Monday, February 01, 2010

POLITICS - Unprecedented, GOP Conference & Obama

Obama at the Republican Conference in Baltimore 1/29/2010

Analysis from PBS Newshour, excerpt: (includes video)

JIM LEHRER: But first, as promised, the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Mark, what did you think of the Obama and the Republican show in Baltimore?

MARK SHIELDS: I thought it was terrific.

I think, if the White House had had its choice, it would have substituted that for the State of the Union address and presented it in prime time. I mean, I thought it showed the president at his best.

He marshals facts. He presents arguments. He rebuts criticism, does it in a civil way, without any rancor. I just thought it was a tour de force. And the Republicans are sort of hoisted on their transparency petard. They had criticized the president for not fulfilling his pledge of openness and transparency and having the hearings on C-SPAN, as they promised during the campaign.

And, so, they were stuck with this being open. They didn't want it to be televised, that Q&A part. And I think...

JIM LEHRER: Well, it was.

MARK SHIELDS: I think it was there and I the think that the president engaged them in a way that you can't in a State of the Union, when they just sit there stolidly and silently. And you got a sense of comparison today. And I think it worked to Barack Obama's advantage.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree, worked to his advantage?

DAVID BROOKS: A bit, though everyone was sort of charged up about it. All of Washington is actually very excited about it. People were thrilled.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: I mean, and Democrats were very thrilled. The president's naturally going to dominate an event like that. He's got the podium. They are just holding handhelds. He's got -- but Republicans were thrilled, too, actually.

I spoke to a bunch of Republicans who were there afterwards and people who are writing online.

JIM LEHRER: What did they say? What did they say?

DAVID BROOKS: They were happy. They said, you know, he said all along we don't have plans, but, over and over again, he acknowledged, yes, we do have alternatives. We have been offering them.

So, they acknowledged that he got most of the time and he did very well. But they were thrilled that they got some points across. And they were thrilled by the exchange.

And I think Americans will be thrilled by the exchange, to the extent they see it. And will it lead to a mass depolarization? Not exactly, obviously. And, you know, there are fundamental differences on many issues, like health care. There's just different approaches.

But I think one of the things the president did very well was list a whole series of things on which there's not necessarily differences, things like pay-go...

JIM LEHRER: He made a big point of that, yes, yes.

DAVID BROOKS: ... pay-go legislation, the spending freeze, a lot of the cuts in the capital gains tax. There is no reason there can't be some agreement on that stuff.

So, I thought it's possible to see going forward, on some of the job creation stuff, you could see some bipartisanship there.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see some -- that something like that could come from that?

MARK SHIELDS: I think there will be on certain selected issues, but there is really no incentive for the Republicans to be bipartisan.

And, I mean, just look at where the Republicans were. They went through two stinging election defeats. They lost 52 seats in the House in the two elections back-to-back, 2006, 2008. And the party right now today is at a lower point in public affection and regard than it was in 2006 and 2008, OK?

JIM LEHRER: When they lost.

MARK SHIELDS: When they lost those seats.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

MARK SHIELDS: And it's a party without a compelling voice, national voice or leader, or a face. I mean, you say, who's the leader of the Republican Party?

And, yet, at the same time, they are tied with the Democrats, who had trounced them in the two previous elections. So, what is the incentive, politically, going into 2010 for them to be collegial all of a sudden?

What they have done so far has gotten them to the point where they are at a parity. I mean, they're not beloved, nor are the Democrats. They're far more poorly regarded than the Democrats in the polls. But they are at a parity, and they are poised to have quite an election year right now.

No comments: