was just awful. It was dysfunctional. The idea that the president’s daughter was sitting in the White House by herself and there were nine shots were fired and they didn’t find out about it for four days and didn’t reveal it, that a man convicted of assault is on an elevator with the president packing a weapon, I mean, that’s just dysfunctional.

JUDY WOODRUFF: No wonder both the president and the first lady upset about this.

David Brooks, Mark Shields, we’re never upset with the two of you. We thank you.

The post Shields and Brooks on Secret Service failures, Ebola readiness appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on Islamic State as ‘ideal’ villains, retirement for Holder and Jeter

Fri, Sep 26, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: President Obama spoke out at the U.N. General Assembly this week for support in the fight against the Islamic State. And Attorney General Eric Holder announced his resignation.

For that, and a little more on Derek Jeter, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, another word, Mark, about Derek Jeter. What — what else should be said about him?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, Judy, I think sports is and rightly described as a mirror of our society at large.

And beyond the unspeakable wife beating reports by some pro football players, conduct on football fields is just unacceptable, I mean, the showboating, the self-congratulatory dancing after a single tackle, the beating of the chest, and aren’t I terrific, and the attempts to humiliate and embarrass your opponent.

Derek Jeter, the Yankee shortstop, was the consummate professional. He showed up every day. He did his job. He never complained. He was never on TMZ. He never taunted an opponent. He was respected by them, and he respected them.

He was — there’s only two teams I root for, the Boston Red Sox and the team that is playing the New York Yankees.


MARK SHIELDS: But let me say this as a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan. He, Derek Jeter, was class. He is class in everything he’s done. And he’s a man of public modesty. And I just think that is so needed and missing in our society.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Class act, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, and sort of a story about the limits of big data.

And so Keith Olbermann has this rant, which you can — if you go on YouTube, you can see it. And he takes down Jeter’s stats. And they’re good. Look, by any Major League standards, they’re good. They’re probably Hall of Fame, but they are not great. The stats are not great. His range as a shortstop wasn’t great.

And so, by the statistical measure, he wasn’t a superstar. He was a great — he was a very good player, but he was not a superstar. And yet he was clearly a superstar. And he was a superstar in part because of his clutch performances, and the volley and the throw to home plate from the World Series, and his attitude there, but mostly he’s a superstar because of the team cohesion that he built and the way he symbolized the team, the effect of one team player on a team culture.

One of my colleagues said, the biggest number for him was the number on the back of his jersey. And that does symbolize it, that that was the number that truly measured his performance as a player, not so much the batting average, which was good, but not stellar.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Does it somehow override the other news, bad news that seems to come out of the world of sports?

MARK SHIELDS: It does — it stands in stark contrast and welcome contrast.

And I would just add the good point David made. And that is that the data — and Keith Olbermann — which baseball now lives on, I mean, we’re drowning in information, but we’re thirsting for wisdom, as somebody said. And I think the wisdom is that Derek Jeter is a great baseball player. He’s on his way to Cooperstown, to the Hall of Fame, as he should be, even though, statistically, he — he’s got more hits than anybody but five people who played the game, so…

DAVID BROOKS: I would just say, it’s always hard to know how seriously to take sports.

Like, we — I have a friend who says the front clause of every sports story should be, not that it matters, but…


DAVID BROOKS: Because I can’t remember who won the World Series or the Super Bowl a couple years later. But we get caught up in it. And we debate it like we just saw them debating there because it’s where we rehearse our moral stories and debate morals and things like that.

MARK SHIELDS: Jackie Robinson, Branch Rickey, the desegregation of baseball before we desegregated society, I mean, that’s — that’s sports.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we want to turn away from sports for a minute to talk about something that happened this week.

President Obama, Mark, went before the United Nations, talked about defeating the network of death, the Islamic State, appealed for the world to come support the United States. Is that speech going to make a difference in the success of this effort?

MARK SHIELDS: I don’t know, Judy.

I mean, it certainly was a speech seeking allies and making the case and making it, I thought, far more assertively certainly than the president did when he spoke to the nation. And there obviously was a different constituency that he was seeking.

But the White House is frank that this is a — seeking a reset of the president’s leadership credentials, or burnishing his credentials. And I do think that it was a more muscular speech or a less conflicted speech.

But, Judy, when you talk about destroying an ideology, I mean, Lee Hamilton, the former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House, I was talking to this week, and he said, who writes this stuff? You know, you don’t destroy an ideology. You defeat an ideology with another ideology, with another philosophy, another point of view, in addition to content.

And these people are the ideal villain, the ideal adversaries. They are the worst of humankind in their actions. But it sort of hearkens back to the end of tyranny in the world, which his predecessor, George W. Bush, spoke of. There is a rhetorical overreach, I think, to the speech.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You think the president advanced his case?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think so. I think it was mostly revelatory about his own mind.

And so he had been half-measures, ambivalent, oh, I don’t want to do this, reluctant. Well, clearly, he took off the reluctant cape this time. He was — people have accused him, and he has been sensitive to being called professorial and wan. And he was un-wan. He was whatever the opposite of wan is.




DAVID BROOKS: So, he was bold and forthright and simple.

And he spoke — he gave a speech in West Point a few months ago where he said military force is not the answer. Well, when you’re fighting a military effort, military force is actually the answer. He has been stepping back some of the emphasis on democracy. He stepped that up. And so he was just more aggressive, more assertive

And I think, as revelatory of his mind, I think, one, he really thinks these guys are evil, that you just can’t allow them to exist. Two, he does feel the responsibility to rally a coalition. You can’t do it with an uncertain trumpet.

And I do think there — mixed within the high rhetoric is a pretty realistic goal. We’re not going to reshape the Middle East. We’re not going to bring peace to Syria and Iraq. We just want to make sure the worst that could happen will not happen. And the worst is an ISIS caliphate in the middle of the Middle East.

MARK SHIELDS: What happened today in the House — in Parliament…


JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s what I wanted to ask.



JUDY WOODRUFF: They had a debate and a vote.

MARK SHIELDS: They had a debate. They did something that we are supposed to do.

I mean, Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky, I give him credit. When they were going through that sham debate before they fled the city, the Congress did, encouraged by the White House — all they wanted to do is talk to the leaders and kind of get a wink and a nod and we’re all aboard — on board.

Rand Paul said, if you’re debating going to war, I would think every senator would be at his or her desk. And they aren’t. And that was really refreshing and encouraging and sort of semi-inspiring to see the British today going through that, and the prime minister himself fielding questions and all the rest of it.

Now, let it be noted that they — the British agreed to go and bomb in — only in Iraq, not…

JUDY WOODRUFF: Iraq, but not in Syria.

MARK SHIELDS: … not in Syria.

But, Judy, the absence of a debate in this country is a shame. Every member of Congress ought to be ashamed of himself or herself that the Congress left this town without debating the most serious decision that any legislator ever makes. And that is sending other Americans into war, into possible death.

And I just think it’s — and I think the White House is following the lead of every president since. They want a free hand and the Congress to go away.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Did they show up, the United States, in the way they handled this?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I’m pro-debate. They didn’t have an election coming up, at least for a little while. And they do have a bipartisan agreement.

But we have a bipartisan agreement here. And I think to me what’s interesting about the debate, it’s less about whether than how. And so there is a big majority in the country and in the Congress and in Washington that there should be an effort. The question is how.

And that’s very hard to debate because we don’t know if they’re going to — if ISIS is going to collapse. We don’t know if they’re going to hang in the cities, not hang in the cities, but hang in the country. So, the question is how and the methodology.

And that unfurls as the war unfurls. And so now what we’re doing is, we’re bombing their oil refineries to try to cut off some of their financial supplies, bombing some of the convoys. And we — the country will have to react. And having running debate as the war essentially widens, which it’s going to do, having that debate as the war widens, that seems to me the crucial…


JUDY WOODRUFF: So, it’s OK to wait?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I’m pro-debate. This is what I do for a living, so why should I mind?

And I agree with all — with Mark’s points. I’m just saying it’s very hard to have the debate about how, what’s effective, what’s ineffective until we actually see some evidence.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, you can figure out, first of all, how you are going to pay for it.

General Dempsey today admitted, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said, we’re not going to have — we’re going to run out of money on this, the Pentagon is going to run the money. And the bombing is antiseptic. But Barry Goldwater, God bless him, said, when you’re thinking about bombing — this was in Vietnam, and it’s true today — you have got to forget this thing the civilian, because — the civilian, because when you bomb, you kill civilians.

The idea that you’re just hitting oil installations, there are human beings who work at that — oil installations who aren’t members of al-Qaida or ISIL or anybody else. So, I mean, these are acts that have long-term repercussions.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, in fact, Dempsey made it sound like they’re making more progress than we realized.

I do want to reserve the last few minutes to ask you about the attorney general.

Eric Holder, David, surprised, I think, most people announcing he’s going to step down. What’s the legacy? He’s been — he’s had his detractors, he’s had his admirers.


He’s got detractors and admirers on both left and right, more admirers on the left, obviously, and more dislike on the right. But what has been said about him, which I think is the essential truth, is that he was quite strong on civil rights and not so strong on civil liberties.

And so, if you look at the record, especially in terms of incarceration, sentencing, Voting Rights Act, very, very aggressive. And I would like to especially highlight the incarceration, which I think is out of control in this country. And so his efforts there are much appreciated.

On the civil liberties, on the national security, he was very heavy on national security and not as respectful of civil liberty — liberties, and if you’re worried about terrorism and if you’re respecting the Bush administration, he followed a lot of the precedents and took them further.

And the one thing I really do object to — and this is parochial — is his incredibly aggressive assault on the press, the Associated Press reporters, the FOX News commentators.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Going after…

DAVID BROOKS: Going after the records and the phone records. That seemed to me appalling. And so — but that was of a piece of his national security approach.

MARK SHIELDS: I agree in great part.

The — I mean, I do commend him for the civil rights, not simply for gay and lesbian people, which he did champion, but also the attempts, quite frankly, by new Republican administrations and states after the 2010 sweep to suppress voter turnout in minority communities. And he took them on, and I commend him for that.

I think that the — he will be held accountable in history’s judgment for big to jail, the — after the Wall Street collapse.


MARK SHIELDS: That after the Savings & Loan crisis in the late ’80s, Judy, 1,000 bankers and directors were indicted; 100 of them did time in jail.

Not a single one of these CEOs or these people who brought the country to its knees, who destroyed people’s futures — and so it was always going to be a fine, but you will do no time. And I really do think — you know, corporations don’t serve time. Corporations don’t go away. And I really think that was a failure.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A thought on the Wall Street piece of his…


DAVID BROOKS: I think so. You would have to figure out who did what. That was always the challenge.

It’s possible it was stupidity more than crime. There was clearly fraud in the banking sector. But picking out the executives who did something wrong, a lot of it was just stupidity and ignorance.

MARK SHIELDS: Immunity leads to impunity, and that’s exactly, I think, the attitude of the financial community.


We thank you both, Mark Shields, David Brooks. Have a great weekend.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.

The post Shields and Brooks on Islamic State as ‘ideal’ villains, retirement for Holder and Jeter appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 5.7 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Brooks and Dionne on ground troop debate, Hillary’s chances of running

Fri, Sep 19, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: This week, Congress gave its support to arming moderate Syrian rebels, but there seemed to be a divide between the military and the White House over the need for ground troops to take on the Islamic State group.

We analyze that and more with Brooks and Dionne. That’s New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. Mark Shields is away.

Welcome to you both.

E.J. DIONNE, The Washington Post: Good to be with you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, the Islamic State group, the president got the support, David, that he wanted from the House and the Senate to arm Syrian rebels.

The polls, though, are showing the public is saying they don’t think this strategy is going to work, even though they agree with the specifics. And then, as we just said, the generals are saying, hey, we are going to need ground troops, despite what the president said.

How does all this limit him?  How much does it complicate what the U.S. is trying to do?

DAVID BROOKS, The New York Times: Well, the first thing is, I was impressed by how big the majorities were. It seems like, when you look at politics, that parties, especially the Republican Party, has shifted radically on domestic policy, the Tea Party direction, which tends to be less interventionist abroad.

But the Republican Party especially was solidly behind the president for the most part. The Democratic Party was too. And so there were people on either end that were against it, but there’s still sort of a — at least in this foreign policy, on this issue, preventing a caliphate from existing in Iraq and Syria, pretty solid majorities.

What’s happening now, we’re in — we’re entering the mission creep phase. It’s pretty clear that the idea of just using air warfare is not going to get ISIS out of the cities. And the generals are beginning to think that through, and you will probably need some special forces on the ground, not a big invasion or anything like that.

It’s also clear we have a pretty unilateral effort. It’s much multilateral than George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq a decade ago or whatever. And so what we have is a big gap between what we have so far committed and what we will be required to get to accomplish the mission. And the coming debate is over how much we increase that commitment.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, E.J., the strategy is only a couple weeks’ old and already it’s — is it falling apart?

E.J. DIONNE: Well, it hasn’t been tested yet.

I mean, I think that the vote was striking. If you like bipartisanship, you will love this vote, because not only was support bipartisan, but the opposition was bipartisan. When you have Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren on the same side, on the no side, you’re talking about…

JUDY WOODRUFF: For different reasons.

E.J. DIONNE: For — well, different, but — that’s true.

Ron Paul — Rand Paul, rather, was — is sort of uneasy about the intervention. And I think that you had an interesting moment with the generals, where they were arguing, we need more troops. And the president really went out of his way to assert kind of civilian control, and to say, you know, they can say what they want, but I am committed not to putting American ground troops in, combat troops in.

And so I think the test here — I don’t think the limits on the president are I political. I don’t think the limits on the president are even from his own military. The limits are, will this strategy work?  And I think Americans basically don’t want to commit ground troops, and yet these polls suggest they worry that anything we touch in Iraq will not work the way we intended. And there’s some reason for them to feel that way.


But there are sort of two strategies here from the president. The first is, we will degrade ISIS. The second is that we will not commit ground troops. Well, those two things may not be true. And so which one is he going to choose?  Is he really going to leave office with the Islamic State as powerful as it is now, holding as much ground as it is now?

I suspect he’s going to begin to give ground. It’s not a big invasion if it’s special operations forces. I suspect he’s going to involve — Dwight Eisenhower used to say, planning is everything, but plans are nothing, which means you go in with a strategy, but you have got to adjust.

And I suspect there is going to be a lot of adjustment in ways that we can’t foresee right now.

E.J. DIONNE: But I think a lot depends on, how quickly do we expect to get this done?  And all of the testimony, including from the military, is that this is a very long-term operation.

And the hope is that not only can you get the Iraqi military back into a position where they can fight again, but they’re going to try to build, to create these Sunni national guard units. Now, that will take time. And it’s a lot to hang on new national guard units.

But I think there’s not a lot of pressure to get this done tomorrow morning, which is why I think he can hold his ground for a while on the ground — on the combat troops.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it wise to rule out ground troops, though, before this even begins, though?

DAVID BROOKS: I don’t think so. I think you have a strategy and then you have the means to get there. Whether you have ground troops or not is the means.

The strategy is to degrade ISIS, so you should leave all your means on the table. That doesn’t mean you want to do it, and that doesn’t mean the American people support it or I particularly would want to do it. But sending special operations forces to locate terrorists and things like that, that may be necessary. It seems to me, if you are committed, as the president said he was, to mission, then you should have maximum flexibility about how to get there.

E.J. DIONNE: It’s a statement to our allies, and particularly in the Middle East, saying, we can’t do all this ourselves. We have no intention of doing what we did the last time, so you have got to step up, too. So I think there could be something strategic about it as well.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Change of subject to somebody who saw herself having some hiccups and problems a few years ago when she tried to run for president over her Iraq position.

But, David, Hillary Clinton, she was in Iowa this weekend. She was telling a big crowd at the Harkin — Tom Harkin final steak fry that, yes, she’s thinking about running for president again.

Do we learn something from this?  Do we learn that it’s — she’s farther down the road?  Do we learn anything about whether people want her to run?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, people do want her to run. She’s the odds-on favorite.

What we haven’t learned is what the message is. And that’s the big thing I’m really curious about. What she’s been saying so far is a message of economic security. It’s basically a standard Democratic message. It’s not particularly new, but it may be effective.

But if I’m looking at Hillary Clinton, I do think there’s going to be opposition on the left in the university towns, in the more progressive side. There’s clearly a desire for something on the left. And there’s the problem of age and the fact that she seems to be from the 1990s.

And so, to me, the impulse is to be conservative and coast to the nomination, but the imperative is to be new and say, I’m not the — we’re not just going back to the Clinton years. I have got a new theme. I have got a new agenda. I have got a new argument.

And so far — it’s not fair to expect her to have done it so far, but I do think the desire to take risks is how — one of the ways to look at the Clinton campaign. Is it really a risk-taking, new thing?

JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you see that?

E.J. DIONNE: Well, first, the fact that she’s back in Iowa is a pretty sure indication that she’s running, because, after running third in those caucuses, she had never wanted to go back there. She noted that it’s been — she hasn’t been there since 2008.

And I think she is trying to find for this — for 2016 very similar ground to what Bill Clinton found in 1992. But it doesn’t mean it’s exactly the same ground. Clinton, the — Bill Clinton was very good at, on the one hand, being the new Democrat, having new ideas, but he still in many ways was an old-fashioned Democrat who talked about inequality, taxing the rich more, and he managed to put that together.

Doing that in 2016 probably requires Hillary Clinton to be a little tougher on the left side. She has got to be tougher on inequality, which she was, and she spoke very strongly about that. She’s talking a lot about women, and particularly working-class women, and what they’re going through.

E.J. DIONNE: And I think that is — she is trying to create the same thing, but all these years later, it has got to be a slightly different thing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But is it — is she saying enough at this point, David?  Is this sort of teasing with a comment every few weeks or so, is that where she ought to be at this point in September 2014?


Wait until the midterm, and then you can get serious. I think it would be premature, immature, overmature.


E.J. DIONNE: Immature, she won’t get accused of.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. Right. Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we were following her. We had a camera crew, and so we followed her in Iowa this weekend.

But, E.J., we were there also to cover the Senate race, a very close race between Congressman Braley, the Democrat, Joni Ernst, the Republican state senator. A lot — a few things have happened on the Senate landscape this week. There’s that. There’s — that race has gotten a little bit tighter just in the last few days.

In Kansas, the race that we thought Congressman — or Senator Pat Roberts, the Republican incumbent, had it in a walk. The ballot is changed. The Democrat’s out — he’s running against the incumbent. A judge ruled something today. But how do you see the Senate landscape?  What does it feel like right now?

E.J. DIONNE: Well, this may prove I’m a self-hating pundit, but I love the fact the pundits can’t figure this out.


E.J. DIONNE: You have all of these very complicated mathematical models that say 51-49 the Republicans will take over. That’s a very sophisticated way of saying, who knows?

And I think that what you have got in this election overall are Republicans hoping and believing that President — President Obama’s unpopularity is enough to carry them through. And the president is down. But the Republicans aren’t really offering very much, and a lot of these Democrats are saying, wait a minute, what would you cut?  What kinds of — do you have anything for working people who are — who have really been hammered by this economy?

And so I think you have got an electorate that hasn’t figured out what this campaign is about, because I don’t think the politicians have figured what it’s about. I think Kansas is a state that I think is going to be perhaps the most interesting state in the country, because you not only have an independent running against a Republican, and so you have a chance of a Republican losing for the first time in the New Deal, but — since the New Deal — but you also have this amazing governor’s race, where Governor Sam Brownback, who has done all this tax-cutting — the budget is a mess, and people are worried about cuts in education.

The Democrats could win that. Joe Scarborough made — former congressman, made a great point, that, in 1978, Prop 13 made the tax-cutting — made tax-cutting the central Republican issue. This might be the first election where a Republican governor loses an election because he cut taxes too much. It’s an amazing thing going on in Kansas.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you see things still unsettled in mid-September?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, we know where they are now. We don’t know where they will be in six weeks.

But I do think this pundit has it — does have it figured out.


DAVID BROOKS: That we see a national tide. There’s clearly a national tide.

You look at the New York Times/CBS poll that came out this week, huge to the Republicans. They’re just doing very, very well in the generic ballot. Obama is down, huge national tide. And so if it becomes a national election, which the Republicans are trying to make it, they’re going to do really well.

Militating against that, you see in individual states some shifts in the Democratic direction. North Carolina, in particular, you’re seeing a shift there on the Democratic part, the situation in Kansas, a few other places. To me, the bottom line right now is — and the Democrats are trying to make it local races, a bunch of local races.

I think the history is that when you have one party trying to do national, one party trying to do local, usually, the one that is trying to do national tends to do a little bit better. And so I do still think the Republicans are likely to take it over, but, you know, that could all shift, obviously.

E.J. DIONNE: I think this is premature punditry at this point.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I’m only saying where it is today.


JUDY WOODRUFF: There’s nothing wrong with that.

But you think things are still…

E.J. DIONNE: I think things are still unsettled.

And, in fact, one of the striking things in the punditry is that people were saying this is heading the Republicans’ way. And you have seen pulling back. Iowa is a case where the race has probably moved a little Democratic. There are a bunch of states where that has happened.

DAVID BROOKS: Right, Georgia, too.


DAVID BROOKS: And the only point I would make is that there are just so many states the Republicans can pick up. There are so — the Democrats are defending on so many fronts, that the Republicans don’t have to win them all.

E.J. DIONNE: They start with three, and so they need three more.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, the two of you are terrific. And we’re glad you’re here.

E.J. DIONNE: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: E.J. Dionne, David Brooks, thank you.

E.J. DIONNE: Take care.

The post Brooks and Dionne on ground troop debate, Hillary’s chances of running appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on Obama as reluctant warrior, sacrificing immigration reform before midterms

Fri, Sep 12, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: A major presidential address to the nation and calls for congressional backing to take on the Islamic State. It was another full week of news.

And we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, we led the program tonight with Bill Clinton. He is supporting, he said, President Obama’s plan to degrade and destroy ISIS.

Mark, he said it won’t be easy or quick, but he thinks it will be successful. But I guess my question to you is, two days after the president rolled it out, you said it needs a healthy debate. Is it getting that kind of debate right now?

MARK SHIELDS: No, it isn’t.

If John Kennedy were writing a postscript of profiles in courage, he wouldn’t get any material on Capitol Hill, with few inconspicuous consumptions — exceptions. Tim Kaine , Democratic senator from Virginia, and several others arguing that the Congress should accept this responsibility.

The irony is, the Republican House members are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to sue the president for excessive abuse of power, and here’s the one power that is defined, delineated by the Constitution that resides with the Congress to declare war. And they have abdicated that responsibility, or appear to be, want to get through the election.

Leaders now see their responsibility as to avoid difficult votes for their members, whether it’s the leadership, makes no — Mitch McConnell being the exception. He’s calling on the Republicans in the Senate for a vote. But Harry Reid doesn’t want one, and I don’t think see that John Boehner does either.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Where do you come down on that?


No, I think in the House and the Senate, we’re probably not going to get a big debate. We will have a debate about the appropriations, about some of the backdoor funding mechanisms. It strikes me what’s interesting is it seems to me the Democrats are a little more divided on this. It’s a more troublesome issue for the Democrats than it is for the Republicans.

The Republicans are more united. Rand Paul has come out more or less in favor of this. So the — what had been a more isolationist fringe, or however you want to say it, has — that part of the Republican Party has merged and looks more like a conventional Republican Party, the national security party.

The Democrats are the divided ones. And Steny Hoyer, the Democratic leading congressional official, wants to push it beyond the election. But we are having a big national debate about it. People are talking about it on the streets. And what struck me is how hard it is to talk about it, because I think most people think you have no choice but to somehow — you can’t allow a genocidal caliphate in the Middle East.

But how you do it is what has everybody scratching their heads. What kind of coalition are we going to have?  What happens if the Iraqi army is not successful on the ground?  What happens if the Free Syrian Army, the moderate Syrian opposition, is not super successful?

So, very quickly, I have just noticed the tenor of the debate has shifted from ends for the most part to means. And people are sort of up in the air, because it’s not quite clear exactly how that is going to work.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark, the president has asked Congress to support the training of Syrian rebels, assuming they identify these moderate Syrian rebels.

MARK SHIELDS: That’s right.

They have got to be — somebody has got to find out who the moderates are.

DAVID BROOKS: They have got to be for Sam Nunn.  They have got to be…

MARK SHIELDS: Is there a test here, I mean, the Lincoln Chafee series?

Yes. No, Judy, the Western — United States — the United States military, western military, has shown its ability, its capacity to come in and dominate the battlefield. But the idea of establishing order, security and peaceful government in its wake after that has eluded us.

And there’s no way in the world — the question of coalition, who are these people?  Where are they?  Who are the troops who are going to be there to guarantee stability, order and some sense of justice in the areas?

You can’t do that with airstrikes. I mean, airstrikes are wonderful. They’re antiseptic. They’re at a distance. The possibility of your own casualties is finite. But they don’t occupy. You can’t occupy a nation or bring order and stability by airstrikes. So who are people on the ground?  Who is the coalition?  Where are the troops coming from?

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re saying he’s the reluctant warrior, so can the reluctant warrior lead in a situation where we don’t know what the endgame…

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think so.

I strikes me a Syrian moderate is anybody against beheading in Syria. That makes you a moderate. But I do think he is a reluctant warrior. He doesn’t want to be there. But that has some advantages. It has the advantage he’s not going to be carried away by his own righteousness.

He’s not going to want to dominate the ground. He — it is going to make him skeptical of everything that generals bring him because he’s not gung-ho. And it’s going to mean he is going to be realistic about our goals.

And turning Syria into a great country is not one of our goals. It’s — and turning Iraq into a viable country is sort of one of our goals. He’s more interested in keeping Iraq stable than whatever happens in Syria. The main goal is degrading these guys, truly one of the most evil manifestation of human life on earth.

And so simply — our goal is destructive. Our goal is not positive. It’s not make the Middle East a better place. Our goal is make sure the Middle East doesn’t get any worse. And so I do think, with that limited goal, with some buy-in from the Sunni tribes who have done it before, they have defeated this kind of army before. It should be possible to degrade this group.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Turn to something very different, politics. We talked to Bill Clinton about it. He’s going to Iowa this weekend, Mark, with former Secretary Hillary Clinton, who a lot of people think is going to run for president in 2016.

She has not been back there since she ran for president in 2008. Is this something you’re going to be watching?  Is it a big deal?  What does it say?

MARK SHIELDS: It’s a major deal, her first time back, obviously, in Iowa.

Two things, Judy. Part of it, following the earlier discussion, Iowa Democrats are among the most dovish Democrats in the country. The Iowa caucuses were created in 1968. The architect of them was a fellow named Alan Barren (ph), a very political — political genius, an anti-war Democrat, so that anti-war Democrats could express their opposition to Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam policy.

So Hillary Clinton, who is now sort of priding herself on Barack Obama coming over to her position and arming the Syrians and her toughness, that will be an interesting fit. More interesting to me is how she handles Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton — think about this. We have had one balanced budget in 45 years, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, several balanced budgets, leaving a surplus. We had the lowest unemployment in the history of the United States among African-Americans and Latinos. We had the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years under Bill Clinton.

There were 22 million jobs created in Bill Clinton’s eight years, which is more than were created in the 20 years of Ronald Reagan’s eight and the Bushes’ 12. It’s an amazing record. So there’s a temptation on her part to run a nostalgia back-to-the-future campaign, I think, because things were better.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re saying that’s a good idea, or…

MARK SHIELDS: No, I don’t think you can. I think you can run — American presidential campaigns are about the future.

And I don’t think you can run a nostalgic campaign. But she wants to remind people of just how good things were when Bill Clinton was there, even though he was there — it will be 16 years later.


I’m struck by the same things Mark is, first that she has emerged, and even more so since she left the secretary of state job, as possibly the most hawkish Democrat, certainly hawkish presidential possibility. And she’s going to be starting in a state that is notoriously unwelcome for that.

And so how does she play that?  How forward-leaning is she in talking about that?  And, of course, it’s worth remembering she lost there. And if you remember the tears she shed, the way her voice quivered, it happened after Iowa. She was in New Hampshire at the time, but it’s a moment of — it was a scene of maximum vulnerability for her. And one expects of the Clinton mind it will be a scene of maximum effort this time.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And that raises — broaden it out. I asked President Clinton about the Senate races. And he finally — at first, he said he didn’t know, and then he said, no, I think the Democrats — Mark, he said, I think the Democrats have a slightly better than 50/50 chance of holding onto the Senate.

MARK SHIELDS: He went on to specifically analyze the Mike Ross against Asa Hutchinson…

JUDY WOODRUFF: He went from one race after another.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes. No, the problem, Judy, the Democrats are not in an encouraging environment right now.

Of the seven key races, six of them, the Democrats, for control of the Senate, are being run in red states that Mitt Romney carried by more than 14 points. You have got a president who’s at the lowest job rating in his presidency right now at 40 percent.

And you have people feeling the country is headed the wrong direction by a 2-1 margin, worse than it was in 1994, when the Democrats got swept, or 2006, when George Bush was routed. So it’s that.


And add to that the interest, enthusiasm factor is higher among Republicans than it is among Democrats. You know, it’s not an encouraging picture. So the Democrats, the Mark Pryors, the Mark Udalls, the Mark Begiches are all trying to make a one-on-one race against the candidate.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Marks. It’s a good name.

MARK SHIELDS: They don’t want to mention Barack Obama.

And the Republicans all want to say, my candidate — my opposition, my opponent went to Washington and voted 95 percent of the time with Barack Obama and forgot the people here in Centerville.

DAVID BROOKS: I had forgotten about all the Marks. It’s a “Marksist” party.




DAVID BROOKS: But it’s funny how the barometric pressure, at least here among those of us who watch the polls, is a couple of months ago, it was all — it looks like a great Republican year.

Then the tide shifted. It seems the polls were shifting on the Democratic side, Democrats doing pretty well in Georgia and North Carolina hanging in there. I would say in the last two weeks, if you look at the polls, especially as they have gone to a tighter screen where they only look at the likely voters, it has shifted a little more toward the Republican side again.

The Democrats are still doing well in Georgia and some other places, but the momentum feels, at least at the moment, among those who pay super close attention to this, it feels back again a little more on the Republican side.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Clinton is sure saying — President Clinton is saying he’s going to be out there campaigning through the fall. He’s getting more invitations than President Obama is to campaign.

MARK SHIELDS: He is. He is. He is the most popular political figure in the country. It’s just remarkable.

JUDY WOODRUFF: One last thing I want to ask you both about, the announcement by the White House. They did confirm that the president is not going to announce any sort of executive action on immigration until after this election.

Is this good for the president, good for the Democrats, David, or not?

DAVID BROOKS: In the short term, yes.

So it’s a short-term/long-term thing. In the short term, it means a lot of Democrats running in red states will have a little easier time. They won’t have to confront that issue. Over the long term, I understood the Democratic strategists who said, well, let’s sacrifice the short term. Let’s really lock in some loyalty among Latino groups. And that will just benefit us so much more in the long term.

So, they have taken a hit among Latino groups among poll standing. president Obama’s poll standing among Hispanics is down. There’s certainly a lot of anger from the groups who thought they were promised this. And so they have made that long-term sacrifice for a short-term play.

MARK SHIELDS: I think some Democrats view this long term.

1994, Judy, when the Democrats were routed and the Republicans won the Congress for the first time in 40 years, they won the House, after that, the postscript, the narrative was the Democrats had lost because of their vote for gun control. And gun control became toxic at that point. I think Democrats are concerned that, in 2014, if they did lose and immigration was front and center, that it would kill prospects for immigration in the future.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we are going to — we will watching, because you’re right. The pro-immigrant groups are really angry right now at the president.

MARK SHIELDS: That’s right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark Shields, David Brooks, we’re not angry at either one of you. Come back next week.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.


The post Shields and Brooks on Obama as reluctant warrior, sacrificing immigration reform before midterms appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on Islamic State as ‘cancer,’ Crist’s campaign

Fri, Aug 29, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

HARI SREENIVASAN: And that brings us to the weekly analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So the phrase from yesterday’s press conference that everybody left on was that we have no strategy. But since we’re the “NewsHour,” we will go a little deeper than that.

So, is there a time right now in this country in the appetite for a national conversation, a congressional debate about whether or not to use force and what sort of force?

MARK SHIELDS: I don’t know if there’s an appetite. There’s a need. There’s an urgency.

And I want to start off by giving the props or the shout-out to three members of the House, which is usually an institution that gets much scorn and abuse from those of us in the press.

Representative Barbara Lee, a Democrat of California, Congressman Walter Jones, a Republican of North Carolina and Democrat Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the three of them wrote a letter to John Boehner, urging the speaker, upon return to the House on September 8, that they take up the question of Iraq and Syria, and the authorization of added force, or whatever it is, and to define the mission, to debate and to determine just exactly what the United States’ policy is and to vote on it.

This makes them unpopular with their colleagues. As Bob Dole said once, members of Congress love — we members of Congress love to make tough speeches. We don’t like to cast tough votes.

And this will be a tough vote, especially on the eve of election. Most people don’t want to do it. It is necessary. We didn’t do it 12 years ago. We had a hurried, rushed election, a debate when Democrats were terrified of being accused of being soft on terrorism, and they were cowed. And we had misinformation and misdirection, and tragedy result.

And I just think that it’s absolutely imperative and — and urgent.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, I agree.

I’m a big fan of presidential action. I think, legally, the president has the right to take action in this case. Nonetheless, for the effectiveness of the action, for the good of the country, I do think we need a big national debate about it.

And I think you could probably get a bipartisan support for something. To me, the crucial issue is how we frame this. Do we see these as a distinct war in Syria, something distinct in Lebanon, something distinct in Syria, something distinct in Iran?

And, to me, it’s — what we need in this debate is an appreciation — a step-back and appreciation of the problem. And this is not what the administration has given us so far. Hisham Melhem earlier in the program had a very good analogy of the Spanish Civil War, that you had a global — people coming in on two different sides.

And that’s scary because the Spanish Civil War really was the precursor to World War II. Other people, Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations, have called it a Thirty Years’ War, this big religious feud. The Thirty Years’ War was a horrifically destructive war in Europe in the 17th century.

And so to figure out what it is we’re dealing with, why al-Qaida, and ISIS, what’s the — what’s the relationship between the two, what’s the relationship to other jihadi organizations, and how do we get involved in what will be a long-running, probably medium-level conflict for a long time to come?  We haven’t really had that post-Iraq debate.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Well, let’s shift gears now to the Ukraine.

Each day, President Vladimir Putin is able to increase the rhetoric. Whether these are video game or actual satellite images of 1,000 Russian troops crossing the border into Ukraine, whether it’s called an invasion or an incursion, how does the West, how does Ukraine deal with this, but how — what is the American role, if there is one?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, American role is an obligation.

I mean, in 1994, for — for Ukraine to surrender its considerable nuclear arsenal at that time, there was a guarantee given by the United States and Western democracies and European nations of support and defense and security.

And I don’t think there is any question that that obligation is on the table right now. I mean, the plausible deniability that Putin could sort of hide behind has just been totally exposed, totally sabotaged, totally revealed for the fraud that it is. This, quite frankly, is an attempt on his part, whether it’s an alley or an avenue, down to Crimea and his concern about the water port and openness there.

But I think the obligation is there. And I think the world is watching. And NATO next week will bring it to a front.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Is this NATO’s responsibility more than ours?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it’s everybody’s.

This is — both the Middle East and what is happening in Ukraine are symptoms of the vacuum, a vacuum in the post — or in the 21st century order, and it’s partly an American — a vacuum of American power. It’s certainly a vacuum of European cohesion, power. It’s certainly an inability of the major countries of the world, including China, to get together and actually impose an order that will be good for everybody.

And so, when you have no order, then the wolves get more aggressive. And Putin has gotten more aggressive. And I think the administration, I think a whole lot of people in the administration have been very aggressive verbally, rhetorically. They understand the source of the problem.

I think the president has not been aggressive enough. This is an invasion. When you take over a part of the country to get — so you can have a land route to Crimea, that’s an invasion. It’s not a continuation of what they have been doing. It’s not low-level harassment. It’s a major invasion on European soil.

And so you just can’t allow that to happen. And, so, to me, the first step has to be, if the Russians are pouring sophisticated material into the — their proxies, then the West has to pour some more sophisticated material into our proxies, essentially. And that’s been an issue that has been debated over and over again. But I think raising costs for Putin, showing some commitment to the Ukraine, both financial and militarily, has to be at least the first step.

HARI SREENIVASAN: So, we have had definition of invasion. Let’s — let me just pivot back towards Syria for a second.

If the U.S. makes attacks inside Syria, a sovereign nation, is that not a declaration of war?

MARK SHIELDS: I think — I think it meets certainly one definition of a declaration of war.

That’s why I think the debate — I mean, the debate that we didn’t have 12 years ago was — for example, if we’re going to do this — David is talking about 30 years or 20 years or whatever it is, a long twilight struggle, call it what you will — I mean, this is going to — it’s a country fights a war. An army doesn’t fight a war.

And if this country isn’t willing to fight a war, then we should never send an army. That is really — it’s not just something that we’re rooting or supporting the troops and standing up at a ball game.

This — we would be the first Americans since the Civil War not to accept the responsibility of paying for a war. In every war since the Civil War, Americans have increased their taxes. we need a debate on sacrifice being — the quality of sacrifice in war, as well as what the objective is. How do we know what our mission is?  How will we know when we have achieved it?

I just — I think it’s a — this debate is so urgent and so necessary to understand and to agree upon what we’re undertaking.

DAVID BROOKS: I do agree with that.

And the president has to — is playing a role. I thought the important statement he made was not the one that got all the attention, that, “I have no strategy.”  He keeps calling ISIS a cancer. And I think that’s the right metaphor. That suggests it’s going to spread, and it will spread unless you stop it, which if you diagnose this as a cancer, which I think is the right diagnosis, then you have got to do something about it.

And the paradox of the Obama presidency will be, it will be a much more militarized presidency in its final two years than any of us could have imagined. But the alternative is a Middle East that is much worse when he leaves office than when he took off — over, a Europe that is in much worse shape than when he leaves office than took over, a global world order that is in much worse shape.

And so figuring that out — and it’s not going to look like the wars of World War II. It’s not going to look like Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s going to be sort of a low-level war fought on all sorts of fronts, militarily, financial, otherwise. Figuring that out is still in the future for us all.

And so that’s why I do think we ought to link all these things and think as broadly as possible and have this debate Mark…

MARK SHIELDS: To his credit, the president doesn’t have about him that sort of counterfeit, synthetic macho that Americans leaders oftentimes affect at a time of national emergency.

He doesn’t have a swagger about him. And I think that is to his credit. At the same time, a president’s job, especially at a complex time like this, a confusing, confounding fast-changing world, is to be the explainer in chief. And he was anything but that yesterday. And that’s a responsibility that he has to fulfill.

DAVID BROOKS: That’s because he’s being dragged in against his will. He doesn’t want to be here. I don’t blame him. Nobody wants to be here.

But even within his own administration, within his own party, there are lot of foreign policy experts who take a more aggressive stand. His posture on foreign affairs has always been to dig in his heels and get dragged often against his will. And he’s going to dragged against his will to be much more assertive around the world in the final two years.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Well, let’s talk about a domestic policy issue that he might not want to be there for. This is immigration.

Now, should — does the president have the authority and should he go it alone right now, given where his support is, given the midterms coming up?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, let’s do — let’s take the high road and go directly to the midterms.


MARK SHIELDS: The Senate is in balance. And for the president to act unilaterally at this point through executive action on immigration would be, in I think the judgment of most Democrats, a disservice to service in tough races, people like Mark Pryor in Arkansas, and states that do not have either a large Hispanic population or where this issue is not front burner.

It would — Mark Udall, where the Latino vote has been crucial to the president in carrying it twice and to Mark Udall’s own election in ’08, and Michael Bennet’s as well, is the exception. But I think that the more the Democrats raise this issue and this possibility, it brings out the worst in the Republicans. This is a race that is really about defining and putting a face on your opposition.

And to the degree that Senator Ted Cruz on this issue or Steve King, the congressman from Iowa, become the voice and the face of the Republican Party, it probably helps — it undoubtedly helps the Democrats, because it’s — they are not seen as rational leaders, people who have voted to close down the government. And I think the Democrats can play — Barack Obama does not scare people, but the prospect of closing down the government does scare people.


This is a debate within the White House apparently, that some people think it will hurt Democrats in red states if the president sort of takes away the threat of deportation. Some people think, no, it may — the Republicans will overreact, and it will help us nationally.

I happen to think the people who think the red state issue, that think this will be bad in the midterms probably have the more persuasive case. But you could easily make the case it will really hurt us in the short-term, if we’re a Democrat, but it will help us in the long-term, because it will further solidify Latino votes for us if the Democrats — if the Republicans go really bananas over this deportation issue.

But it interesting. It’s all being fought out on politics grounds. On matters of substance, I agree with the policy. I do not think the White House has the right, the constitutional right to impose a major legislative change on its own. I do not think this is a legitimate act for the White House to do, as much as I think, on policy grounds, it’s a good act.

MARK SHIELDS: There are 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, some of whom stayed — overstayed a visa, some of whom were brought here as children, had nothing to do about it. But we are not going to — so it is somewhat of a manufactured issue.

We’re not going to export, deport, round up 11 million people. So, I mean, this is really — it is a political issue. And it’s being…

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, you can’t really — you can’t — it’s effectively changing the law if you say, OK, this is officially not going to happen. And that’s — Congress has to be involved.

I just hate the idea of president doing this all by himself, any president.


And, finally, in Florida, interesting governor’s race. As the Morning Line e-mail noted this — today, that it would be — if Charlie Crist was able to win, it would be the first time in Florida that a governor has been able to switch parties and succeed twice. Could he be successful here?

MARK SHIELDS: He could be.

The irony of this — I mean, Charlie Crist was elected as a Republican, as you know, and ran as an independent for the Senate, and was trounced by Marco Rubio, and now is running, won the Democratic primary, very convincing.

This is a state where, ironically, President Obama, who is not sought by most Democratic candidates to come in on their behalf, except to raise money this year, could be of help. I mean, when he carried the state, the turn — the composition of the electorate was 67 percent white, the turnout among Latinos, African-Americans and Asians.

And it was three-quarters white when Rick Scott was elected in 2010. So, the president, if he can generate enthusiasm on those constituencies, could be a help to Charlie Crist.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I’m just…

HARI SREENIVASAN: In five seconds.

DAVID BROOKS: I’m just a little more skeptical. It’s hard to — it’s too left for the Democrats — too left for the Republicans, too right for the Democrats.


DAVID BROOKS: Stuck in the middle.

HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, David Brooks, Mark Shields, thanks so much.

The post Shields and Brooks on Islamic State as ‘cancer,’ Crist’s campaign appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Marcus and Gerson on lessons from Ferguson, Islamic State threat

Fri, Aug 22, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now to the analysis of Marcus and Gerson. That’s Washington Post columnists Ruth Marcus and Michael Gerson. Both Mark Shields and David Brooks are away.

And we welcome you both.

MICHAEL GERSON: Good to be here.


JUDY WOODRUFF: So this has been a tough week for news, both in this country and overseas.

But let’s start, Michael, with Ferguson, Missouri, the aftermath of the shooting of this young teenage — teenage black young man. It’s only — we’re not even two weeks since it happened. Are there already lessons that come to us from this?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, we’re two weeks out, but we still actually don’t know some of the basic facts. And we need to take that seriously.

It’s hard to interpret events when you don’t know all the facts. And so put that aside. But there are some context issues that surround this that we do need to take seriously. One of them is really, this was a police force that was in over its head, five different agencies trying to cooperate, not cooperating very well.

We have got serious questions about the militarization of policing. That a serious set of issues. I think it also makes the point that that trust between a community and a police department, which is so essential, can’t be summoned in an emergency if it hasn’t been built up over years.

And that contrast between the composition of the community and the composition of the police force added to the tensions when the strains came. And that’s something you have to deal with over a long time. I have got one more thing. It also points out that there are some communities that really have been isolated from American prosperity, some communities like African-American males that feel disconnected from the promise of the country.

Right now, we deal with a lot of that through criminal justice, but we need other ways to deal with that and do outreach to communities in America, rather than just through police action.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, in a way, they’re right before our eyes, but we don’t see them.


And I would just take two additional — I agree with everything Michael said. I take two additional lessons here. And they’re really lessons in what not to do in situations like that.

Number one, you have got to — you make an important point. We still don’t have really basic facts about what happened. This — one of the reasons for the ferocious, angry response of the community was the lack of information, the failure to get out really basic information, what happened, how many shots were fired, why was his body allowed to stay there for so long, get out some information quickly to tamp down some of the anger, even if the anger is justified.

And number two, which is related, it’s a lot harder to contain a wildfire once it erupts. If you have people speaking to the community in a way that can calm them down early on, it’s a lot easier to contain that anger than when it starts to mushroom and spread.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Should people in the community, should people nationally, Michael, expect justice to be done in this situation? What should the expectation be, and especially now that you have got the federal government? You had the attorney general, Eric Holder, there a day this week.

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, they should expect justice to be done.

The problem in these cases is that justice is not always done quickly. Sometimes, it takes a long time. The primary actors in this as far as justice are concerned are an elected local prosecutor and a grand jury that’s begun to receive information. That’s where the criminal case is taking place.

The Justice Department — I think Eric Holder played a good role in coming in and being reassuring in the community that the federal government was focused, in sending FBI agents. There were dozens on the ground to try to make sure that the information, the witnesses were all surveyed. All that was good.

He can’t be seen, though, in my view, as trying to elbow out the local authorities. There may be a civil rights case here eventually, but the primary action right now is really the local.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you see the justice question?

RUTH MARCUS: Well, in terms of the Justice Department question, the Justice Department really traditionally has come in when local processes have failed.

We don’t want local processes to fail. The case that people will most remember is, after the Rodney King beating, a state jury acquitted the officers. Then the Justice Department, many years later, after the rioting that ensued, came in.

That was an example of the state system failing. We would all be much better off if the state system worked here.

MICHAEL GERSON: And that took five years, five years to work itself through the system.

RUTH MARCUS: Many — yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But that was only after there was failure at the local…

RUTH MARCUS: But the question of whether justice is done will really depend on what facts are brought forward.

It is hard to imagine a situation in which an unarmed young man is shot justifiably by an officer six or more times. However, we don’t know exactly what happened there. And there are cases where officers are in reasonable fear for their safety. There have been allegations that he was charged at.

Justice may be bringing the case. Justice may potentially be not bringing a case. And that’s where you really have questions about the trust of this community in its prosecution. We need to know more facts.

But it’s obviously — thank goodness this week was a quieter week, but it’s obviously still a very volatile situation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The community has quieted down, but you’re right, so many questions still out there.

But let’s turn overseas to, I guess, the story that dismayed everybody this week, and, Michael, the terrible, horrible murder of the American journalist James Foley by the Islamic State group, a man standing there with a black costume, uniform on, British accent.

What more do we now know about this group, ISIS, ISIL, the Islamic State, based on this?

MICHAEL GERSON: I think we feel it more directly because of the images, but we knew it, for months, that ISIL has been murdering people broadly wherever they gain control, and sometimes even reportedly putting their heads on pikes.

And this is the most brutal and evil type of group that you could imagine. And the British accent here, by the way, points to a reality. There are hundreds of Western recruits to ISIL that have gone to Syria and perhaps to Iraq in this. And there are people that have Western passports.

Because of our visa system, they can get back in the United States. And American intelligence is very, very concerned about this prospect.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s right. I mean, Ruth, everyone knew this was a serious threat, but now it’s even more serious? I mean, how many more levels of serious is it?

RUTH MARCUS: It’s not a more serious threat, but in a sad, horrific way, perhaps it’s a threat that we as a country and as an administration, as the Obama administration, will now be taking more seriously, be empowered to take more seriously, because this group is not going away.

It is only getting bigger, getting stronger, getting fiercer. There is this strange competition among terrorists to show who’s got the most street cred — I’m actually stealing a line of Mike’s — to show their bona fides in terms of terrorism, which incentivizes them, in fact, to be thinking about and plotting to send people to — look at all the attention that they have gotten with this beheading.

Imagine how much attention they would get with a terrorist incident in Europe or, God forbid, in the United States. And we need to bring some good out of this horrible, savage act, which is to take it seriously and respond with appropriate seriousness.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, the administration is talking tougher, the president certainly talking tougher. But what does that mean? Are we hearing that the administration, that the president, that they now know how far they want to take the fight?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, no. They have made serious tactical shifts. We have had over 90 air attacks since the beginning of this campaign. They’re defending Irbil. They’re defending Baghdad.

But we don’t know if they have made a strategic shift. The strategic shift would be that we’re going to end the ISIS safe haven, which is now as large as New England across two countries, and we’re going to build a regional coalition over many years in order to end this safe haven. We really haven’t heard that.

The administration — high-level administration people talked about containing the threat. They talk about defeating the threat. They talk about destroying the threat. These are all different things. They’re not the same thing. There could be a serious internal argument being — happening right now in the administration about what the strategy should be.

RUTH MARCUS: But you do see the shift from talking — the president just a few months ago was talking about this group as a kind of J.V. team. No one’s talking about them as a J.V. team anymore.

The president just this week talked about extricating the cancer, as if you can just pluck it out. I don’t think it’s going to be that easy. But I thought the most interesting commentary this week came from General Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was very clear that if you want to get rid of this group, it is going to require being in Syria, a place that the president has not wanted to be.

But you could see with both General Dempsey’s comments and the comments of the policy-makers and the political appointees about the dangers that this group poses that they’re getting ready, I think, to prepare the American public and the American Congress for the need to do way more than what we have been doing previously.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, are you saying — are you saying that the president himself has shifted on this as a result of this one terrible murder of this journalist?

RUTH MARCUS: No, I think that the shift from J.V. to, oh, my goodness, we’re in the big leagues now, happened before this murder.

It happened as the…


RUTH MARCUS: … State just metastasized, to continue with that metaphor, and they were able to have such victories on the ground that it was clear this was going to be a big problem, and then came this horrible act.


Well, I think we right now — we will see where the policy goes, but right now, there’s a serious gap between the scale of the diagnosis of the problem, which Chuck Hagel, for example, called a problem like one we have never seen, where Eric Holder says it’s the most frightening he’s seen as attorney general, the terrorist threat, and the scale of the response, which right now is not equal to that threat, but seems to be moving in that direction.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But you still have an American public that is war-weary, by all accounts. And so how do you bring them along if you’re going to do something more? Or do you? Or do you?

RUTH MARCUS: Well, I want to say this in a way that reflects the horror that the Foley family has had inflicted on them, but, in an odd way, having this quasi-public beheading actually helps move the American people, because we’re not going to tolerate that. And it really does underscore the seriousness of the threat.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you see the public moving?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think the president, for example, didn’t act in Syria because he said the public would oppose this.

We have now had a bombing campaign in Iraq against a very serious threat, and the public has not risen up in public opinion against this. In fact, the political class, Republicans and Democrats have been very supportive.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we — it’s been a terrible week. And let’s hope there aren’t many more like this.

Ruth Marcus, Michael Gerson, we thank you.

RUTH MARCUS: Thank you.


The post Marcus and Gerson on lessons from Ferguson, Islamic State threat appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Brooks and Marcus on police power in Ferguson, political change in Iraq

Fri, Aug 15, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

HARI SREENIVASAN: This week saw dramatic developments at home and abroad, with tensions rising in Missouri, in Iraq, and among politicians.

To wrap it all up, the analysis of Brooks and Marcus. That’s New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus. Mark Shields is away.

So, let’s first talk about Ferguson, the thing that everybody in the country is talking about.

Dan Balz in “The Washington Post” this morning led with a story that was kind of interesting, that there’s almost this — a conversation that is happening between libertarians and liberals, agreeing on this particular issue. Rand Paul took out a column in “TIME” magazine yesterday about it.


Well, first on this last point about Ferguson, Megan McArdle had an interesting piece in Bloomberg View pointing out the demographics of Ferguson have shifted radically. It was a couple decades ago three-quarters white. Then it became nearly three-quarters black.

And sometimes the hiring practices, it’s, you hire your friend, you hire your brother in the cops. And so they just didn’t keep up with this amazing population inversion that happened there.

As for the larger political thing, it’s almost unanimous. You look across left, right and center, people think it’s overreacting what happened in the nights subsequently. And that’s, a libertarian suspicion of really forceful and violent government. Liberals tend to I guess be suspicious of police power, especially against minority communities.

But for conservatives and especially traditional conservatives, there’s a community thing going on here. The traditional conservatives, led by a thinker named James Q. Wilson, many years ago, was to believe in community policing, getting cops out of cop cars and actually interacting with the locals.

And so that’s the traditional conservative position, that you don’t want to erect walls. You certainly don’t want to militarize things. You want to have an organic relationship between the community and the police force, and that clearly was ruptured here.


RUTH MARCUS: Well — I’m sorry.

But it’s really been fascinating, and I thought really one of the most interesting pieces this week was Rand Paul’s piece on TIME.com, where if you had not looked at the byline, you might have thought it was written by the Reverend Al Sharpton, because he was so anti-police.

And you think back. We have been talking a lot about Missouri Governor Jay Nixon this week. But you think back to Richard Nixon and the tough-on-crime strain of the Republican Party, which stood in such good stead for so long. In fact, it was copied by Democrats like Bill Clinton who tried to show themselves to be tough on crime.

And so I think that to the extent there is this blurring of kind of liberal-libertarian lines, it’s a piece of a very interesting strain within the party. And I think you are a little bit underselling it, David, because there is this tough-on-crime aspect to your party.

And so for this, this Rand Paul — it’s…



RUTH MARCUS: I’m sorry. I’ll take that back.

RUTH MARCUS: You know, when we’re done, we can hug it out.


HARI SREENIVASAN: We will get to that in a minute. All right.

RUTH MARCUS: But in any event, Rand Paul’s views on things like marijuana legalization, on same-sex marriage, on other issues that might attract, bring — not to David’s party, but to the Republican Party, to attract some younger voters, I think is a very interesting thing that my colleague Dan Balz did point out in The Washington Post this morning.

DAVID BROOKS: I would just say, Mr. Republican, I have my mace and my shield and my armored vehicle afterwards.


DAVID BROOKS: You look at Rudy Giuliani, and part of what they initiated there was, A, community policing, B, the broken windows stuff, which meant you do the small stuff, and that way, you prevent the big things later on.

And I do think that has been Republican police policy.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Well, was that an effective policy? Did broken windows actually…

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think, certainly, if you remember — go back to early Giuliani, they were getting rid of the squeegee guys. Remember, there were guys who would come out and want to squeegee your window and then demand money.


DAVID BROOKS: It was turnstile hoppers. And it was taking care of the small stuff as a way of preventing the big crimes. And I think that was completely vindicated. But it’s a model, in any case, for any sort of police force like the one we have just seen in Ferguson, which is the big, heavy, militaristic approach, as we have seen, is completely contradictory to sort of calm civil order and law and order.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Right. So, we know that certain authorities might have overstepped their bounds and been heavy-handed, but what about the state government, what about the federal government? What was their role? How would you grade them?

RUTH MARCUS: Well, the state government, in the form of Governor Nixon, very poorly.

He has been talked about a little bit as a potential national political figure. I think not. I think, if you want to nominate a national political figure as of this week, it would be Captain Johnson from the state police, who really came in and did exactly what you want a politician/public figure to do, which is to be a voice of calm and reason.

Governor Nixon was just late to the game. His state looked like it was a battlefield in Iraq or some terrible war zone someplace. He should have been in there getting the — getting these terrible SWAT team-type forces off the street, bring some calm earlier.

He sounded whiny, I thought, at the press conference today. I thought the president played a good role, a positive role in terms of not attacking the police, but expressing the horror that everybody feels about an unarmed young man being shot for no apparent reason that we have heard of yet, without going too far in prejudging the thing.

And — but I do think there is one interesting thing is wrapped up in something that David said about the federal government role. There’s a really important role here that we’re going to see going forward in terms of the Justice Department investigating this as a potential civil rights violation.

But the thing that is so fascinating is that, even though we have Justice Department investigating issues of police brutality, we also have the Justice Department and the federal government supplying these military-type, military-grade, actual military weapons as part of — it started in the war on drugs, but now it has turned into part of the war on terror.

I was reading today about the police department in Keene, New Hampshire, that had some sort of armored vehicle to protect against the threat of terrorism at the pumpkin festival.


RUTH MARCUS: And I was at the — I happened to be at the Keene pumpkin festival this year. It was lovely, but didn’t feel a great threat of terrorism.

I think, if one good thing comes out of this week, it’s going to be to dial back this militarization of police forces that would do much better off worrying about broken windows.

DAVID BROOKS: I hope there is somebody in my paper investigating why the militarization happened. Were there contracts involved, somebody was getting — making a lot of money selling this equipment to police forces?

HARI SREENIVASAN: We spoke to that guy yesterday on the program.



And was it just people wanting to be all hyped with new toys?

RUTH MARCUS: Well, boys with toys are a dangerous thing, I’m sorry to say.



DAVID BROOKS: My party, my gender. It’s getting ugly.

RUTH MARCUS: It is ugly, but then there’s the hugs.


HARI SREENIVASAN: Do you think that — do you think that President Obama is in a difficult position because he carries the burden of being the first African-American president on, he’s criticized if he overreacts, he’s criticized if he doesn’t react enough?

DAVID BROOKS: I’m with Ruth on the way he has handled this.

I think he has a good record in general — with a couple exceptions of — not grandstanding, of saying what he needs to say, but not making it a theater about himself. And I do think — and I can think of — there have been several times where he had a little restraint about that. And I think he showed the proper restraint this time.


Let’s shift gears to Iraq. There are several layers of this conversation, first, the political situation, where Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seemed to have defused some things by deciding to leave.



And then there was also the humanitarian crisis that caught so much of our attention, the Yazidis on the mountain. Was the administration’s position enough when it came to the path that we have taken and perhaps will take in that matter?

RUTH MARCUS: Well, it expends on what the meaning of enough is.

This was what passed for a good week in Iraq, especially for the administration, but that’s not saying very much. So the president and the military did the right thing with this humanitarian intervention. It seems to have been a less dire situation than was thought, didn’t require even more intensive intervention.

And so that’s a good thing and that’s the kind of thing that the United States should do when it can. Getting rid of Maliki was necessary, belated. We never should have supported him. The administration should never have supported him going in there in the first place.

The next guy, we just have to hope will be a little bit more open and inclusive, because, otherwise, the country will not be able to stay together. That being said, so this is a good week in Iraq. A good week in Iraq is not a good week, because there is still the fundamental problem that the president, the administration and the country faces, which is that we have seen the spread of this Islamic State, with fighters that are not just wanting to establish a caliphate.

They are threatening, at least according to the attorney general, to send dangerous terrorists to Europe and to the United States, exactly the kind of thing that we were trying to prevent after 9/11. What the administration’s plan is for that, that’s a lot harder to figure out than some pinpoint airstrikes to drop humanitarian supplies on a mountain.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Well, I thought they were going to send in Hillary Clinton and the Rough Riders up to take the hill. She’s eager.

I do think what happened this week is that a greater U.S. role in Iraq became more likely. And, first, what we did militarily, the drops and the bombings had an effect, a positive effect. They worked. Second, we have a government — and this was always Obama’s precondition for U.S. support and involvement — we now have a government that at least in theory will be — has the potential to be a unitary government.

And that was his precondition for doing more stuff to turn back the caliphate, which we just simply have to do. That doesn’t mean we’re going to be sending 500,000 troops. But I do think the president is going to be dragged where he doesn’t want to be, which is just to be more and more involved in Iraq, because the idea of having a transnational caliphate there is a cancer. It will just spread. And I think there’s sort of global agreement on that.

HARI SREENIVASAN: And both of you have made references to Hillary Clinton and the interview that she gave to “The Atlantic” last week.

And you saw kind of a divergence in foreign policy ideas between her and the president, while she went out of her way to make sure that she wasn’t disrespect to the president, but that was the reason for them to have to hug it out.

RUTH MARCUS: First of all, I thought it was a terrific interview by our friend and colleague Jeffrey Goldberg.

I do think — and how shocking is this — that some of the differences between and the degree to which she was supposedly dissing the president has been slightly exaggerated. Now, the political reporter in me wants to say, duh. Hillary Clinton is a big girl. She is an experienced politician. She should have known that that was going to happen and be careful accordingly.

I was very — it’s — two things are clear. She’s got a lot of respect for the president’s foreign policy. She talked about how not doing stupid stuff is not a foreign policy, but she also was very clear to say, if you read the entirety of the interview, that she knows that that’s not the entirety of his foreign policy.

It’s also simultaneously clear — and this goes back to the Iraq conversation that we were just having — that she is a more leaner-in, has a more muscular view of what America’s role in the world needs to be.

And I think the question that is going to need to be asked going forward isn’t just what we should have done with the status of forces agreement in Iraq or what we should have done with arming the Syrian rebels, but what we’re going to do now and what the next president imagines we are going to do now with this ISIS state.


I thought it was a substantive agreement — a substantive disagreement. And so I don’t think it was just she has some — tremendous respect. I do think the Clinton policy is, she is a more Truman, John F. Kennedy style of Democrat. And the Clinton people around Washington have certainly in private been very critical of the Obama foreign policy over the last two or three years, very critical.

And so she is not only more of a leaner-in. She has a much more aggressive faith in American — use of American force. President Obama has much less faith, sometimes does it, but really has to be dragged kicking and screaming.

So, the calibration seemed to me substantively different. And it came out honestly in that interview. And we saw it in 2008. We saw it when they were in the Senate. They’re just different and they think differently about it.

HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, David Brooks, Ruth Marcus, thanks so much.

The post Brooks and Marcus on police power in Ferguson, political change in Iraq appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on Iraq reluctance, Nixon’s legacy

Fri, Aug 08, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congress left Washington this week and international hot spots boiled over. And we get the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, today, it is all about Iraq.

Mark, did the president have a choice but to go back in militarily?

MARK SHIELDS: I don’t think he did, Judy.

Obviously, he had the choice whether that is a humanitarian act. It’s not a question of national security and defense. But the irony is that seven years ago this very week, a long-shot presidential candidate emerged to take on the royal family of the Democratic Party on the strength of one issue, because his opponents, Senators Dodd, Biden, Edwards, and Clinton, had all voted to support the U.S. war in Iraq.

And in a fiercely anti-war Democratic Party, Barack Obama stood alone. His race and his eloquence were exceptional, but that wasn’t the determining factor. And getting out of the Iraq war has been his defining mission. And today it remains an irony. And we’re reminded of Colin Powell, who reluctantly, in going into that war, said it’s the Pottery Barn rule, you break it you own it. And I think there is a certain sense of that right now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you could hear the reluctance in his voice last night.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. The president wants to do two things. He wants to stay out of Iraq for probably and also certainly for political reasons.

He also wants to defeat ISIS and he wants to do both. And the problem is, if you try to do both, you are going to do both mediocrely. And that’s basically what has happened. I just don’t think you can do both. ISIS is a pretty impressive organization and they have taken over.

And for us to say we’re going to leave it to the Iraqis to take care of ISIS strikes me as probably not an option that’s going to be on the table. In the first place, getting the Iraqi government is an iffy proposition. Expecting the Iraqis to be able to beat ISIS on their own is so far unprecedented historically.

And, third, there’s a timing issue. Even if they do get a government, even if they are resolved to beat ISIS, it is going to be weeks and months. And ISIS is a pretty strong organization. They can do a lot of damage in the next weeks and months. And so I think this split-the-different policy the president has adopted of trying to be in and out at the same time is probably not going to be tenable. And I suspect he’s going to have to go in a little further.

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, I just would remind our listeners that, at the height of the Cold War and the height of his own popularity, Ronald Reagan could not persuade the American people to support a military effort against the armed insurgents in Nicaragua literally at our doorstep to undermine the Sandinistas.

Bill Clinton’s popularity was dropping when he went into the Balkans. The American people’s enthusiasm, support for an expanded United States war of men and women, not boots on the ground, which is the euphemism, but sending men and women into combat there, which is what would be required, is nonexistent. It just — it isn’t there.

DAVID BROOKS: What’s nonexistent is people calling for us to send American men and women into Iraq. That’s nonexistent. Nobody is calling for that.

But ISIS has become a threat, not only to the region, but to the United States. There are lots of Westerners in ISIS who declare — who want to launch terror attacks in Western Europe and the United States. ISIS is really a barbaric organization, as barbaric an organization as it’s possible to imagine on the face of the earth.

They are a threat obviously to Syria, to Jordan. The Saudis are beginning to wake up. Even the Turks, who have somewhat manipulated them, are going to beginning to wake up to the threat they pose. If you can’t build an international coalition to oppose ISIS, who can you build an international coalition for? And that seems to me what is necessary.

MARK SHIELDS: The idea of doing this without American military, we are the point of the spear. We literally are.

And the idea of doing that, of getting somehow this grand coalition and other countries to send their troops in, it’s quite obvious that the Iraqi military, which we spent years and great treasure building, and great effort, is not a functioning military unit.

And it doesn’t have a chain of command. It doesn’t have discipline. It is not an effective fighting force. The Kurds are. And that, quite frankly, is probably one of the major factors in the United States’ action today.

JUDY WOODRUFF: They have needed help.

Well, I would just point out, presidents don’t look at polls, we know, on foreign policy. But there are polls this week giving the president historically low ratings on his handling of foreign policy. Striking to me that most of the people feel that the president is not — that the U.S. is not involved enough.

So, you know, what are we to make of this? And then some people are arguing the U.S. should do more, but more of them are saying we’re not doing enough, the president is not involved enough.

So, what do we take away from that?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I would say the general trends from the polls, it seems to me, is that people think we’re not controlling events, we’re being controlled by them.

And I think that’s the result of it’s a lot easier to do small stuff in the beginning than to do big stuff later on. And so when Syria was falling apart, many experts warned of two things, first, that the creation of a Syrian anarchic state would be a breeding ground for terror, and, third, that groups like ISIS would take hold.

And there was a debate a year or two ago about whether to put — help the moderate rebels in Syria. We decided not to. Now belatedly, we have done a little of that, but we did it very belatedly. And, as a result of that, we have this anarchic state. ISIS was able to grow. And then now they’re spreading across the region.

I think small acts of assertiveness in the beginning or constantly are better than having to do something big way after the problem is already gigantic.

MARK SHIELDS: We did big things in Iraq. We did really big things in Iraq. And we removed the head of their government. We changed their entire structure. That wasn’t a small thing.

And the jury is not out on Iraq. The American people believe we made a serious mistakes there. And the idea — we did go in partly in Libya. And that has not turned out to be such an enormous success.

I don’t in any way underestimate the serious charge of ISIS. I think, quite frankly, by what the president has done today, it probably raises the stakes that the United States will become part of their target and increases our vulnerability.

But I really don’t see — as far as foreign policy, your original question, Judy, according to Andy Kohut, our former colleague, our great colleague, former Pew head, you have got 3 percent of the American people saying that foreign policy is the matter of concern to them.

Yes, it’s hurt the president’s ratings.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Three percent?

MARK SHIELDS: Three percent.

It’s hurt the president’s rating — as a priority of their concerns. It’s hurt the president’s ratings, no question about it, but it is not a matter of great urgency to them.

DAVID BROOKS: That’s why you can never run a foreign policy on the polls.

The polls would have been against Hitler in 1933. That was clearly the wrong thing to do against doing anything against Hitler in the 1930s. The American people are not — that’s not their daily life, what is going on around the world. That’s why you need foreign policy leaders who will get out in front, look abroad.

I would say two things. First, you know, I agree with you about Iraq now. But we can’t have all our decisions today be based on what should have been done in 2003. And we do actually have this completely monstrous organization, which is going from strength to strength to strength.

It seems to me it’s simply not an option to let them continue. So we have to somehow absorb the lessons of 2003 and 2006 and the Iraq war and still somehow have an effective presence to prevent this sort of barbarism. And so accepting the case you make against the Iraq war to me doesn’t foreclose doing anything about ISIS, and learning and then moving on seems to me what we have to learn to do now.

MARK SHIELDS: OK. If we can agree on what we have learned, I think that’s important.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to turn you quickly to the primaries. They’re almost over.

Interesting poll — again, polls, we usually don’t talk about polls — but showing women, Mark, by a — support — a majority of women want Democrats to be in majority in the Congress. Majority of men want Republicans.

What does that say? Does it affect the way the candidates are going to continue to fight for these Senate and House seats for the rest of this year?

MARK SHIELDS: That very same poll you referred — this is The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, I believe, Judy — revealed that the pain, the open wound that was the great recession is still very much with us.

And I think it’s fair to say that women experienced that more and are — not all women are mothers, but all mothers are women. They’re at the center of the family. And 40 percent of Americans live in households where somebody has lost his job in the last five years.

One out of five Americans lives in a household where somebody, either younger or parent, has moved in because of economic or health reasons. Who bears that burden? Women bear that burden disproportionately to men. And women are — that sense of security, of nurturing, empathy, call it what one will, is very much in play right now and called upon by the reality.

When we talk about 40 percent of Americans having lost their job, household, that’s 126 million people who live in a household where somebody has lost a job, and people have taken jobs at lower wages. So I really think that contributes to the Democrats’ advantage, because increasing minimum wage, equal pay and those issues.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. I guess I see it more of a paradox.

If you actually look at who was decimated in this recession, women took enormous hits. But men really got decimated. Remember, there was a phrase. They called it the “mancession” because it was white working-class men who just got decimated. And those jobs are just not coming back.

And so I think they have suffered more of the economic pain, but, nonetheless, have more of a mentality I can do it myself and I don’t need community. I don’t want help. I can do it myself, whereas women have — clearly, as the polls show, want more economic security provided by government.

And if I were on the left, I would say the men are suffering from false consciousness that they can’t probably do it themselves and they should be looking to community. But I’m not on the left, so I will say something else, which is that the feelings of economic insecurity are just more socially acceptable to say maybe. Maybe it’s just harder to say.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For women than it is for men.

DAVID BROOKS: I don’t want to make this overgeneralization, but the polls suggest something like that is going on, I think.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Last question, less than a minute.

Mark, this — today is the 40th anniversary of the day Richard Nixon resigned the presidency. Could something like that happen again? Could we have a president who violated the Constitution and did the kind of that happened…

MARK SHIELDS: Sure. That’s what the Republican House case is about, right, that the president has broken the law.

But Richard Nixon, Judy, was a remarkable, dominant figure, five times ran for national office. Four times, he won. Only — Franklin Roosevelt was the other one. Just a dominant figure and a central figure.

And thank God, when he did leave, there were no tanks in the streets of Washington. We did it peaceably and we did it peacefully, because of political leadership of men like Barry Goldwater.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Some of his policies remind me that bad people can do good things. He did some good things while in office, until the Watergate thing.

MARK SHIELDS: He did a lot of good…

DAVID BROOKS: But I certainly think it could happen again.

And, you know, every president has tiptoed around the Constitution, expanded executive power. I think conservatives make a good case these days that, if the president gives this temporary status to immigrants on his own without a law, that really is trampling the Constitution in some significant way.

And I’m not saying President Obama is doing anything remotely like Watergate, but all presidents have a temptation to want to extend beyond Congress. And so it could. If something like this, where we have a worse man in office than we have now, it could happen.


David Brooks, Mark Shields, we thank you.

The post Shields and Brooks on Iraq reluctance, Nixon’s legacy appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on finding a GOP ‘anti-Cruz,’ Middle East alliances

Fri, Aug 01, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: In Washington, House Republicans were racing to pass something on the border crisis after a day of confusion and chaos on Capitol Hill Thursday.

For a taste of what went on today around the Capitol, here’s some of what we heard from both sides.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-Minn.: We were able to come to a point of 218 yes-votes on what arguably is the most monumental vote that we will take in this entire term. And it’s dealing with the issue that the American people care about more than any other. And that is stopping the invasion of illegal foreign nationals into our country. And we got to yes.

REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ, D-Ill.: It is almost as though they despise and hate all of our children, because even the children that came before them that have pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States all of their lives, love this country, and the president has afforded them an opportunity to become legal, they want to put them in an illegal situation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It caps off what’s been a roller-coaster week in American politics.

And here to analyze it all, Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, gentlemen, high tempers on the Capitol — at the Capitol yesterday, today.

David, what are we to make of all this?

DAVID BROOKS: It’s sort of happening on two levels. There’s the political meta level and then there’s the substance level.

The meta level is, this is — nothing is going to pass, nothing is going to happen. This is all negotiating about a bill that has zero chance of actually becoming law. So this is a bunch of positioning. It’s Ted Cruz and some House members positioning against the leadership.

It’s a lot of Republicans saying, at least we passed something, so positioning for the voters. So, it’s all about positioning. As for the substance, I frankly don’t understand the Republican position at all. You have got a refugee crisis. You have got these kids coming here.

There’s a need for some sort of balanced approach. Yes, you have got to secure the border. Yes, there have to be some hearings. Yes, there has to be a sped-up process for that. There probably needs to be some more money for that. Some sort of balanced approach seems eminently sensible.

Securing the border, deporting some of them, yes, who can sent back fairly, but then having some hearings to figure out who’s who. And it seems to me the Republicans have basically their policy — at least the political emphasis that’s come out is deport, deport, deport, wall, wall, wall.

It seems to me to make little sense in the short-term and is extremely damaging for Republicans in the long term.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you make sense of this?

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, first of all, these — these kids — and they are kids overwhelmingly — are fleeing chaos, and exploitation and violence, and somehow that’s been lost in the debate here in Washington.

I mean, they view it as somehow this marauding group of invaders, 9, 10-, 12-, 14-year-old kids who are thousands of miles from home and know nobody and don’t speak the language. And the response seems to be from the majority party in the House of Representatives, let’s get tough on the kids.

If a law passed in 2008 signed by President Bush provided them with legal counsel, forget that. Let’s just ignore that and go forward. It just — I sense in them, in the Republicans right now in the House, a political imperative. And that is, they recall 2010, four years ago, in the month of August, which was when that election really changed with the town meetings in their home districts.

And none of them wants to go back, apparently, or very few of them want to risk having somebody stand up at a town meeting and accuse them of amnesty, that you are going to let illegals in, undocumented in. And undocumented is too euphemistic.

So I just think they have labored mightily. David is — I agree with David. They have labored mightily and produced this counterfeit mouse that’s going nowhere. It’s stillborn, and it is not even symbolically impressive.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But why is it so hard? If they feel so strongly about this, why aren’t they able to come together and get something passed?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, there’s a couple of reasons.

First, there are a lot of people in this country, legitimately, who think that there is no control of the border, and this issue illustrates the chaos on the border. So, that’s fair. Second — and I think the Republicans do have a point that the original bill, the 2008 law that was passed under Bush, that seems to have had some role in sort of drawing people up here, that probably does need to change.

JUDY WOODRUFF: This is the one that made it easier for children coming in.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. And it didn’t directly apply, but it seems to have sent a false signal to some people that, if they send their kids here, they will be let in.

So that’s all fair enough. But this is about Palin-ization of parts of the GOP. This is not about passing legislation, not about, well, we’re in a party. We should pay attention to our leaders. We should craft some compromise. We should compromise with the other side. This is about making a statement that will sound good on FOX.

And so they want to make a statement that will sound good on TV or will sound good at a town meeting, but it’s not actually about governing. And there are a lot of — and my question is, OK, Ted Cruz, senator, it should be said, met with a bunch of House members, which doesn’t happen that often, and sort of helped organize this.

So, which senator is going to stand up and be the anti-Cruz? Who is going to stand up for Republican values, but I believe in governing? And so far, that person has not emerged.

MARK SHIELDS: In a very cynical way, Judy, Democrats are sort of sitting back. They’re playing a very bad field in this election.

The president’s job rating is in the low 40s, and the 30s in some of the states in the key Senate battleground races.


MARK SHIELDS: In addition to that, the country right direction/wrong track number, people think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

And the intensity is with Republican voters in most polls over Democratic voters. And the Republicans are kicking this away. They have taken an issue which really was the administration’s responsibility, the border — it’s any administration’s responsibility — and all of a sudden they have clouded it up, and they’re playing defense, trying to explain it.

And why Steve King, who is the most ardent, even xenophobic, anti-comprehensive immigration Republican in the House, he’s chortling that this — this is a bill picked from my menu.

And that’s exactly where they don’t want to be in the long term.

DAVID BROOKS: So, you can just see, that’s why we need an anti-Cruz, because when all the guts and all the courage are on one side, then the policy flows to where the courage and the energy is. And there’s been very little courage on the other side.

I just — I think I might disagree, or at least to say it’s too soon to tell whether this will affect this election.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes, that’s what I wanted to ask.

DAVID BROOKS: The Gallup organization does these which party are you leaning toward, and usually Democrats are always ahead, because they are just more of a — but they have lower turnout, so the Democrats have to have a huge leaning-toward advantage to do well in a fall term.

Right now, they’re leaning-toward advantage, more — only 2 percent more people say I’m leaning to become a Democrat than leaning to be a Republican. That’s a very small margin historically. It’s the similar sort of margin that existed in 1994, 2002, 2010, which were all good Republican years.

So if look at the polling, I still think it’s going to be a good Republican year, unless this has an effect in the next weeks or months ahead.



I don’t think — I think it does lean to the Republicans, not to the degree that 2010 did. 2010 was really — you could see a cataclysm in the works. But in a strange way, some Democrats are looking — especially presidential, those concerned with the 2016 race — and are almost saying,, given the performance of the House Republicans in the last couple of weeks or even this session, and the trouble they have been for John Boehner and the revolts they have led and all the rest of it, it might be the most helpful thing in the world, not for public policy, but for the Democrats’ political advantage, if the Republicans control both the House and the Senate in — after the 2014 election, and they then have to…

JUDY WOODRUFF: That’s pretty cynical.

MARK SHIELDS: It’s cynical, but will the governing — they have no governing philosophy.

Fifty-two times, the House Republicans have voted against the Affordable Care Act, to repeal Obamacare. To this day, as we sit here, there is no Republican health care plan. This is five years after…

DAVID BROOKS: They dispute that. They think there is. There’s a Dave Camp plan there. They say they have an agenda. Dave Camp has an agenda. Paul Ryan had his poverty agenda. Mike Lee has an agenda.

I do think there’s a broader agenda. If I were a Democrat, I would rather prefer to win than to…

JUDY WOODRUFF: But I keep coming — I want to come back to David’s point that there — where’s the anti-Cruz, anti-Ted Cruz?

There clearly is a big school of thought in the Republican Party that this is the wrong way to go, but where are those folks? Where are they?

DAVID BROOKS: It’s, if anything, the majority — and I’m not even talking about moderates. There are really very conservative members that really dislike Cruz, because they do think, we have the govern, we have — we just believe in the institution. He has not emerged.


MARK SHIELDS: But an anti-Cruz — Ted Cruz did something that’s really unprecedented. That is a senator meeting with a couple of dozen House members to lead basically a revolt, a legislative revolt, against the leadership. I mean, this was the first test of the Boehner-McCarthy-Scalise leadership.

This was going to be their — the new team after Eric Cantor’s defeat and resignation. And, you know, they have got egg all over their face. And for what purpose? What did it achieve?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes, but you’re right. This was the first chance for them to show what they can do.

Tough subject, but I do want to turn us for the last few minutes to the Middle East. Do you see — we talked to Margaret about it. Especially since this latest cease-fire hasn’t worked out, do you see any way through, any light, any — anything positive to bring this to a place of resolution?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, I hope. I hope there is. I hope — we have seen the price that people are paying in lives, and just what it has done.

It strikes me that Israel, in the parlance, has won the war — won the battle and lost the war or is in danger of losing the war. And I think if you look at the poll of the developed countries, the United States stands alone in its unflinching support of Israel. Israel has a sense of a negative influence in the world among Great Britain, among Australia, South Korea, Japan, you name it.

And the United States has been stalwart. And for the first time, you have seen in this experience support drop. And it’s dropped, interestingly, among younger voters, voters under the age of 30…

JUDY WOODRUFF: I saw that.

MARK SHIELDS: … people who don’t go to church.

It’s basically the emerging Democratic majority, Latinos, African-Americans. And so I think — I think, in that sense, it’s important that there be a peace achieved, or reached, an accord reached, and war stopped.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, do you see any — any — rupture is too strong a word, but any division or lasting separation between the U.S. and Israel coming out of this?


No, I don’t think so. And, in many ways, there’s been more unity in the Middle East itself, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria. Even these countries that are more or less on Israel’s side, you have noticed how quiet they have been, because they all think the solution is to weaken Hamas.


DAVID BROOKS: And I do think that is essentially the solution within Israel.

Amos Oz, about as left-wing a person as you can get, the famous novelist, he said in a German interview this week, what would you do if an assassin puts a child on his lap and starts shooting at your nursery school?

When Amos Oz starts sounding like Bibi Netanyahu, the Israelis are united that they do need to weaken Hamas. The surrounding neighborhood generally supports that. So I think we’re in for a longer war, longer bloodshed. But the goal of weakening Hamas does seem to me a goal of some value.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, in the meantime, just the steady pictures of casualties are gut-wrenching.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, the children.

Nobody — it’s the children at the border and it’s the children in Gaza. I mean, that — children have no — absolutely no influence, no voice on who’s at war and who isn’t. But the one thing I would say about Israel is, it’s been a long time since Israel has sought the moral imprimatur of Syria and Saudi Arabia. Those are not exactly ethical…

DAVID BROOKS: Right. I’m just talking about the alliances, unification within large parts of the world, not Qatar and Turkey, but against Hamas.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. Well, it’s tough, tough all the way around.

Mark Shields, David Brooks, we thank you both.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we just want to tell all of you watching, for the latest on what Congress is doing with immigration tonight, you can check the Rundown on our Web site.

The post Shields and Brooks on finding a GOP ‘anti-Cruz,’ Middle East alliances appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on Obama’s handling of the border crisis, Mideast violence

Fri, Jul 25, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

HARI SREENIVASAN: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, as we wrote about in the “Morning Line” e-mail this morning, when you talk about immigration, there’s policy and there’s politics. So, let’s tackle the policy first.

There was a — maybe a photo-op here today at the White House, where the president was lined up with three other presidents. He made the point of saying that we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It seemed like he wanted to sort of thread the needle a bit. Is this the right balance? Can he strike that?

MARK SHIELDS: I think he did strike it, but I think it’s politically for naught. Nothing is going to happen, in my judgment, even as we — the drive to adjourn for the August recess.

They’re too far apart. I think the Democrats are not going to support a change in the 2008 law, which does provide different coverage and different treatment of the children and others from Guatemala and El Salvador, Honduras.

And the Republicans only want to vote for $1 billion. And I don’t think — let’s be very blunt about it. There are the votes — and everybody knows this — in the House of Representatives to pass the Senate comprehensive immigration bill, which passed the Senate a year-and-a-half ago.

And — but they wouldn’t do it with Republican votes. The speaker doesn’t want to do it with just Democratic votes and not a majority of Republican votes. So I think the chances of anything being done on this are very remote.

HARI SREENIVASAN: So, why doesn’t it happen?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, first — first on the president, I thought he did thread the needle, but he leaned a little further on the side of these children have to be sent home than I expected.

He said, we will do it humanely, within institutions. But he more or less said that, which I think is the proper response, unfortunately, in order to stem the tide. I totally agree with Mark on the politics of it. Everybody wants to be seen to do something.

And so I think the House will pass something, and — but that doesn’t mean they will all agree to do the same thing. And I agree with Mark that they’re too far apart. The politics — and the Eric Cantor hurt things. And so I just — I guess I just think that the country is — well, the political leadership is terrified of the activists on this one.

HARI SREENIVASAN: But what about the political reality of trying to lure the Hispanic vote, trying to win favor going into an election a year-and-a-half from now?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, this is a problem.

I mean, this has been an issue, immigration, very bluntly, that’s been a great political advantage for the Democrats. And the president’s handling of the border is — gets a 54 percent disapproval rating from Latinos, which — who are the key.

Republicans cannot win the president without Latinos. Democrats can’t win without Latinos. I mean, Republicans have to change their ways, at least to get competitive, rather lose better than 3-1 Latino vote, the fastest-growing demographic in the country.

And I just don’t think that any Democrats are going to vote right at this point to change the 2008 — maybe a handful — to change the 2008 law to make it tougher on kids from — that appears to be in some way tougher on Latinos in particular who are trying to get in the country.

DAVID BROOKS: I must say, I’m a little mystified by that, because it would more or less equalize kids from different countries.


DAVID BROOKS: And it seems to me more or less fair. It seems to me the law was miswritten in a way that was not anticipated. It seems to me that equalizing, and depending on what — so it doesn’t depend on what country you happen to come from in Latin America, seems to me a fair option.

But the fact is, Republicans, they are doomed. But you’re a Republican from Mississippi, say. You know, nationally, we have got to get square on immigration, or else people from minority communities will not even listen to us, no matter what else we say.

But if you’re afraid of what happened to Eric Cantor happening to you, well, the national party can go hang itself. You’re going to look after yourself. And that’s the essential problem.

MARK SHIELDS: The only country in the world that has a higher murder rate than Honduras right now is Syria. That’s how tough it is. I think that to some degree contributed to the special treatment in that 2008…

HARI SREENIVASAN: Well, there was a story last night about possibly increasing the amount of refugee applications in Honduras.


HARI SREENIVASAN: Is it appropriate to broaden the definition of refugee compared to who does seek asylum today? Is basically living in fear of a street gang and the murder that very legitimately could happen in Honduras the same as, say, someone in Somalia trying to seek asylum?

DAVID BROOKS: You’re operating under the assumption that people have trust in the institutions of government.

And I think that would be a good idea. And I think we could handle a more intelligent refugee policy. But if you look at some of the people who are voting against this or opposing this, they simply do not have faith that any law that is passed will be enforced. And they believe that once you broaden the refugee assignment, that will be a loophole to open the borders wide.

And so this is partly a legacy of just the generalized distrust of immigration. It’s probably, frankly, a legacy of the immigration bill that passed under Ronald Reagan, which is a good bill, but without the border enforcement that undermined trust in all future immigration bills.

MARK SHIELDS: Alan Simpson and Ron Mazzoli. That’s right, Simpson-Mazzoli. And it was a good bill, but — and it did help.

I think there is a certain dangerous precedent going into other countries. And we’re going to decide — you going to have a rotating group that go from — I mean, a lot of countries where people are facing both terror and the gangs and worse and precarious futures.

You know, I just don’t — I don’t know if there’s going to be a pre-clearance group that’s going to down and interview people and make those judgments.

HARI SREENIVASAN: All right, shifting gears to Israel, Palestine, we just heard from National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

First off, any reaction to how the administration has been handling it this week?

DAVID BROOKS: I think their posture has been a pretty good one. They have been pretty tough on Hamas, which is the right posture. They have been pretty honest about things. They’re doing what they can.

You can’t force a peace on the parties when the parties don’t want it. Right now, Israel sees a chance to severely weaken Hamas. They do it with a tacit endorsement of some of the anti-Muslim Brotherhood countries, the regime in Egypt, the regime in Saudi Arabia.

And so they’re — just in terms of the region, they’re in a reasonably good moment. If they’re going to try to weaken Hamas and get rid of the tunnels, this is probably a moment to do it. So they see some advantage.

Hamas clearly sees an advantage. They were marginalized. They’re now centralized. They’re very interested in forcing the Egyptian government to allow some of the transport and the communications of the commerce across that border, which the Egyptian regime, which hates the Muslim Brotherhood, hasn’t wanted to do.

But if they can become a movement across the region, then they could force Egypt to open up those borders. So both parties see some advantages here. And so I suspect this thing is going to go on for a little a while.

MARK SHIELDS: I’m more hopeful.

I think each party to this combat right now has a different stake. For Hamas, David’s right. All politics is local. In a bizarre way, what has happened has strengthened Hamas. Hamas was unpopular. It wasn’t seen as able or competent. But what has happened is that, as they have stood up to the invading and occupying army that’s inflicting injury and destruction upon the country, and seem to inflict some damage upon Israel in return, they’re winning the support locally.

For Israel, the opposite. All politics is global. And just as the Vietnam War, in my judgment, the United States’ war in Vietnam was fought and lost on television in the living rooms of America, I think that Israel has really had a very bad week in social media.

I think the images of the hospitals, of the schools, of the children, of the lack of electricity and water and sewage, I just think that’s taken a toll on Israel internationally.

DAVID BROOKS: I guess I disagree on both ends there.

I agree that Hamas has had a short run. And when you’re in a conflict, the people fighting, and the people that are most militant are going to get a surge. And they have certainly gotten a surge in the Palestinian public. The polls clearly show that.

But there’s been a clear pattern in the Middle East that, over the long term, Palestinians do not believe that this war fighting, that a regime that doesn’t even acknowledge that Israel has the right to exist, they generally do not believe that’s the way they’re going to get out of the mess they’re in.

And they have over months of peace drifted away from that policy, which is what Hamas has — which is what Hamas has been pursuing. And so I think over the long term, people will look around and say, are we really going to bomb our way to peace? And they’re not going to want that over the long term.

HARI SREENIVASAN: What about his idea that the power of social media affecting perception? Has the political perception about this conflict shifted at all with the onslaught of images that we have all seen, whether it’s from one side or the other?


Well, clearly, if you — if you measure things by body counts, then Israel has killed more, and so they look more vicious. And the people who are inclined to think poorly of Israel are hopping on that. I guess I’m more inclined to think positively of Israel. And I would say the moral calculus is not particularly even, that Hamas — and there’s been tons of media reporting on this — has put the site of the origin of the tunnels under hospitals in a dense residential area.

The missiles are being shot from dense residential areas. They’re inviting civilian casualties by what is clearly an immoral way of waging war, and that they’re — if you take into account, the moral calculus is uneven.

Is that the calculus that is accepted in the European press? No, of course not. And so Israel has faced this barrage of criticism, not from the American administration and not from some of the surprising people in the region, as I mentioned, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, among others.

But, at some point, you can’t govern by popularity. If you have got people mis — bombing you, if you have got all these missiles which cost a million dollars each to build, you have simply got to take care of those tunnels.

MARK SHIELDS: I just — I really feel that the desire for the end of the suffering and the pain is transcendent and I think it’s on the rise in the country.

I think there’s — I give Secretary Kerry great credit and Ambassador — former Ambassador Martin Indyk, who was on our show recently, for making the effort. I just — I don’t think you can accept the status quo or the status quo ante that is there.

We have to get a solution. And it has to be a two-state solution. And it has to be basically encouraged, if not imposed, I think, from without.

DAVID BROOKS: Just one quick thing.

I just don’t think the two-state solution is germane to this situation. It is certainly germane to the West Bank, where Fatah is nominally in control. But Hamas does not believe in the two-state solution. So, a two-state solution will not quiet Hamas. It will not quiet the missiles in Hamas.

There is no occupation of Gaza. There are no settlements in Gaza. To me, this is about the fundamentals, the state of Israel’s right to exist and the rivalries between the Muslim Brotherhood and other parties in the region.

HARI SREENIVASAN: I think we’re almost out of time, but, Mark Shields, David Brooks, thanks so much.

The post Shields and Brooks on Obama’s handling of the border crisis, Mideast violence appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on Israel’s incursion, challenging Russia

Fri, Jul 18, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks right now. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentleman, no shortage of terrible news this week.

And, Mark, let’s start where we left off with Margaret, the Middle East. What does Israel’s ground invasion into Gaza, what does that do, do you think, to hopes for any kind of peaceful resolution here?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think the risk of a slippery slope, of it just enlarging, the military operation and military engagement, because it not simply increases the possibility, as Margaret mentioned, of civilian casualties, which have already — I think, as we went on, are approaching 300 dead civilians, three-quarters — 300 Palestinians, three-quarters of whom are civilians and one-quarter of whom are children.

And that’s a problem, but, at the same time, retaliation upon Israeli troops, whether it’s shooting and firing them, trapping them or capturing them. So I think there is a problem of the potential escalation here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Does this mean, David, the idea of any sort of resolution is just so far off in the distance, you can’t even imagine it?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, yes.

We’re in sort of a parallel universe where it’s sort of a military operation we have not seen before. So Hamas has had no success in inflicting any damage on the Israelis, in part because of the Iron Dome missile defense system and in part just because their rockets are not that great.

But they — when the cease-fire proposal went out there, they greeted that with a barrage of missiles nonetheless, not because they hoped to inflict any damage on the Israelis, but they hoped the Israelis would inflict damage on them and kill Palestinian civilians, which is one of the reasons they have decided to tell their civilians not to flee the areas that are afflicted.

So, it’s a rare moment in military history where a party rejects a cease-fire in order to get more of their own people killed. But that’s part of the strategy, which is a global strategy, a propaganda strategy of eliciting this European response.

I think the U.S. has done a good job, John Kerry’s done a good job of rejecting this strategy of using human shields. Bill Clinton has said things. But this is the strategy they’re trying to enact, and it’s just this perverse military strategy of getting your own people killed.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But it’s not a strategy they’re being open and…


And David — I’m not disputing David’s reporting or analysis on it, but, you know, every war has its picture. And when you get four kids between the age of 9 and 11 kicking a soccer ball on a beach outside the hotel where Western journalists stay, and several of the Western journalists had been playing with them shortly, killed by an Israeli air attack, then those aren’t human shields.

That’s collateral damage, to be euphemistic. That’s a human tragedy. And there’s no way you could identify them as potential terrorists or problems. And so I think that the concern expressed at a humanitarian level, as well as a diplomatic level in Margaret’s conversation, that Israel could risk, as they did in 2008-2009, when they were 1,400 Palestinians killed and 13 Israelis died — nobody wants anybody to die on either side.

But that really did cost support.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. Well, the Israeli problem obviously is they can’t sit there while missiles are raining down on the country.

MARK SHIELDS: Who said they weren’t?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, they are raining down on them.

MARK SHIELDS: No. But — yes.

DAVID BROOKS: They’re not hitting Tel Aviv. They’re not hitting Haifa and places like that because of the iron Dome.


DAVID BROOKS: But the Hamas situation is a little different this time than the previous situations, in part because the Palestinian population at least until this moment was much more negative. The Pew Research in Gaza suggested a 63 percent disapproval, much less popular among the Palestinian population, the Hamas government.

And Hamas has been greeted with much more skepticism around the Arab world than before. And so they’re in a much, much weaker position, much less effective governing agency than they were in some of the past wars. And that’s both part of the chaos and also part of the instigation, why they want to whip this up.

MARK SHIELDS: I agree that Hamas has been a failure at governing and leading.

But there’s no more quicker way to overlook the shortcomings of any government than to have your civilian population under military attack. I mean, that is a unifying factor, even behind bad leadership, as Hamas has demonstrated.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quickly, before we turn to Ukraine, David or Mark, any clarity about what the U.S. could be doing here to help the situation?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, my view, we’re doing the right thing, which is Obama and Samantha Power focusing on Putin.

It’s Putin’s strategy is incitement and sort of messianic fantasy nationalism which both rhetorically has whipped up this messianic nationalist fervor, and then physically armed these people, that’s the ultimate cause, the only thing we can address.

I don’t know if we can get the Europeans to do more sanctions against Putin, but I think the administration is focusing correctly on Putin and his strategy of fantastic incitement.

MARK SHIELDS: I don’t think there is any question that Putin is the heavy in this whole tragedy. And his failed attempts to try to shift blame to the Ukrainians for the airspace, that the tragedy, catastrophe occurred over Ukrainian territory, you could see what he was doing was to incite further ethnic turmoil and to just destabilize the Ukrainian government.

That was his attempt. I don’t think he intended this international disaster.


I just don’t think that’s — I don’t think that was on it. And, I mean, it’s come home to roost with him. I think David’s point is a good one about what the administration is doing. As far as further sanctions, Judy, you have got the French, who have sold ships. You have got the Germans, who get oil. You have got the English, or the British, who welcome the dollars of those Russian capitalists, if we’re going to be euphemistic about it.

And so are they willing to inconvenience themselves, and especially when one-third of all the…

JUDY WOODRUFF: The Europeans.

MARK SHIELDS: … the European oil or natural gas comes from Russia, and one half of it goes through Ukraine?

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, David, when the president said — he said this incident in Ukraine will, he said, be a wakeup call for Europe and the world that the conflict in Ukraine is not going to be contained, what does that mean?  I mean, what consequences are we talking about?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I don’t think you have to be a super historian to look at times in the past when people have whipped up fervor and then lost control. They have lost control of it.

I agree with Mark that it’s hard to imagine Putin wanted this to happen. But he did set up this momentum of messianism. And it’s sort of spinning out of control. And if the Europeans see that, then they really have to say, even Putin can’t control this. So what do we do?

And so that does raise — I would think it would raise alarms in Paris, Berlin, London, and everywhere else.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes. No, I agree.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And in terms of the U.S. having a role, is the U.S. a bystander?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think — I thought the president today was quite measured in what he had to say. He didn’t — ahead of the evidence or ahead of the facts.

And I think it was probably to some degree a result of what happened after Benghazi, that he just — and he let Samantha Power at the U.N. make the strong and principled statement.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Her statement was tougher than his.

MARK SHIELDS: It was. It was. But it was quite principled. And it put the challenge directly to Russia, that they are challenging them not to in any way inhibit, impede the official international investigation of what happened.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Whereas the president was more measured.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. And I think they have got to be hoping, as we just heard, that maybe Putin will be like, whoa, this is a problem. And maybe he himself will scale back.

He has in the past, to be fair to him, has scaled back some — when the Ukrainian war got super hot a couple months ago, he pulled back a little. So he’s capable of some regulation, and maybe we will see some of that. It’s certainly worth opening the door to that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, Mark and David, stay here, because we’re going to ask you another question in just a few moments.

We will be right back to you.

The post Shields and Brooks on Israel’s incursion, challenging Russia appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Shields and Brooks on suing the president, LeBron’s hometown bounce

Fri, Jul 11, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome back, gentlemen. We missed you.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So the Highway Trust Fund, one of many disagreements between Republicans and Democrats right now.

And I guess the biggest one, though, David, is the speaker, John Boehner, saying he’s going to sue the president of the United States because the president’s overstepped his line as president.

Is there merit in this suit? Is it a good idea? What do you think?

DAVID BROOKS: There’s some merit, but I, of course, have sympathy for both sides.

So, basically, you normally pass a big piece of legislation like the ACA, the health care bill, and then you go back and fix it and the Congress and everybody cooperates to fix it. But because we’re so dysfunctional, we can’t do that.

And so the president is left saying, well, we have got to really change the law to drop some things in the employer mandate to make it work, or at least delay it. And so he goes ahead and does that, for probably some defensible reasons, some political reasons, but it is a pretty bold step for the president to do it just off the top of his head.

It does really delay and probably wipe out a pretty significant part of the law. So when Boehner says I’m suing because the president just can’t change the law without congressional approval, technically, he’s right. The president should not be allowed to do some of that stuff.

But it does grow out of the general dysfunction, where you don’t have two parties working together to make an already passed law function.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Is that what the president is doing? Is he changing the law?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, he is, did change the Affordable Care Act.

Just one point on the highway fund that Quinn reported on. This is the perfect proof of what’s happened in Washington. This was always a consensus. The highway — highway — national highway system grew out of Dwight Eisenhower as a young Army captain in 1919 leaving the first convoy across the United States.

It took him six 62 days. And when he became president, he said, I’m going to build this system, and a marvelous system, the biggest public works project in the history of the world. And it’s always been a consensus and agreement.

And to not be able to on this one — on the — on executive power, Judy, Democrats were very sensitive to it when George Bush pushed the envelope and assumed more executive power. And then Democrats seem to be less noisy and cantankerous when their own president does it.

Republicans who were mute when George Bush was expanding the definition of executive power by power grabs now are sensitive constitutionalists. This is going nowhere. What it is…

JUDY WOODRUFF: The lawsuit.

MARK SHIELDS: The lawsuit. It’s a base sweetener for the election of 2014.

It’s John Boehner being able to say — and I’m not arguing on the merits — but being able to say, look, we’re going after him. We’re bringing it to court. And, all of a sudden, John Boehner looks semi-moderate because John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, former Governor Palin, is leading an impeachment charge, supported by such esteemed groups as Sean Hannity and The Drudge Report.

So, the lawsuit, if anything, looks quite civil and grown-up.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, is that what this is? It’s the speaker throwing a bone or a — whether it’s a bone that’s going to develop or not?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, the impeachment is obviously cloud cuckoo land.

But there’s a natural tussle between the legislature and the White House, and presidents, especially when everything is dysfunctional, want to expand their power. The president has been quite unshy about that. And the legislature’s job is to push back.

And so you’re going to — it’s a gray area. The president is charged with executing the laws. Congress passed it. The president’s got it make it work, whatever party. And so how much do you allow him to change the law to make it function?

And so that’s sort of a gray area. I think the president and on some occasions has gone quite aggressively to changing laws to make them work. But how do you draw that line? We will see.

I agree with Mark, though. The lawsuit is not going anywhere. But I do think it’s a substantive matter that’s built into our Constitution.

MARK SHIELDS: It’s like the NSA, I mean.

The National Security Agency, if the Republicans were in power, Democrats would have been up in arms and leading protests against this overreaching police state. But because it’s a Democratic administration, they have been less critical.

DAVID BROOKS: The Senate filibuster rules. There’s one eternal truth in Washington. On matters of process, every single elected official is a complete hypocrite.

On matters of method and process, it depends on whether they’re majority, in the minority. They flip their position 180 degrees without blinking an eye. And it’s sort of baffling, but thank God they didn’t write the Constitution. We actually had some people who cared about process.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Does it work though for Boehner to do this? You said it’s to appease or to stir up the base. Does it help?

MARK SHIELDS: I think it probably does help.

I have had four requests for contributions already to support the lawsuit. And I hope there will be more to come.

DAVID BROOKS: I didn’t know you were on the Boehner donor list.


MARK SHIELDS: I have always been very active on the Boehner donor — recipient list, not necessarily — it’s a one-way correspondence, but I love to read them.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. Let’s talk about the story that has been I think the headline every single day this week, and that’s been the immigration story, these children coming across the border, very poignant, heart-stirring stories about kids coming from Central America, coming from poverty, coming from crime.

But, David, you have now got the president going to Texas, asking for $4.5 billion, $4.7 billion. Is — and all sides, both sides, Republicans pointing a finger at the president, the president pointing a finger. Who’s responsible? What should be done?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. The responsibility goes both ways, though the original law, which was sort of a trafficking law, a good law, was passed under President Bush.

The lack of enforcement, the lack of sending the kids back mostly happened under President Obama. You have got this explosion of the kids. This is a really tough one, I think. Whether the president goes to the border or not the border, it’s just sort of the normal circus we go through.

But, to me, it’s a tough one. You got these kids here. They’re just flooding, lots of them, lots, tens of thousands now. They’re being dragged apart by these jackals who take them across the border, kids alone on the border. It’s sort of loss of control. How do you get that to stop?

Well, it seems to me the way you get it to stop is to do something which I admit is cruel, which is to take some percentage of the kids that you can be confident that they’re going back to some decent place and deport them.

I do think, until we deport them, that this flood will just continue to magnify and magnify. Treat the kids from Central America the way that we treat the kids from Mexico and Canada. And that’s cruel to send kids back, but, to me, it’s the only way to prevent the larger cruelty of this gigantic flow.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Is that the right solution?

MARK SHIELDS: I’m not sure it is the right — but I will say this. David certainly is not suggesting you do that without changing the law.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. That’s what I meant. That’s what I meant.

MARK SHIELDS: Because the law — yes, the law is very, very clear on it, that each child is entitled to…

JUDY WOODRUFF: This is, again, the 2008 law…

MARK SHIELDS: The 2008, and passed without dissent in either the House or the Senate, and voice vote in both in President Bush — and for very good reason, to stop trafficking of young minors and sex traffic for money.

I mean, it was a very noble purpose, and it was a — there was more than a consensus. It was unanimous.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And it was a much smaller number of kids.

MARK SHIELDS: And it was a much smaller number.

And this is a humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions. There’s nobody that has a child, a grandchild, a niece, a nephew, a brother, sister could look at these 8-, 10-year-old kids and say a 1,300-mile trip, and — we have to provide them safety. We have to provide them health. We have to provide them shelter.

And — but the reality is that, is it going to just continue? And what I would draw the historical metaphor to is — politically — and I think it’s dangerous for Democrats and for everybody really — is the Mariel boatlift in 1980, in April of 1980, when Fidel Castro said, OK, folks, you want to leave Cuba, go ahead; 125,000 did; 8,300 of them ended up in Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.

And there was a fellow running for reelection of governor that year in Arkansas. And his opponent put a thing on and said — commercial saying, our state is less safe because the governor has let these Cuban prisoners in. And Bill Clinton, it was the last race he lost.

There is a sense of — out of control, that we don’t control our own borders. I mean, as open and as compassionate as we must be and want to be and will be to these children, there is a sense that we sent — 370,000 people deported last year, but that there is a porousness about our border.

DAVID BROOKS: And if you want to pass immigration reform, which I do, you have got to secure the border. But you’re just not going to get the votes any other way. And this is — what’s happened has been a devastating blow, I think, to whatever chances there were for immigration reform.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You do? You think it hurts the…

DAVID BROOKS: Because people want to feel that somehow the authority of government is basically functioning.


DAVID BROOKS: And that’s really hard to see when you look at what — the images we have seen.

MARK SHIELDS: But it’s one more problem for, quite frankly — and I say this as a liberal. It’s one more problem for Democrats, I mean, because it erodes further the confidence of government to act effectively and to execute the law and to control the borders of the country.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why do you say that’s a problem for Democrats? Why isn’t that a problem…

MARK SHIELDS: Well, because Democrats are the party of government.

I mean, the president can rail against Washington and all the rest of it, and I’m happy to be out of Washington. The Democrats believe that government is an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress. Republicans don’t. Republicans are the anti-government party. And for that reason, it doesn’t erode confidence in them the same way.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, David, you think there’s a way to find out — that enough of these children can be sent back and have a secure place to go?

DAVID BROOKS: That’s why governing is hard. This is why it’s boring through hard boards, because how do you investigate where these kids — they can’t tell you.

It’s just this problem from hell. How do you find out who can go back safely, who you can’t? How do you set up a process for that? And yet somehow we just can’t continue the way we’re going, because the horror that the kids are going through to try to get here is horrible enough.



DAVID BROOKS: And so it’s typical governance. And that’s why it’s so easy to be a pundit. You’re faced with cruelty on either side of this issue.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, very, very different last topic I want to bring up, but it — the news broke today. The city of Cleveland the hometown boy, Mark, is going home, LeBron James leaving the Miami Heat that he joined four years ago. And he said he’s going to rejoin — or come back to Cleveland, join the Cavaliers.

Now, is this bigger news than the Republicans announcing that Cleveland is going to be the convention site in…

MARK SHIELDS: It’s a bookend. It’s a bookend. It’s bigger news.

It’s goodbye, Sun Belt, hello, Rust Belt. It’s a great lift for Cleveland. Say goodbye to — Miami is in my rearview mirror. I’m coming home to Cleveland, a city that’s had a lot of belts, a lot of bruises, a lot of setbacks.

And LeBron James, the fact that the Republicans have chosen it as their 2016 is terrific for Cleveland. It’s the home of Paul Newman, the Rock ‘n’ Roll Museum, Drew Carey, LeBron James. What more could any city ask for?


DAVID BROOKS: A few jobs. A few jobs.

JUDY WOODRUFF: National, getting mentioned.

DAVID BROOKS: They have great downtown theaters there. And the Republicans will be nominating LeBron. So, it’s a twofer. He will be the — with Sarah Palin. He will pick Sarah Palin.


DAVID BROOKS: It’s also — I should say it’s a good thing for the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers, this guy Dan Gilbert, who has not only done good things for Cleveland, but has really been a champion in helping Detroit get back on its feet.

And so it’s a good — we’re morally obligated to root for the economically challenged cities.

MARK SHIELDS: That’s right.

DAVID BROOKS: And when we follow our sports teams. And so it’s good for that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, from standpoint, among many others.

We’re so glad to have the two of you back. David Brooks, Mark Shields, we thank you.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.

The post Shields and Brooks on suing the president, LeBron’s hometown bounce appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

Marcus and Gerson on agreement and division at the Supreme Court, immigration protests

Fri, Jul 04, 2014


Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF: This holiday week has been pretty quiet here in Washington, but there’s still plenty to talk about with Washington Post columnists Ruth Marcus and Michael Gerson. They’re filling in for Mark Shields and David Brooks, who are away for the holiday.

And we welcome you both on this Fourth of July.

RUTH MARCUS: Happy Fourth.


JUDY WOODRUFF: To you, too.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So let’s start by talking about the Supreme Court, this case that I was discussing a few minutes ago with Marcia Coyle, wherein the court, Ruth, the justices handed down an opinion yesterday, with a strong dissent, from Justice Sotomayor about a religious college in Illinois taking exception to how they are supposed to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

What is the — how big of a deal is this?

RUTH MARCUS: Well, it shows the continuing turmoil that we are going to have in this area of law, where — and in part because of the result of the Hobby Lobby decision, the decision that was handed down earlier in the week, because when the court says that corporations and others have religious freedom rights to oppose participating in these contraceptive rules, and when — and they do — and when places like Wheaton College, which clearly has the right to decline to participate in these rules, balk at even signing forms to do it, you are just going to inevitably have this continuing court involvement.

And how interesting it was that it was the three women justices who were speaking up in dissent.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Which is something I was asking Marcia about.

But, Michael, I just learned that this — you are an alumnus of this…

MICHAEL GERSON: I am, of Wheaton College, proud alumnus of Wheaton.

It’s a very religious place, very sincere views on this question. I think the — what the court seemed to be saying was, we are going to eventually decide how this HHS compromise that the administration has pursued is applied to nonprofit — religious nonprofit institutions.

And we are going to give relief to places like Wheaton while we decide this, because it is temporary as these cases come up in court. Now we have decided Hobby Lobby, which is a for-profit, but we’re going to be looking at nonprofit religious institutions.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I think a lot — the question a lot of people have is, how large are the repercussions from decisions like these? Will it end up, as Marcia — Marcia said there are a number of other cases coming down the pipeline that could result in the court moving even farther.

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think, in the Hobby Lobby case, the court did something important, but fairly narrow.

It says that RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, applies to a certain category, a for-profit category. Under RFRA, if you have a substantial burden on your religious beliefs, then the court has to pursue the least obtrusive means to achieve its ends. And that I think is what we are seeing here.

Now, that law, RFRA, law was approved 97-3 in the Senate and by voice vote in the House and signed by Bill Clinton. I think if the Congress wanted to overturn RFRA, it would be very politically unpopular.


But you do have to acknowledge that, when that law was passed 97-3 — and, by the way, in reaction to a previous Supreme Court case — no one really anticipated that we were going to have for-profit corporations arguing that they had religious rights, whether that’s right or not.

In terms of the broader impact…


RUTH MARCUS: … I think we don’t know yet.

The court in the majority was very careful to say, look, this isn’t going to apply in cases of racial discrimination. It won’t apply in cases of vaccination because there are other issues at stake there.

JUDY WOODRUFF: This is what the majority said.

RUTH MARCUS: This is what the majority said.

The dissenters described it as very broad. We will state. I expect it will be largely confined to this particularly contested area of contraceptive rights and abortion rights.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we certainly are seeing a divided court. And we were talking earlier about — this month about how the court came together in a number of ways, but they have also been significantly divided on…

RUTH MARCUS: Together was while fun while it lasted.


RUTH MARCUS: But I think result — reports of the court’s unanimity have been greatly exaggerated.

And it is totally true, as you were discussing, that there have been a remarkably large number of unanimous opinions this year, two-thirds, compared to less than half over the last five years. But I think that masks continuing divisions on the court.

We saw it this week in the Hobby Lobby. We saw it in affirmative action. There are other — we saw it in the campaign finance cases. There are other hot-button issues that the court didn’t take up this year that are coming down the pike. Same-sex marriage, gun rights, they have been ducking.

And some of these unanimous cases really were faux-nanimous. They just masked deep divisions. Even though there were nine votes for a result, there were very strong divisions about what the right result was to get there.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You have strong thoughts about that, about whether it is an unusual amount of division?


I — we have the odd phenomenon of vicious concurrences.

RUTH MARCUS: Vicious concurrences, yes.

RUTH MARCUS: But we should see more of them…

MICHAEL GERSON: Exactly, which is a little bit of a — there is a false agreement here, but they agree, unless they disagree.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All right. Let’s talk about — I very much want to ask you about immigration. We have got several things going on at once.

One, Michael, of course, is this extraordinary influx of children, some of them very young children coming across the border, the Southern border of the United States. And they’re coming from Central America through Mexico, you have protests that — we reported earlier another protest today in Southern California at one of these processing centers.

What is the right answer here? Both sides seem angry and upset about this.

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think President Obama realizes there is a serious challenge here.

He has talked about $2 billion — additional dollars for border enforcement. He has talked about maybe even changing the rules to make it clear that people can’t stay under these circumstances.

I will put it this way, though. I think there’s a lot of justified concern about chaos at our borders and concern that’s — a lot of Middle Americans have about the effects of immigration on wages and other issues.

But blame the system. Blame the coyotes, the people who bring the people in. Blame the administration, if you want. But don’t blame the children who are here because of problems in — abroad.

That is the disturbing element here that I think is the trap for Republicans. As they do criticisms on immigration policy, many of which are valid, they have to do it in a way that is not unwelcoming to a group of people that I think are, you know, a key group of voters.

RUTH MARCUS: And terrible victims in this tragedy of these children at the border, as you were saying.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And yet these protesters are saying, we don’t want any — we already have enough immigrants in this country who are here illegally.



RUTH MARCUS: It is a big mess.

The best hope for the administration, which is something of a faint hope, is to try to get the message out in Central America, do not come, it will not work.

But there is so much desperation that the next best hope is to get the resources and the authorities to process these cases very quickly. But the fact of the matter is, under law, these children are entitled to hearings about whether they have legitimate claims for asylum. And some of them are going to have legitimate claims for asylum. As long as there is so much desperation and violence in Central America, they are going to come, and we are going to have this problem.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But as you were pointing out to us, they are entitled to a hearing, but having to deal with so many at one time.

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think there is going to be a debate in the Congress if the administration wants to change that process.

And some of the president’s allies on the immigration issue are not going to be happy if that process is changed. So he could have some problems on his left as this moves forward. And it would be a tremendous paradox, after all of the debate on broad immigration reform, if the only immigration reform that was passed by the Congress in this session were border enforcement.

I don’t think the president could be happy about that. It would put a lot of pressure on him to do executive orders that relate to immigration, because of what he has had to do on the border.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, and immigration is one of the places. He was expressing frustration this week, not only after the speaker of the House, John Boehner, Ruth, said, we are going sue you over your use of executive orders. The president at one point this week one audience, so sue me.

But he seems to be expressing more frustration about his inability to get things done. Meanwhile, Ruth, good jobs numbers this week. But none of that is really translating for the president. Is this a particularly difficult moment for the presidency, or how do you see it?

RUTH MARCUS: I think it is particularly difficult moment for the presidency.

And it is not surprising that it is a difficult moment. I think almost all second-term presidents, particularly second-term presidents with oppositional Congresses, end up in this situation. Some of them turn to foreign policy, because that is an area where they have broad discretion and can exercise themselves.

This is not a great area for this president right now, because his foreign policy problems may be more intractable than his domestic policy problems. So, the other thing they do — we saw this with President Clinton — is start to use the pen and executive orders and to try to express their muscularity and their presidential authority that way, but not surprising that he is so frustrated.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How do you see his ability to get anything done right now, Michael?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think it is very limited.

This argument between Congress and the president at the boundaries of the separation of powers goes on again and again. And it will be adjudicated. But you can come across if you take this approach as weak, if you are saying, I can’t get things done, I am going to act in these ways, which are essentially limited.

He’s proved on minimum wage and other things the options are very limited. I would also add, as a speechwriter, you have to be careful about your catchphrases, OK? When Ronald Reagan said, go ahead, make my day, it was Clint Eastwood that he was parroting.

When you say, so sue me, it is like the annoying guy that takes your parking space and taunts you afterwards.


MICHAEL GERSON: This is not a particularly strong, muscular message when it comes to the presidency.

The president is not looking a lot like Lyndon Johnson right now, getting things done. He looks like he is complaining that he can’t get things done. And I think that that is a tough message for him.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, meanwhile, we are just months away from another exciting mid — set of midterm elections.

Ruth, does all this have bearing on that, or are 1,000 more things going to happen between now and the…

RUTH MARCUS: Well, we know 1,000 more things are going to happen between now and then. We just don’t know what they are.

All of this has bearing. It has bearing in the macro sense, right, whether people are feeling annoyed by the president because he is the guy who stole your parking space, or kind of revved up by him. And probably — how you reacted to that probably depends on where you started.

But there are also abilities within these executive orders, for example, to rev up particular parts of the base. Most important will — we already saw from the president, for example, with the executive order on federal contractors being prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. Right.

RUTH MARCUS: The really big one will be how far the president chooses to go on immigration.

And here — I thought you made a really good point earlier, Michael — he is going to have a tension not just with the Republicans, who are going to accuse him of overreacting and overreaching on the right, but he’s probably going to have immigration groups on the left complaining that he didn’t go far enough.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Thirty seconds.

Thought on how all of this affects the fall elections?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think the immigration debate, unfortunately, is just another admission that we can only do things through crisis in America.

RUTH MARCUS: Maybe not even then.


Well, stepping back and looking at the whole issue, doing comprehensive reform, it just hit a brick wall. And Republicans had a lot to do with that, because of their own divided base on this issue. But it is just a commentary on our system. We go from crisis to crisis, instead of stepping back and making choices. And maybe that is the most patriotic thing we can do in this context, is step back a little bit, look at the big problems.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we are glad to step back and to step forward with the two of you.

Happy Fourth of July. We thank you for being here, Michael Gerson, Ruth Marcus.

RUTH MARCUS: Thank you. Thanks.



The post Marcus and Gerson on agreement and division at the Supreme Court, immigration protests appeared first on PBS NewsHour.

Download File - 0.0 MB (Click to Play on Mobile Device)
Listen To This Podcast (Streaming Audio)

More Details

  • Published: 2002
  • LearnOutLoud.com Product ID: S018881